Catalina Island Conservancy Takes the Easy Way Out
The Catalina Island “Conservancy” has decided to use contraception to control a herd of 150-200 free-roaming, non-native bison on the California island, a fragile ecosystem home to more than 50 plants found nowhere else in the world. The Conservancy intends to use Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) vaccine, an immuno-contraceptive method that prevents conception.
Ann Muscat, President and CEO of the Catalina Island Conservatory, characterized the contraceptive plan as “the next evolution of a management strategy” for the island’s bison herd. Julie King, senior wildlife biologist for the Conservancy said: “We were impressed with PZP’s efficacy and safety in the animals treated…and were hopeful that it would be a cost-effective, socially acceptable method to humanely control the increasing Catalina bison herd.”
I’m sure that my response to this will be characterized by some as politically incorrect or heartless. However, I find it problematic for a “conservancy”–an organization whose primary goal should be to conserve the region’s natural heritage–to be actively maintaining a large herd of non-native herbivores on an island that is home to many species of rare, endemic plants.
In addition, although I am sympathetic to animal welfare concerns, what’s wrong with euthanasia as a method to curtail and eradicate the population? The animals can be anesthetized and then chemical euthanasia compounds can be administered. Little or no pain would be experienced. Such humane methods are endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and can effectively accomplish the immediate goal of population reduction and eradication. Bison are long-lived animals, and using contraceptives, it will take many years for the population to decrease due to natural attrition. In the meantime, damage to the island’s precious and irreplacable endemic plants will continue.
Pressure from animal rights groups seems to be prompting conservation organizations to take the easy way out and avoid any potential controversy. Yet, what they don’t seem to realize is that the goals of animal rights and conservation are very different. The conservation ethic seeks to manitain natural biological diversity and sees the value in having stable, functional ecosystems of interdependent organisms. Animal rights proponents are focused exclusively on the “rights” of individual animals to life and liberty. Unlike conservationists, they give equal moral consideration to individuals of native and non-native species and to individuals of common and rare species. In fact, the concept of species means nothing to them because species cannot suffer–their primary criterion for moral consideration. Indeed, animal rights philosophy sees species as nothing more than ”theoretical constructs” that have little relevance. In contrast, conservationists consider the species concept essential, as these are the evolutionary significant units of conservation. Furthermore, populations and species are necessary for individuals to exist and perpetuate themselves!
In my opinion, it is high time for conservation of populations, species and ecosystems to take precidence over the “rights” of individual animals. Are individual animals deserving of our moral concern? Of course, and that means we should reduce wildlife populations in the most humane manner possible, when necessary and appropriate. In the case of bison, however, we are talking about a common animal that is raised domestically and sold in restaurants for its meat. From a conservation perspective, I fail to see any other goal of using contraception as a means to reduce this non-native bison population, other than to placate the anti-conservationist animal rights lobby and avoid controversy. This is misplaced compassion. Bison do not belong on Catalina Island and they have the potential to negatively impact many rare plant species found nowhere else in the world.
I fully realize that our contemporary world is often run by illogic and emotion and that anti-intellectualism appears to be rampant. We’re so disconnected from nature, we care more about our pets than we do about our native wildlife and plants. However, a failure to act rationally and responsibly in the management of our natural resources is going to result in many species extinctions. The situation is dire. We must be able to make the hard decisions, or everyone is going to lose.
Animal Welfare, Animal rights, Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife Over-abundance, Wildlife management, invasive species
Catalina Island Conservancy Takes the Easy Way Out. A Response to Michael Hutchins
Carlos de la Rosa, Chief Conservation and Education Officer, Catalina Island Conservancy
December 12, 2009
This is a response to the comments made by Mr. Hutchins on the value (or lack thereof) of keeping a small herd of bison on Catalina Island and using contraception to manage the population growth. Mr. Hutchins makes a number of valid statements and we share his concerns about the importance of native, endemic and rare plants on the Island. In fact, the protection of these plants, the habitats they characterize and all other native species (endemic or not) is our primary goal. However, this goal needs to be accomplished with a clear understanding and incorporation on the decision-making process of the current and historical context of the Island.
Mr. Hutchins expresses that the Conservancy’s “primary goal should be to conserve the region’s natural heritage.” Well, actually this is close to being correct. The Conservancy’s mission is to be a responsible steward of its lands (which comprise 88% of the roughly 48,000 acres of the Island) through a balance of conservation, education and recreation. So, it is stated in our mission that we seek to achieve a balance between the ecosystem needs and the human needs. This Island has been inhabited by humans for at least 9,000 years, the last 200 or so heavily impacted by a variety of extractive and “heavy-hand” uses. Since the arrival of modern man, the Island has received sheep, goats, pigs, deer, antelope, cattle, horses, bison, more than 200 species of non-native plants (including grasses brought in for the cattle industry as well as many horticultural and agricultural species) and other landscape changes, including roads, trails, buildings, firebreaks, an airport, telecommunication towers, etc. Additionally, the Island has been a major recreational hub for nearly a century, currently with some 4,000 residents and nearly a million visitors a year. So, the Island is quite far from being a pristine location, although this does not reduce its importance when talking about its unique biological riches.
The Island, then, has an important cultural and historical component, from the long-present Native American presence (that left hundreds of important archaeological sites) to key historical periods, including ranching, mining, tourism in various forms (including strong ecotourism) that literally drives the economy of the entire Island, and environmental education. This is the context in which our conservation work takes place. Every decision we make takes into consideration ecological, cultural and economic perspectives, and we strive to come up with solutions that benefit all three (or at least do not unduly negatively impact any of them).
Additionally, the Conservancy prides itself in being a science-based, collaborative and humanitarian organization, one which takes into consideration social, economical and even political concerns as well as the more usual biological concerns when time comes to make decisions.
Now, a few facts about the bison. While they were introduced for a particular reason (the making of a silent movie more than 80 years ago), their permanence on the Island has made them an important touristic attraction. Moreover, their isolation for so many years has attracted the attention of geneticists and bison biologists that seek to learn more about the species – information that can serve to make better decisions about the other herds of bison around the United States. Rather than treating the animals as cattle (for beef) we decided to seek better and more humanitarian solutions to their negative impacts, while still maximizing the benefits (for the public and for science) of maintaining a small herd. Currently, the herd is maintained at 100 to 150 animals and confined to about one halfof the Island. These parameters may change in the future.
I disagree with a number of statements in Mr. Hutchins’ letter. Bison are not “…a common animal that is raised domestically and sold in restaurants for its meat.” Bison are an American native species that almost became extinct due to extraordinary shortsightedness of our recent ancestors. The species is still not out of the woods with respect to their conservation. It is true that there are bison grown for the beef market, but most wild bison populations are not exposed to this extractive use.
The Conservancy is using contraception on its resident herd for various reasons, none of which were mentioned by Mr. Hutchins. Contraception on females will not reduce the population size (this has been accomplished by shipping hundreds of individuals to poor Native American tribes for their management and use) but will reduce the growth rate of the population. Also, pregnancy avoidance will improve the health of the females and avoid the traumatic process of round ups and shipping to other locations the excess bison.
Finally, the remaining bison do perform a positive service to the Conservancy by feeding on non-native grasses that were introduced earlier to feed the then existing cattle herds. Obviously, the presence of bison also brings with it visitors and their dollars, which help us support other conservation and education programs.
In all, I agree with Mr. Hutchins that bison are non-native to Catalina Island and that they have a negative impact on the soil and some of the vegetation. However, not all impacts are negative. Conservation is a complex human endeavor, in which science and biology are but one of the main players. Economy, ecology, social and political concerns go hand in hand in this modern conservation world. We appreciate and value our native irreplaceable resources, and we make a huge effort in securing their protection against major threats. The three main threats to the native populations of plants on Catalina Island are invasive species, non-native browsers (mule deer) and fire. We have programs on each of these fields, as well as on the bison.
Carlos: Thanks for engaging in this discussion and for providing additional information on the Catalina Island bison from the Conservancy’s perspective. As you may know, my blog entries are intended to stimulate discussion, and this one apparently succeeded.
I certainly understand the complexities involved in modern conservation and this admittedly is a complex issue. However, I am still concerned that in promoting these non-native animals the Conservancy is building a constituency that considers destructive non-natives an acceptable part of the landscape, even when such animals threaten sensitive natural habitats and endangered flora. Given this same reasoning, should we tolerate nutria, feral cats, Burmese pythons, rats, mute swans, and axis deer in our sensitive national parks and other protected areas?
What was the direct or indirect role of animal activists in your decision? Unfortunately, some conservation organizations have been known to take the easy way out to avoid confrontation, even when it is not in the best interests of the resource. You rationalize the situation by stating that “Conservation is a complex human endeavor, in which science and biology are but one of the main players.” True, but at what cost? As I have pointed out in numerous blogs, animal rights and conservation are antithetical concepts. If conservation organizations, like the Conservancy, are going to base their future wildlife and habitat management decisions on political pressure from animal rights advocates and/or economic gain, then let’s just agree that many of our native species have no future. Indeed, if promoting tourism is the main goal, then why not throw in a few giraffe and wildebeest as well? That might draw even more tourists.
As far as the scientific value of the herd is concerned, there are plenty of other places where biologists can study bison behavior and genetics. That is not a cogent argument for keeping them on the island. For my doctoral work, I studied an introduced population of mountain goats in Olympic National Park, WA. While it was a great experience, I’ve never argued that these non-native herbivores should be maintained in the park, where they threaten several species of endemic plants. Just the opposite–I think they need to be eliminated from the park to protect its world heritage biodiversity.
Also, if these bison are so important to conservation, as you say, then why not translocate all of them to Native American tribal lands within their historic range? The Conservancy–to their credit–apparently recognizes that returning bison to Native American tribal lands is an important social and ecological goal, particularly because our government and citizens were responsible for the bison’s near demise. If they are not important to conservation (you did not state whether these bison are pure or if there is evidence of cattle genetic introgression), then what is the harm of chemical euthanasia–a humane method of population reduction approved by the AVMA? Effective conservation involves making hard decisions. From the conservationist’s perspective, a failure to make such decisions is going to leave us with a decidedly more depauperate world. That being said, I do appreciate the difficult situation the Conservancy is in–the words between a rock and a hard place do come to mind.
Thanks for the civil discussion. Much appreciated.