That discussion also took for granted the appropriateness of not intervening while wolves persisted. Being able to study an extinction event, should it come to be, was thought to be more important for scientists looking to prevent other extinctions by better understanding them.
Today, judging the appropriateness of genetic rescue seems complicated by new considerations that involve balancing at least four sets of values:
- Basic scientific knowledge: Trying genetically rescue Isle Royale wolves might teach much about the possibility of genetic rescues for other endangered populations?
- Healthy ecosystems: Ticks and climate warming increasingly impact moose (for more info, click here). Would a more vigorous, genetically-rescued wolf population be serious trouble for moose? Is Isle Royale healthier when it has healthy populations of predator and prey? Would genetic rescue preserve or upset the balance between predator and prey?
- The welfare of individual animals: If wolves suffer from bone malformities, and if we might be able to reduce the future occurrence of such suffering, shouldn’t we try?
- Wilderness values: Isn’t non-intervention the most virtuous action? Do we have to meddle with everything in nature?