UK, Novemeber 12, 2011 (BBC): A survey of about 600 scientists published this week found that a majority think it’s time to consider conservation triage – focusing resources on animals that can realistically be saved, and giving up on the rest. Those that fall into the too-expensive-to-save category, it has been suggested, might include the panda and the tiger.
So, should we give up on one endangered species to save another? Here, two experts argue for and against triage.
FOR: Paul Goldstein, wildlife guide
I can’t say which species we need to lose to save another. But if the only hope of survival for an animal – like the panda – is to be maintained in a holding facility or be born in a zoo, then I can understand the point of giving up on saving that species. They cost too much to keep up and have little chance of ever living a natural life. Many people would not back saving baby seals if they didn’t look the way they did. People would not be as up in arms about that butchery if they looked ugly.
If you want to save everything then you have to do it boldly and get to the root of the problem of creatures being endangered, addressing habitat issues as well as social problems that drive people to hunt or hurt the animals. Emotional provocations are not enough. You have to have pragmatism. It’s the only effective answer. Is it fair for certain species that are not saveable in the long term to get the most money? I would say no.
AGAINST – Diane Walkington, WWF
The challenge that we face in trying to conserve our natural environment is huge, and our resources are finite. So it’s easy to understand the frustration sometimes felt by scientists, as they watch the world’s biodiversity decline at an alarming rate.
In the last 40 years, 1,700 species have declined by nearly a third. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. As our founder Peter Scott once said: “We shall not save everything, but we shall save a great deal more than if we never tried.”
We have worked for half a century to save the tiger and it’s true that numbers are dangerously low, however we firmly believe that the tiger has a future. Since the world tiger summit in Russia last year, we’ve already seen tiger numbers increase in India. Tiger populations declined by half in 20 years, due to hunting and deforestation
More importantly, the issue of triage isn’t as clear cut as it may first appear.
Who will be charged with deciding which species should be saved above another? And what criteria will be used as the basis for that decision?