Bring back the Great Auk (2 Viewers)

[fugl]

Oh, I don't know, considering how quickly it was extirpated under 19th-century conditions, I would have thought that the chances of a resuscitated & reintroduced Great Auk escaping our control to the extent of becoming a pest are virtually nil. Nobody worries about this in connection with current efforts to bring back such almost-extinct creatures as the Whooping Crane or California Condor after all.

 

[Jonny Rankin]

Great Auk

We are all used to the idea of reintroducing regionally extinct species to the UK - well, maybe not absolutely everyone - but how about reintroducing a globally extinct species.
In this month's edition of National Geographic, a team of scientists claim they have now developed the ability to clone recently (within the last few thousand years) extinct species and are seriously considering bring back the Passenger Pigeon. If the project goes ahead, they will use DNA from museum specimens, splice it with Rock Pigeon DNA and inject it into Rock Pigeon eggs. This will produce Rock Pigeons that are carrying Passenger Pigeon ova/sperm which will eventually produce Passenger Pigeons, can be bred through selection, and then groups of birds reintroduced into the wild. This will hopefully enhance and strengthen the biodiversity of the relevant areas, possibly benefitting other species - standard ecologist arguments on complexity and holism etc. etc. Also, it will right the wrong carried out by previous generations of humans.
Of course, there are objections - possibility of viruses, money is better spent on conserving present species, they are not 'true' Passenger Pigeons etc. etc. However, the technology could also be used to protect currently endangered species and will no doubt become cheaper over time.

The only recently extinct species that bred in the UK is the Great Auk. It used to breed in the Orkneys and St. Kilda. It was wiped out through hunting and the introduction of rats onto their breeding islands. With these problems gone (hopefully), with no other species having taken over their ecological niche, and with their prey species still common, there are no ecological reasons for not doing something similar with Great Auks. Razorbills, their closest relative, could be used in place of Rock Pigeons.
There are over 70 museum specimens of Great Auks, so the DNA must be out there. Rather than waste money on Trident, failing to deport Abu Qatada, Michael Gove's salary etc. we could do something brilliant and bring back the Great Auk. Imagine seeing one swimming around in a remote Scottish bay. Brilliant!! And the real clincher - it would be another UK tick!!

It's got to be worth a try if the technology works.

I would like to publicly second this superb proposal :t:

I went to Vardø earlier this year and in the north-pole pub they have a 'great auk' which is the bastardised result of 8 freshly killed Razorbill!!!

Pic available > HERE <

Basically, after the last St Kilda bird died two Great Auk were killed on Hornøya and the townsfolk felt sufficiently bad about extinction a species that they killed a few more auks to make a monument!

Cannot wait to tick Great Auk!

 

[Mysticete]

a hundred...or even several hundred years, is really a blink of an eye as far as animals being removed from ecosystems. If your concerned about Great Auks being reintroduced, you should really be concerned about reintroducing anything back into an ecosystem after its extirpated (Elk, Wolves, cranes, etc)

That said I do wonder how climate change may affect the amound of available habitat in the future. That could be a serious barrier to reintroduction, especially given that even generously we are decades off of having the technology to do this, and probably several more decades off from it being implemented

 

[Amarillo]

Don't think its a good idea at all. We're still losing species. Lets concentrate all our efforts on saving the ones that still exist instead of trying to undo whats already done.

 

[Jan-Paul Charteris]

a hundred...or even several hundred years, is really a blink of an eye as far as animals being removed from ecosystems. If your concerned about Great Auks being reintroduced, you should really be concerned about reintroducing anything back into an ecosystem after its extirpated (Elk, Wolves, cranes, etc)

That said I do wonder how climate change may affect the amound of available habitat in the future. That could be a serious barrier to reintroduction, especially given that even generously we are decades off of having the technology to do this, and probably several more decades off from it being implemented

I'm more concerned about the fact there are already worries with regard to NW Atlantic seabird populations due to changes in the food chain. Not assuming I'm right in saying it'd be a bad idea, but it's an odd thing to consider until we at least understand/have resolved what's happening to species than are still extant in the same ecosystem. Introducing a species which may eat the same food as species which are having poor breeding productivity due to short food supply surely doesn't make much sense?

 

[duncan fraser]

Labrador Duck would be rather nice

Edited just to say that is a joke (hence the smiley). My Knee jerk reaction is that this is a ludicrous idea when we have birds to conserve that are still with us.

Given the pressures that are already on north-west Atlantic seabird populations because of changes in the population of marine vertebrates and the shifts in the balance of the food chain, I can't honestly think that we can really kid ourselves that introducing Great Auk having brought it back from extinction isn't going to have a further impact. It may not, but it's a ridiculous risk to take. There have certainly been increases in the population/range of other seabirds (Fulmar just as one example, and I believe also Gannet), and there have certainly been changes in the food chain since Great Auk became extinct. The habitat may look the same in that cliffs plunge down into saline water, but the ecosystem definitely isn't the same, and that's surely what matters

I honestly don't think the changes in the last 200 years - a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms - will have changed that much, and most species are capable of altering their behaviour to acommodate moderate changes in their environment. Their main prey - Capelin and Atlantic Menhadin - are still widely available, so no problems there. These won't be eaten by Fulmars. The ecosystem is still largely the same. Many ecologists believe that ecosystems are enhanced by restoring extinct species, as they often played a vital part in enriching them. This is why some want to bring back the mammoth

 

[duncan fraser]

a hundred...or even several hundred years, is really a blink of an eye as far as animals being removed from ecosystems. If your concerned about Great Auks being reintroduced, you should really be concerned about reintroducing anything back into an ecosystem after its extirpated (Elk, Wolves, cranes, etc)

That said I do wonder how climate change may affect the amound of available habitat in the future. That could be a serious barrier to reintroduction, especially given that even generously we are decades off of having the technology to do this, and probably several more decades off from it being implemented

My impression from the article was that the scientists believe they have the technology now. Efforts have already been made with extinct frogs and ibex, and they think they can improve on this.

 

[duncan fraser]

I'm more concerned about the fact there are already worries with regard to NW Atlantic seabird populations due to changes in the food chain. Not assuming I'm right in saying it'd be a bad idea, but it's an odd thing to consider until we at least understand/have resolved what's happening to species than are still extant in the same ecosystem. Introducing a species which may eat the same food as species which are having poor breeding productivity due to short food supply surely doesn't make much sense?

You could wait forever, before you truly understand any ecosystem. They are always in a state of flux, so always slightly altering - usually in some form of dynamic equilibrium. Great Auk was a natural part of the ecosystem for millenia, so it couldn't possibly have a negative impact; it's more likely to have a positive impact, because it should be there - except for the actions of humans who are not traditionally part of that ecosystem.

 

[Jan-Paul Charteris]

Well, you guys may well be right :t:

All I think there is left for me to say is...well, I hope it isn't these guys in charge of doing the genetic work
http://thegreataukfanciers.org/gallery/

 

[birdboybowley]

Creepy.......

 

[Mysticete]

The technology to do this is still a bit off, but coming along. For starters, no one has successfully cloned a bird yet, which appears to be a bit harder because of the unique nature of bird eggs. The first paragraph here gives a bit more info:

http://www.upc-online.org/winter2002/cloning.html

Also keep in mind that while we can still get DNA from extinct animals, the materials scientists have to work with are not great, and we are still quite a bit away from being able to reconstruct the nuclear genome of any extinct animal, especially those which might only be represented by bones, scales and feathers in collections.

I think we will get there...but I am not sure I will live long enough to see it.

 

[stevo]

Surely it would be better putting resources into saving the hen harrier & turtle dove?

Steve.

 

[Richard Klim]

Surely it would be better putting resources into saving the hen harrier & turtle dove?

Both are globally unthreatened species of Least Concern, with "extremely large" populations and ranges; neither species approaches the IUCN thresholds for Vulnerable status. By 'saving', you presumably mean trying to conserve the relatively insignificant British breeding populations.

 

[stevo]

Both are globally unthreatened species of Least Concern, with "extremely large" populations and ranges; neither species approaches the IUCN thresholds for Vulnerable status. By 'saving', you presumably mean trying to conserve the relatively insignificant British breeding populations.

Trying to conserve yes & we all know the reasons that we have a small breeding population.The only reason despite having enough habitat/prey in the uk that hen harrier is declining is because of man.I mean no malice here but why have we got a re-introduction program for common cranes/great bustard when to best of knowledge neither are threatened in the wild?

Steve.B

 

[Farnboro John]

Both are globally unthreatened species of Least Concern, with "extremely large" populations and ranges; neither species approaches the IUCN thresholds for Vulnerable status. By 'saving', you presumably mean trying to conserve the relatively insignificant British breeding populations.

Its difficult to see what we can do for Turtle Doves actually in Britain, but influencing the remainder of Europe may help. Stabilising European Turtle Dove population may matter as less ethical human populations further East begin to have more effect on their wildlife.

As for Hen Harrier in Britain, we should worry about the law of unintended consequences. What will change as a result of removing Hen Harriers? Presumably something else would take over predation - except that it would be subject to the same factors that have massacred the Hen Harriers.... will prey populations explode? Disease run rampant? Prey populations weaken and thin as their control measure disappears? Moorland acquire tree cover due to lack of predation of rodent nibblers?

Even worse, think of the smugness of those fatcats at achieving their lives' dreams. The encouragement they will take, the next targets they will pick. And the next, until there's nothing left. That's why this matters, not some global satisfaction survey.

John

 

[Richard Klim]

I know I was being slightly provocative, but I admit to being sceptical of the priorities and motives behind UK conservation. Although there are almost 1,400 globally threatened bird species, Britain doesn't host a single globally threatened breeder. Yet much effort is devoted to micro-managing relict British populations of globally abundant species – technically maintaining (extremely localised!) biodiversity. It sometimes seems to be designed more to maintain an amenity for British birders and the wider public, rather than to make a balanced and meaningful contribution to global conservation measures.

 

[fugl]

It sometimes seems to be designed more to maintain an amenity for British birders and the wider public, rather than to make a balanced and meaningful contribution to global conservation measures.

I think that that's it in a nutshell, but what are the alternatives. It is precisely because such policies create local "amenities" that local populations are prepared to support them. My fear is that without some form of local payoff, support will evaporate and we'll be left with nothing.

 

[Chris D]

I think that that's it in a nutshell, but what are the alternatives. It is precisely because such policies create local "amenities" that local populations are prepared to support them. My fear is that without some form of local payoff, support will evaporate and we'll be left with nothing.

Are you a 'Wolfpack' fan? I watched Kapernick's 4 years there. Thought him great. Obviously it's working for the Niners. Chris

 

[Richard Klim]

I think that that's it in a nutshell, but what are the alternatives. It is precisely because such policies create local "amenities" that local populations are prepared to support them. My fear is that without some form of local payoff, support will evaporate and we'll be left with nothing.

Overall, the world's wealthiest nations have the fewest globally threatened bird species. But as with nutrition, education, healthcare etc, conservation resources are usually directed towards those regions with the least need.

It's a difficult balance, but I'd like to see a much greater proportion of UK conservation funding directed to genuinely-deserving global projects (eg, WWT's Spoon-billed Sandpiper programme, and the 30+ threatened species in the UK Overseas Territories).

 

[stevo]

Overall, the world's wealthiest nations have the fewest globally threatened bird species. But as with nutrition, education, healthcare etc, conservation resources are usually directed towards those regions with the least need.

It's a difficult balance, but I'd like to see a much greater proportion of UK conservation funding directed to genuinely-deserving global projects (eg, WWT's Spoon-billed Sandpiper programme, and the 30+ threatened species in the UK Overseas Territories).

Personally i`d like to see a change in farming policy in the uk & more money being spent in this country on conservation.Coupled with tougher laws in europe to stop the large scale slaying of migrant birds,creating the right habitat in the uk is only part of the solution though.

Steve.B