Ranching of the Endangered Species

Great Debates
1

I expect a lot of controversy on this topic. It has required just as much thought upon my part as well. However, I believe that this concept may be the only viable way to preserve endangered wildlife of many types.

Let us use the fine example of the Tiger. This big cat is one of the most endangered species on earth. How beautiful this animal is really should not enter into this equation. The decimation of such a critical predator from the food chain has an undeniable impact upon both ecological balance and diversity. To say that meat eating humans have taken up the slack for the big cats is a facile argument at best. Now, let us briefly sidetrack with a discussion about a particular African ape.

Even though I am a devout capitalist, as a scientist I vehemently maintain the criticality of biodiversity. I dread to think that we may have already wiped out some organism that holds the cure for cancer. A superb example is the pygmy chimpanzee. It may have been the origin of the human immunovirus known as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). Yet the version of the virus that this ape carries, known as the SIV (Simian Immunovirus), is combated successfully by its host. Somehow this primate has developed the ability to defeat the lethal aspects of its infection and live on.

At this moment, lumberjacks are clearing the forest where these apes live. To add insult to injury, this exact animal is a favored dish of the woodcutters. We are losing both the habitat and the organism at once. With it we may lose the cure for AIDS. Can we afford to do this?

Meanwhile, the big cats are being slaughtered for their genitals and bones to be used as aphrodisiacs. Perhaps there is some sort of genetic immunity (i.e., toxoplasmosis) in these cats we have yet to discover. It is nearly impossible to tell what secrets are held by the myriad species on earth until we genetically sequence every single organism on this planet. This will not be accomplished any time soon, if ever.

What I propose is this. Let us take these endangered species and ranch them as you would cattle. Sell the body parts into the existing markets at a high premium and use those funds to support the protection of the existing wild populations. This funding would support breeding programs, genetic banks, wildlife reintroduction plus the prevention and prosecution of poaching. There would be harsh penalties for trafficking in the wild animal parts of these species. In addition, there would also be summary execution awaiting poachers in the designated game reserves.

The high price paid for either poaching or purchasing these animal parts would gradually decrease their popularity and concomitantly reduce the pressure upon these species. Creating large scale stock of these animals would help guarantee their continuing existence and provide the base population for their reintroduction into the wild.

Other issues remain and would require different solutions. For instance, I do not advocate the raising of chimpanzees solely for their meat. That can be supplied in other ways. A well placed propaganda campaign highlighting the connection between consuming the pygmy chimpanzee and acquiring AIDS would quickly diminish its popularity as a foodstock. The measures being suggested would give these animals a fighting chance. Current rates of habitat loss make it essential that we act upon this issue in some sort of productive manner.

To anyone that has read all of the way through this commentary, I say, “Thank you.” If you have suggestions concerning how to accomplish the aforementioned ends, please contribute them. All submissions are welcome. Negative arguments should be based upon sound alternatives and not just comments amounting to, “how cruel!” The future of our planet’s biodiversity is at stake and we have no time to lose.

Zenster

2

There’s obviously a difference of scale (not to mention reality), but did you see or read Jurasssic Park?

Kind of a tongue-in-cheek response, but my point is that some animals are easier to domesticate and “ranch” than others. (You wanna be a lion rancher? What’s your insurance budget?)

Besides, this is obviously not a universal solution: we’ve been trying, for example, to “ranch” the Giant Panda, unsuccessfully, for years. Not everything’s a cow.

3

I agree with lissener in this way - I have serious doubts that Tiger ranching (or whatever endanger species) would be profitable. Maybe some endangered herd animals could be ranched. Maybe some rodents. But for the most part it just wouldn’t work.

As far as viable alternatives go, I have been thinking about this for a long time and I don’t have any good solutions. I have some vague ideas that you could somehow get various species to live within the boundaries of civilization somehow. There are species who have managed this, (e.g. wild turkeys, otters, badgers). Species that have managed to find niches in the suburbs of american cities are now thriving and have become classified as pests. The species I listed were I think all listed in a national Geographic article that talked about species that had been saved by protection laws and which had turned into pests. I say this is a good thing and now we can work to control the species more responsibly. I had a dream that the Lynx learned to live in cities living off rats and roaches. The first city that established a stable population of them would change all their sports team names to lynx and there would be a huge market for postcards of Lynx sitting on roof cornices like living gargoyles. A nice romantic solution, but not any more viable than yours.

4

This thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29956

Covers roughly the same thing, only for manatees. However, general problems with most species is also covered…

5

When I mention “ranching as one would cattle”, I do not mean herding lions and tigers around like dogies. These facilities would be extensive, large scale zoo type structures or “safari parks”. No, this would not be cheap, but the byproducts would help to economically sustain the venture. The focusing of world monetary resources on these sites would provide a healthy start.

In addition, the concentration of knowledge and expertise that would be gained by observation of large scale animal populations would further scientific knowledge and open new vistas for their continuing survival.

I also take issue with lissener’s assertion that Pandas have been “ranched”. The small scale efforts by other countries are hampered by the secrecy and closed borders of China. The central population of wild pandas is in an area controlled by the corrupt and cash strapped communist Chinese government. However much lip service they pay to panda preservation, they do not have the capabilities that a multi-national organization would bring to the table.

This is quite clearly demonstarated in the inability of the Chinese to even ranch the specific type of bamboo for the panda’s diet. If you can’t grow bamboo, pack up your gardening tools and go home. I know that they underwent a long cycle die-off of the bamboo lately, but how hard is it to raise the world’s fastest growing grass?

It is also impossible to think that VileOrb’s sugesstion that we integrate these species into urban or suburban settings is viable. Unfortunately, not all animals are quite so adaptive as the coyote. It is a well known fact that tigers and people don’t mix. I still maintain that we cannot afford to lose so many components of the food chain as we are today. We must find some sort of solution soon.

6

IMHO, saving the habitat and ecosystems endangered species live in is considerably more important than saving the species themselves. For example, eelgrass might be sustained artifically in cultures if it were to go extinct in the wild. But what would fill the ecosystem functions of eelgrass beds like fish nursery and water filtration? A byproduct of the attempts to save eelgrass beds in the field will also save other animal, plant, etc. species found within eelgrass habitat (and perhaps also those found outside it as well).

I think the most successful conservation efforts will be those focused on the level of ecosystems rather than on a single species.

7

Zenster, I never pictured herds of lions and tigers. You picture a lion ranch. Describe it. Make it safe enough for an insurance company to be interested in underwriting it.

And my mention of the Giant Panda was in reference to the fact that it has proven pretty much impossible, to now, to breed them in captivity–i.e., ranch them.

In any case, your plan would only address the animals that have economic value; surely these are the minority of endangered species.

8

Wevets I agree that entire ecologies need to be preserved. That is why my OP refers to summary execution for poachers. Preservation of specific sites and habitats is essential. Otherwise, where are you going to rerelease these animals to? It’s just that populations of some animals are so low that, like the condor, it may be necessary to extract a significant portion or even the entire wild population for captive breeding. A superb example is the cheetah. In the wild, it is so inbred that there may be benifits from using zoo specimens (however ill adapted to the wild) to diversify the gene pool through a captive breeding program.

Lissener, have you ever seen a “Game Park”, like Africa USA? That is what I’m referring to. Somehow they operate with insurance and turn a profit. You do make a more important point about how so many endangered species do not have economically attractive aspects. Yet, it is with my “ranching” concept that funds could be generated to stimulate such efforts. This is merely a proposal to get people thinking. I am just very disturbed by the continuing loss of habitat and species around the world.

9

Herein lies the conundrum: we can’t save all of the endangered species in the way Zenster suggests, certainly not all at once. So how do we decide which species to save first? How can we judge which are most “valuable” to us (in whatever sense), since, as Zenster rightly points out, in many cases their potential value is as-yet unknown? What if we save the “wrong” species first?

I think the concept of preserving entire eco-systems, rather than individual species, is a sounder one. And a larger-scale one. And one which presents some of the same issues I mention above. But since we’d face those issues either way, why not paint in the broadest strokes possible?

10

I say we ought to have whale farms. Arthur C. Clarke proposed this concept in his short story “The Deep Range” (which he later turned into a novel by the same name), and hey, if a highly imaginative and often just-plain-weird science fiction writer can think of it, it must be do-able, right?

Save the whales by eating them!

11

How much would it cost to raise an elephant to a size where its ivory is worth harvesting? What would the ivory cost?

I just really think there are very, very few animals whose husbandry costs would be adequately offset by the income generated. Even beef costs around, IIRC, $30 a pound to bring to market; only corporate welfare makes it affordable in the U.S.

I imagine that if an animal can be profitably ranched, it is being profitably ranched somewhere.

FWIW, the preservation of endangered species is the explicit mission of most zoos, and I’ve personally been involved with networks of amateurs who contribute a great deal to the preservation in captivity of many reptiles (e.g., Madagascar Day Geckos), birds (e.g., Hyacinth and Military Macaws), and fish (e.g., North American Killifish) that are severely threatened in the wild.

That I said, I agree that the central goal should be the protection of ecosystems, not just their disparate parts.

12

All excellent points lissener. However, concerning the elephant, you have ommitted the skin and meat, (and there’s just a little bit of meat on an elephant). These too are valuable commodities, especially when you have the monopoly on them. I am not claiming that these operations would be fully self sustaining. Their income would only help to ameliorate their operating costs.

If anyone bothers to read my OP closely they will see that I also advocate maintaining the original habitats for these creatures and not just raising them like chickens on a feedlot.

Sadly, the most common form of “profitably ranching” the animals is to poach them. I do not mean to contrdict terms here so much as point out that the trade that does exist for so much exotic game is illegal in character. Once there are tighter restrictions (and more dire penalties) for poaching, this might change the economic landscape.

I give you praise lissener for being involved with wildlife preservation. I have participated in oil spill bird rescues. I too have taken care of a Military McCaw. I just feel that we need a way to supplant the existing trade in game animals and create some sort of industry that will make it possible to shift the odds more in their favor for survival.

13

Ah, nice, but one of the current main incentives for poaching is the acquisition of fresh genetic material for captive breeders (typical for bird smuggling), as well as new species with a high value as “first or exclusive on the market” (typical with reptile trade).

The more-or-less summary execution bit is currently an option in places like Kenya and Thailand, but ain’t working for lack of funds. For a good example - a story both sad and amazing - check out: http://www.fwoa.org/fwoanote5.html

14

Oddly enuf, Lions are very easy to raise, and do TOO well incaptivity. I sorta like the idea, but only as "zoos’. I do not think we should sell the "bits & pieces’ as there is no way to identify the “ranched” as opposed to the “poached”, which is why Ivory is illegal, even from humanitarian sources.

15

I believe that there is a new method of stable isotope analysis that is able to differentiate tissues from wild and “farmed” animals. It would be simple enough to create microchemical tracers that would tag non-poached animals.

I also need to answer other concerns about the ethics of continuing the use of animal body parts. I, for one, am not thrilled about slaughtering exotic animals. Even more, I hate the idiotic quack medicines that so often use parts from endangered species. I am also realistic enough to know that this practice will take a long time to die out. So long in fact, that these stupid nostrums could be all that is needed to drive the wild populations into extinction.

By controlling the market and centralizing distribution it would be easier to restrict world wide trade. Sadly, current efforts to prevent poaching, however well intentioned, are frequently marginal. So far, there have been very few alternative solutions suggested in this thread, aside from the status quo. I submit that the status quo is insufficient and that further measures will be required to prevent future losses.

16

I would be 100% behind the idea, even to selling the “parts”, if we could identify “ranched” from “poached”, especially in the field. We prob will, soon.

17

This argument about saving endangered species serves as an ethical validation for genetic engineering. As our advances on this subject manifest themselves, it should be possible to isolate the genetic material that allows for the development of a particular trait or organ, e.g. tusks in the case of elephants. Thus, particular animal body parts could be cloned to satisfy the existing market demand, driving down the number of animal deaths attributed to capitalism-motivated hunters.

This argument can evidently be extended to protect another species which is not in danger of becoming extinct anytime soon (ours), but is indeed in dire need of medical advances to ease the pains (Field of Dreams, anyone?) commonly experienced by its members. The cloning of specific body parts to replace damaged ones would diminish significantly the number of rejections and provide unlimited supply for all of those needing new organs.

But I am digressing from the original theme. You can go back to saving the pandas and tigers and maybe even bringing back the dodo. Actually, that would make a nice movie, Dodossian Park, where wild, mutated dodos escape from the labs and drive humanity into submission while the heroes…

Nah! I don’t think Spielberg would agree to do that one. :smiley:

18

I like the cut of your jib quasar. Feel free to comment on my threads anytime.

19

ZenstIn first instance you will have to diversify the enviroment for each different animal requirement, will this be fissable? and what will happen, the same as in the Asswan Valley, every time man wants to improve the planet causes an ecologycal disaster, there have been many “ecologycal accidents” already, in order to save wild life we must think more in the whole planet as a whole unity, which I know is very hard for a specy that thinks that has all the answears.
Do we all have a real interest in what´s going on? Don´t think so, might be more fissable if the people that is interest in this matter will take the time instead of trying to make a marketing research on animal organs to create a real interest in animal life as part of our own? Anyways we are all ending the same way. Lacking trees and vegetation will be more dangerous, why?.. because the day the last tree dies, will be the end of humanity the way we know it. (mutants)?.. So why don´t we try to preserve and increase what is already there the way it is by crating counciousness in every single way we can. Educating everybody to respect it´s own eviromental ways, the new generations are interested in Bio-ethics, most of the countries teach that as a regular subject in schools, but there´s some other people that doesn´t have access in their homes to follow to what is taught in school, would´t it be much better to take care of humans and it´s enviroment so we can all be more respectfull for what keeps us alive? About ranching the big Pandas, we can do that in Mexico. Did you know that? Not only kids also Pandas amazing AHHHH !!!

:slight_smile:

20

I think gloria cuts to the heart of this issue:

Zenster, what you propose is to save the trees at the expense of the forest.