A once familiar sight in Canadian gardens, migrating monarchs are nearing extinction. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has declared the butterfly an endangered species. The monarch’s struggles are largely the result of pesticides that destroy milkweed – the only plant that monarch larvae eat – and scientists warn that the species could become extinct within the next 15 years if it doesn’t get more human help to to survive. But for this, the monarch has to compete with more than 41,000 other endangered species of animals, insects and plants. Many more species will join them as climate change, industry and other factors decimate their habitats. This means that humans will have to make an increasing number of difficult decisions in the future about which life forms we want to save, with limited resources to do so. “[You’ll] get into those arguments about: is this particular plant worth it? Is this particular butterfly quite showy, or is this particular slug something we’re interested in?’ said Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Berkeley. “And that ends up taking a lot of resources on its own. “ WATCHES | Migratory monarch butterflies are now an endangered species:
Monarch butterflies have been added to the endangered species list
The International Union for Conservation of Nature has added the migratory monarch butterfly to its endangered species list. Given the choice between a charming, lovable creature like a glowing butterfly or a slimy slug, which would you choose? “This is actually the biggest problem in my line of work,” said Frank Köhler, a mollusc specialist at the Australian Museum who is fighting to save the Mount Kaputar giant pink slug — of which only several dozen remain, atop a remote mountain seven hours. northwest of Sydney. “People are always easily persuaded by fluffy, furry things that we can somehow relate to, that are cute… We have a lot of other endangered species… and it’s very difficult to raise awareness about their conservation.” For Köhler and other advocates for slugs, snails and non-photogenic brown creatures, it’s a constant struggle to prove that their organism of choice is as worthy of saving as any other. This Mount Kaputar slug was spotted by a ranger in Mount Kaputar National Park in New South Wales, Australia, in early 2020. Wildlife officials feared for the species after wildfires broke out in its alpine habitat, decimating its population . (National Parks and Wildlife Service) “If things have a use for people and are more attractive or more interesting, then of course we tend to level them a bit higher – and I think that’s probably wrong,” he said.
Survival of the fittest?
In 1859, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection changed the way people understood the unique qualities of animals, as well as explaining why some species thrive while others die: the survival of the fittest. But humans have always had a role in picking the winners and losers of the animal kingdom, depending on whether they are tasty, cute or useful. Case in point: giant pandas, struggling to reproduce, surviving on a diet that gives them little energy, and serving no apparent purpose beyond entertaining people by comically falling out of trees—all of which makes us more determined to save them. “They’re really cute,” Doremus said. “And that’s the point, right? We save them because they’re so cute.” Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year in efforts to save giant pandas, which struggle to survive outside of captivity. These baby pandas, pictured on February 3, 2021, live in a nature reserve in China’s Sichuan province. (The Associated Press) Few scientists will argue publicly against saving endangered species. In a 2017 opinion piece, R. Alexander Pyron, an associate professor of biology at George Washington University, argued that conservation was a waste of time—one that “serves to absolve our own guilt, but nothing else.” The article drew a sharp rebuttal from scientists and Nobel laureates, who wrote in a letter to the editor: “It is dangerous to think that we are ‘no better or worse’ without a large proportion of the species living today.” After being publicly shamed for his opinion, Pyron then backpedaled. (He declined an interview request from CBC News.) Pyron was right that extinction is a possibility for any living species. However, humans dramatically speed up this process for many of them. “It’s like pruning the evolutionary tree of life,” says Sally Otto, an evolutionary biologist and professor at the University of British Columbia. “We’re not losing things by accident – we’re losing, specifically, species that can’t thrive alongside people. The winners in this will be things like rats, starlings and pigeons, which can thrive in crowded urban environments.”
Picking winners and losers
To decide how heavily to invest in saving any species, governments around the world use several criteria: the uniqueness of the species, the likelihood of its recovery, the fiscal cost, and the benefits it will bring. In Canada, an independent advisory body assesses whether species should be considered threatened, but the federal government makes the final decision — and it’s not always based entirely on science. “[This] can affect which species receive formal protection and, more broadly, the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation efforts,” a team of US and Canadian scientists wrote in 2013. Environment Canada did not respond to CBC News’ request for an interview about the government’s decision-making process. Monarch caterpillars appear on the underside of leaves from the milkweed plant. Human use of pesticides has led to a dramatic decline in milkweed in Canada, which has affected the butterfly species. (April Douglas (@seaglassheart)/Twitter) “We don’t choose in any rational way,” Otto said. “We’re losing species and we’re not really deciding whether that’s something we as a society want to happen or not.” That decision involves tough debates about which organizations to prioritize and why — as well as who should have the power to decide who lives and who dies.
The monarch case — and everything else
Canadian monarch advocates argue that the butterfly is more than just a pretty face — and its utility is one more reason to save it. “It’s a pollinator [and] we need pollinators to survive — we can’t eat fruits and vegetables if there are no pollinators,” said Alessandro Dieni, ecologist and coordinator of Insectarium de Montréal’s Mission Monarch, a community science program. But what about the thousands of life forms that lack appearance or apparent function? Should we bother to save them? “Every species has its place in the ecosystem, and nature is so complex that we often don’t know until a species is lost what kind of ramifications it will have down the line,” said Sam Knight, monarch specialist at the Nature Conservancy. of Canada, which focuses its work on protecting ecosystems rather than individual species. Sam Knight, monarch butterfly specialist at the Nature Conservancy of Canada, said each species has its place in the ecosystem. (Submitted by Sam Knight) If the last surviving giant pink slugs were to die, Köhler admits that their delicate ecosystem would — in all likelihood — be just fine without them. But he cautions that people should not choose extinction for them on that basis alone. “The question is: if you have a puzzle, how many pieces can you lose before you lose the whole picture?”
How you can help the monarch butterfly
Canadians can help by observing monarch butterflies in their community and monitoring milkweeds during the International Monarch Monitoring Blitz from July 29 to August 7. People can also help by planting milkweed or letting monarchs lay their eggs and avoiding the use of pesticides that might kill the weed or the insects that rely on it. As milkweed is considered a noxious weed, there are rules around which species of milkweed can grow in different parts of Canada.
