Assisted migration is when species are moved from where they presently live to a new habitat in the hopes that the species will thrive there. This concept is similar to rewilding, but they both have different goals. I think that assisted migration would be a good tool to use for conservation if it were regulated, such as with the guide that Parmesan and Possingham provided, which was that “species should be moved if they are at high risk to 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) It should only be used when it necessary to help save the species, and not just for experimentation.
Assisted migration sounds like a useful tool because it is intended to save species that are losing their homes due to climate change. Take for example, the American Pika. Pikas curl up and die after a few hours in 78 °F heat. As the global climate becomes warmer, pikas have move higher up in order to live, but as you move higher up on a mountain, there is less and less space. Some pikas already live at the top of some mountains, and have no nowhere to go. If pikas and other species in the same situation could possibly be saved by human transportation to another habitat, then it is worth a shot. Critics argue that because you would be moving the species to a completely different environment, there could be negative effects because you do not know, and cannot control what will happen. One possible effect is that the transported species could die because they do not have what they need to live. However, my thought is that if species are already being threatened by global climate change and may die anyways, it is better to try to do something to save them then to just watch and do nothing. A large part is because humans are the ones who caused the climate change, so we should not just sit back and do nothing.
As mentioned in the chapter, climate change pits two common assumptions against each other. One is that if humans caused climate change, then they should do whatever they could to ensure that species survive the climate change. The other assumption is that ecosystems have a correct baseline that they should be returned too, which means that species cannot be moved from one area to another, because it would violate the baseline. I agree with the first assumption, but not really the second one. I don’t really agree with idea that ecosystems have a correct baseline that it should be returned to. Ecosystems constantly change, so how can a “correct baseline” be determined? It is also more difficult and risky to try to recreate something from so long. I think that is it more important to focus on protecting the native species that we have left and ensuring that they do not become extinct rather than trying to create something of the past.
