Assisted Migration

Although assisted migration may appear beneficial to those animals whose habitats have been significantly altered by global warming, there are undoubtedly downsides to the process of manually moving animals to a new habitat.
Those who favor the idea of assisted migration seem to solely be concerned with the threat that extinction is posing to specific creatures. We must, however, not overlook other factors that could also be threatening to the migrating species as well as those that are not the central targets of the process.
The only way for the process of assisted migration to become a feasible process that would gain the support of more scientists is to investigate the “unknowns” (conditions in the new environment, insects, etc.) that ecologist Daniel Simberloff fears. Prior to moving a species to a new environment, particularly a diverse environment like an urban area, we must make inventory of what is already living there and examine the role the migrating species would have in that new ecosystem.
Camille Parmesan, among others, published a paper that appears to sufficiently sum up the debated topic of assisted migration. If this process were to be considered, we must follow what the authors refer to as the “first-pass analysis,” stating “species should be moved if they are at high risk of extinction from climate change, if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints’” (82). Prior to making such a drastic decision as moving animals to an entirely new habitat, such as an urban environment they have not previously been familiarized with, we must consider the effects it would have on both the species being moved as well as the environment to which it is being moved to.
Questions we must ask as part of this analysis include: is this new urban environment familiar with this type of animal or will it come as a complete shock to both the people and animals that already inhabit the region? Will this new species actually be able to thrive in this new environment or will it face another threat that could be just as detrimental to its existence as global warming? What will happen to the rest of the species it leaves behind that are part of the “coevolved ecosystem” that Marris mentions?
It is not enough to say that assisted migration is feasible because the urban environment we are moving the species to would have a similar climate to the one it was previously living in. Ecologist Jessica Hellmann also makes a valid point, saying “what makes climate change different from re-establishing from a glaciation is that these northern areas are already full” (88).
As is evident by Puth and Burns’ article, species richness is something that needs to be further studied. Although there have not been enough studies done, “most of those that did report data over time showed declines in species richness” in metropolitan USA (Puth and Burns). Although we must encourage more studies to be done in order to get a clear and accurate picture, extinction and declining biodiversity are both credible threats. Assisted migration, however, does not seem to rectify this situation nor impact all creatures equally, prioritizing those that have commercial purposes or intrinsic value, often at the risk of the remaining species.
To come to a conclusion regarding the risks and benefits of assisted migration, such studies as that conducted in British Columbia as well as those groups working to find scientific discoveries regarding assisted migration are essential. The only way I can see this happening widespread is if the “sentiment” that Marris refers to is strong and persuasive enough to fuel the movement as commercial gains are often prioritized when it comes to decision-making.