JORDAN CUMMINGS COPYWRITER

            How in depth should management be when dealing with endangered or severely reduced populations? Four case studies explore this particular question. Ecosystems are always balanced ever so delicately. Every species interacts and impacts other species around them. This makes predicting outcomes especially tricky. Will there be negative impacts to other species when an endangered one is fostered back to suitable numbers? For example a case looked at taking into consideration the salmon populations around the strait of George in British Colombia showed that anything less than a strong reaction to the dangerously low population numbers would result in a loss of species. This particular case was brought on by increased fishing of the Coho and Chinook Salmon. They were being fished so heavily that the young salmon were often not surviving into adulthood to reproduce and sustain the population. Ocean currents warming also added to the issue. Also during this period of population decline, one of the salmon’s predators, the sea lion, were subject to protection policies. This complicated matters. Without intervention, the salmon population would not survive. It was determined that the ecosystem had adjusted itself over time to the hunting practices of natives to the area. The now protected species was endangering the balance of the ecosystem. This is such an interesting case to examine. One would assume that protecting sea lions from hunting would be a positive change to the ecosystem. Humans had been tampering with the sea lion population so long that once it ceased the shock to the ecosystem could only be rectified by dispersing and culling the sea lion herd, because the fishing did not cease. Humanity has backed itself into an ethical corner. While we know that ideally it would be nice to step back from nature and allow it to thrive without our intervention, we have tampered so long that we must guide it through management. We pick and choose the species we deem useful for commerce and refuse to allow them their autonomy, but this procedure does not reconcile well with other protections we place (Lessard, 3-5).

            When stepping back and allowing nature to take its course is not an option and alternative measure must be considered, there are two categories of ecosystem management. These are symptomatic and systemic intervention. Symptomatic intervention put in simple terms really just means treating the specific symptoms causing population issues. If there is an identifiable factor that can be addressed, address that and the problem should be corrected. This is not always easily done, or even possible. In the case of the example we discussed in the above paragraph, ceasing fishing or culling sea lion populations would both be considered a symptomatic approach. Also, if there were means to simply protect the juvenile salmon and allow them to grow into adulthood, those measures would be symptomatic as well. Systematic measures involve altering the ecosystems and outside forces interacting with the endangered population. Systematic intervention is more difficult and has higher potential for unexpected circumstances. Things can go awry, and they are complex to reverse. Because this approach is so invasive and affects much, we have developed ways to simulate scenarios to study their outcomes. Scientists can now use computer programs to calculate how populations will react to each other given different circumstances based on consumption rates, population abundances, and fishing statistics (Lessard, 8-11). Typically a combination of both approaches is used. More passive approaches are useful when issues have been predicted before they tangibly arise. Given time to react to the issues a long-term adjustment is likely the best course of action. Particularly in cases where systemic intervention is deemed best, it is typically better to make small incremental adjustments over a large span of time. When issues are not predicted ahead of time this can be a luxury not afforded. Active, drastic interventions such as rapid culling of populations or the opposite, very heavy protections, can be unpredictable. While inaction is romanticized by many it typically has a high probability of less than desirable results.