Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1539–1544 | Cite as

Why conserving species in the wild still matters

Commentary
  • 311 Downloads

Abstract

Wildlife conservation efforts have traditionally prioritized protection of species in the wild over protection in zoos and other captive states. This emphasis mirrors a long-held and more general Western view of the wild and wilderness as antidote to the ills of civilization. However, recent philosophical treatments have posited that with the rise of human dominance in the world we have reached the end of nature as distinct from human culture, true wilderness no longer exists, and nature and wilderness are merely social constructs. With the putative disappearance of wild nature, its status as an organizing principle in conservation is called into question. While debate over the objective existence of wild nature continues, this commentary argues that regardless of one’s opinion on the philosophical issue, there are important practical reasons to continue to prioritize conservation of species in the wild. These are: the reality that this is the only practical hope for the vast majority of endangered species, the value of relatively wild habitats in accommodating species’ evolved requirements, the value to both ecosystems and humans of species remaining functional components of ecosystems, and the role of the wild in inspiring conservation action by humans. Ironically, as the world becomes ever less wild, conservation of species in the wild becomes more important.

Keywords

Species conservation Wilderness Anthropocene Conservation practice In situ conservation Ex situ conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Amy L. McKendry, Jennifer Atkinson, and Jason Lambacher for thoughtful discussions of this topic. Amy McKendry also provided editorial advice that greatly improved the paper.

References

  1. Berger J (2009) Why look at animals?. Penguin Books Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd R (ed) (1999) Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  3. Braverman I (2015) Wild life: the institution of nature. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Callicott JB (1998) The wilderness idea revisited: the sustainable development alternative. In: Nelson MR, Callicott JB (eds) The great new wilderness debate. University of Georgia Press, Athens and LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook DG, Stokes DL, Meisler JA (2016) California tiger Salamander larval density and survival at natural and constructed breeding pools, Sonoma County, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronon W (1995) The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: Cronon W (ed) Uncommon ground: rethinking the human place in nature. W. W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Deur DE, Turner NJ (eds) (2015) Keeping it living traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  8. Doak DF, Bakker VJ, Goldstein BE, Hale B (2014) What is the future of conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 29:77–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis S, Bourn NAD, Bulman CR (2012) Landscape-scale conservation for butterflies and moths: lessons from the UK. Butterfly Conservation, WarehamGoogle Scholar
  10. Endangered Species Act (1973) Title 16 united states code, sections 1531–1544Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths CJ, Zuël N, Jones CG, Ahamud Z, Harris S (2013) Assessing the potential to restore historic grazing ecosystems with tortoise ecological replacements. Conserv Biol 27:690–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2013) Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Species Survival Commission, IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalamandeen M, Gillson L (2007) Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management. Biodivers Conserv 16:165–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kareiva P, Marier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62:962–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (1993) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirchhoff T, Vicenzotti V (2014) A historical and systematic survey of european perceptions of wilderness. Environ Values 23:443–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lacey R (2010) Re thinking ex situ vs. in situ species conservation. In: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 65th Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp 25–29Google Scholar
  18. Liu RK, Echelle AA (2013) Behavior of the catarina pupfish (Cyprinodontidae: Megupsilon aporus), a severely imperiled species. Southwest Nat 58:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested nature. Sage Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin PS (1973) The discovery of America: the first Americans may have swept the western hemisphere and decimated its fauna within 1000 years. Science 179:969–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kareiva P, Marvier, M, Lalasz R (2012) Conservation in the anthropocene. Breakthr J. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene Accessed Sept 2017
  22. McKibben W (1989) The end of nature. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller B, Soulé ME, Terborgh J (2014) ‘New conservation’ or surrender to development? Anim Conserv 17:509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mooallem J (2013) Wild ones. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Myers N (1979) The sinking ark: a new look at the problem of disappearing species. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Nash RF (2014) Wilderness and the American mind, 5th edn. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Primack RB (2010) Essentials of conservation biology, 5th edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Scholfield R (2017) Gila trout: return of the native. Trout unlimited. https://www.tu.org/blog-posts/gila-trout-return-of-the-native. Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  29. Surovell TA, Pelton SR, Anderson-Sprecher R, Myers AD (2016) Test of Martin’s overkill hypothesis using radiocarbon dates on extinct megafauna. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:886–891CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sylvén M, Widstrand S (2015) A vision for a wilder Europe, 2nd edn. Rewilding EuropeGoogle Scholar
  31. Thoreau HD (1862) Walking. Atl Mon 9:657–674Google Scholar
  32. USFWS (2008) Florida panther recovery plan (Puma concolor coryi), 3rd revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  33. Vogel S (2002) Environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Environ Ethics 24:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warton J (1744) The enthusiast or; the lover of nature. A poem. R. Dodsley, London. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Accessed 23 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  35. Williams TT (2016) The hour of land: a personal topography of America’s National Parks. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson EO (2016) Half earth: our planet’s fight for life. W. W. Norton and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T (2014) Keeping the wild: against the domestication of earth. Island Press, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Interdisciplinary Arts and SciencesUniversity of Washington BothellBothellUSA

Personalised recommendations