Scientists Build an Ark To Save Jungle Amphibians
Peace Corps Online writes "In the 1980s a deadly fungus called chytrid appeared in Central America and began moving through mountain streams, killing as many as 8 out of 10 frogs and extinguishing some species entirely. (The fungus has little effect on any other vertebrates.) Now a returned Peace Corps volunteer and her husband have opened the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center in western Panama to house more than 600 frogs as chytrid cuts a lethal path through the region. Experts agree that the only hope of saving some of the more endangered, restricted-range species is to collect animals from remaining wild populations, establish captive breeding programs, and be prepared to conduct reintroduction projects in the future. But before reintroduction can even begin, scientists must find some way to overcome the chytrid in native habitats using vaccines, breeding for resistance, or genetic engineering of the fungus. Conservationists are budgeting for 25 years of captive breeding, long enough, they believe, to allow some response to chytrid to be found. 'There are more species in need of rescue than there are resources to rescue them,' says Amphibian Ark's program director. 'When you're talking about insidious threats like disease or climate change, threats that can't be mitigated in the wild, there's simply no alternative.'"
I understand that we dont want frogs to die off in that region but why mess with nature. If we vaccinate these frogs and there numbers swell; what are those consequences going to be? Im sure that the frogs will adapt to the environment and overcome.
Why not leave nature to its own devices? Survival of the fittest, and all that kinda stuff...
And now they're begging for money to save frogs.
It seems to me, that here they are begging money to fight evolution...
Witness Don Quixote in action.
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Breeding frogs in a greenhouse for many generations for reintroduction into a native environment? Wow, I bet the descendants will be much better prepared [/sarcasm]
Then there's the chance that the critters could be accidentally or mischievously let out in some sheltered environment (e.g. Hawaii, Austrailia), and overrun the place.
What about speciation and adaptation based on natural selection in their native environment? Just because 80+ pct are killed off by the fungus doesn't mean that they can't adapt and recover. At least, that's one reason we're told it's so hard to clear out pests from an inhabited area by chemical means.
Is this a good idea?
Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a re-seeded susceptible population you get to re-play the whole scenario in another 25 or 100 years.
Even trying to bread a frog with some resistance is at best an artificial solution, and one that historically has never worked on any grand scale.
Nature is not so fragile that the loss of said frogs will not be offset the the advance of some niche dweller to fill the gap.
We can't even manage our own affairs. It seems unwise and premature to step in and take over from mother nature.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, buddy
Next time I'll make sure the Peace Corps checks with you first before they make a move to improve the world
How is saving frogs from evolution improving the world exactly?
Foreign aid? What about local welfare programs? We already support tons of people who can't support themselves.
And before anyone goes crazy about what I just wrote, I realize that some people are just down on their luck and need a little help. I'm talking about those shiftless bums who just take the free handouts and don't bother trying, or could never support themselves even if they -did- try.
As a side note, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about how society has stopped evolution in humans... But then I realized it didn't stop it, just changed its direction. It worried me a lot less after that. (But still a little, as we don't let it remove genetic disease any more.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It seems to me, that here they are begging money to fight evolution...
Natural selection, not evolution. And people have always been about preventing natural selection. We call it compassion, it's a pretty common trait. I guess it's more comfortable to look at it cynically for some people though.
Aye. And it's not just compassion. Suppose some bacterium mutates and becomes extremely lethal to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., and spreads like crazy, and kills every member of these species on earth. Some loony will shrug and say 'oh, evolution/natural selection, nothing to see here, move along', but it is NOT in our best interests to let these animals go extinct.
Just because evolution is 'natural' doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it when it is screwing us in some way. Dying of appendicitis is natural selection too, yet very few people suffering from such diseases refuse medical attention...