This is blog number three, just finished my seventh week in Vale.
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about conservation, its importance, and what it should look like in the face of climate change. I haven’t completely thought through all of these ideas, and am really just presenting a bunch of questions. Nor do I know how many people actually read this, but comments are appreciated.
The other week I went up to Washington to monitor a sensitive species that has only been found at this location. We spent a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of gas to get to the site every day that week. We also had to take a pretty dangerous road to and from the site each day, and were monitoring on some dangerously steep and slick hillsides. One we deemed too unsafe to complete the assessment. This all made me wonder just how worthwhile our efforts really were.
Is it really that important to monitor and conserve this particular species? While pondering this question I began to contemplate why conservation is important in general. This idea, the importance of conservation, or lack thereof, lies at the heart of what I’m doing here, at the heart of this program, and at the heart of my educational and career choices.
Conservation work does not always generate immediate success, results, or satisfaction. It tackles long-term problems and goals. This fact makes the work tough at times, but I’ve always told myself that the bigger picture, the long-term benefits of my work makes it all worth it. The knowledge that what I’m doing matters and is important has always been my fuel. But why does it matter? Why is conserving plant species important? Well, because each species is part of a complex ecosystem on which other organisms depend, on which other species depend, on which other ecosystems depend, on which we depend. Or maybe the answer is simply because other species are living things, and have their own right to continue to exist. These answers have generally sufficed my questioning mind. However, the more I think about the issue the less clear cut it becomes.
The natural world is always changing, always evolving. This is true even if our species hadn’t altered so many landscapes, or exacerbated global climate destabilization. I struggle with the idea of conserving something; a landscape, an ecosystem, or a species, in its natural state, since change is a constant and because the term “natural” is subjective. Species, landscapes, and ecosystems are evolving on geologic time scales. So who’s to say our definitions of “natural” and “native” are in fact natural and native? Is our own species not part of this “natural” environment? Taking these ideas into consideration, how beneficial is it truly to conserve a species in a location we’ve deemed “native”? On top of that, how beneficial, or important, or fruitful, are those efforts in the face of climate change? If the chance of long term survival is slim for the particular species we monitored in Washington, were our efforts a poor use of resources? What actions should scientists and conservationists be taking in the face of climate change? How do we decide which of those actions are most important, or the best use of our resources?
I’m not offering any answers here. Rather, I’m interested in what other people think about this topic. This is something I think about frequently, and don’t have great answers to, as few people I expect do. But they’re important ideas to discuss nonetheless. Please share your thoughts!
Colleen
Vale BLM