Problems of in-situ conservation

Amelia (amhg195@soton.ac.uk)
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:04:57 GMT


I agree that in-situ conservation have many benefits and, personally, I prefer the idea of animals being kept in their natural environment rather than in ex-situ circumstances. These areas usually provide extensive habitats for many species, not only those that they were initially designed for.

However, a major problem is that legislation tends to protect rare species instead of rare genes. (The laws are based on the traditional view that hybridisation is a rare process that always results in one genome completely swamping another) (Bridle, 1997). This is rarely the case.

Hybridisation is a major problem in safeguarding protected species. Often, hybrid animals are not protected by environmental law, even if they appear to be identical to the pure animals (Ibid). In the US, the 1973 Endangered Species Act only protects animals that have not been 'contaminated' by foreign genes. This means that the funding to protect American red and grey wolves is threatening to be withdrawn as it has been found that they have interbred with coyotes.

Although all animals are important, unless they are found at the top of the food chain, it will be relatively hard to protect them due to predation. (For example, the Black stilt in New Zealand. This rare wading bird is currently under threat from ferrets, stoats and feral cats) (Anon 1997). Maybe it is more important to try and preserve diverse habitats than actual species. As you say, what is the point in preserving an animal when there is no habitat for it to return to.

References

Anon. (1997) Birds on the brink. NEW SCIENTIST NO. 2009

Bridle J (1997) In the name of purity. NEW SCIENTIST NO. 2097


Mail a follow-up to this archive to es-g1t1@geodata.soton.ac.uk