Sumatran Rhino news thread

I think the key phrase here is "'resurrected' so easily". I don't think cloning of any animal, at least not to the extent where a brand new population can be established, will ever be an easy process, at least not in our lifetimes. I think what is much more likely is the 'resurrection' of a handful of individuals, which will then need to be kept in zoos or another type of breeding center where the focus will be on natural breeding. Maybe some more animals will be cloned to add to the population over time but I think what we will end up with is a number of now extinct in the wild species brought back via cloning technology but only in small numbers and whose continued survival will rely on natural captive breeding. Afterall, if they can't breed naturally, they'll never be viable in the wild.

While I agree with the cost of cloning being high and in many cases probably futile, I don't think they're really taking much money away from conservation programs. I don't imagine the funds for these two types of projects often come from the same sources, and while the funding from the former could be reallocated to the latter, if all cloning technology projects were ceased I doubt that would be what happens anyhow. I also fail to see it as a waste of time or resources when the fact remains that an extinct animal had been cloned over a decade ago now, it just did not survive long-term. The technology is here, and getting closer everyday, and the science is anything but fiction. I'm not sure if we'll be seeing the likes of the Thylacine, Passenger Pigeon, or other more historically extinct species anytime soon, if at all but I do think cloning as a means to potentially boost numbers of animals like the the Northern White Rhinoceros, Javan Rhinoceros, Giant Sable Antelope, South China Tiger, and Asiatic Cheetah is something we will see as a last ditch option sooner rather than later. As I said earlier, all eyes on San Diego.

~Thylo

 

I agree with most of what you've written here about de-extinction but I do still think it could have the potential to take away money for conservation of extant species and even if it didn't it would as we have said at least damage tacitly conservation interventions for these.

I do think I would support this technology being used for boosting numbers of extant species (like the Sumatran rhino) but when it comes to species that have been extinct for over a century or more I am strongly opposed.

It opens a bit of a pandora's box of issues. For example, could a cloned thylacine ever really be considered a thylacine in the ecological and evolutionary sense of the species?

Furthermore, could a cloned thylacine ever be reintroduced back into the wild given the probability of it having a compromised immune system and a limited survivorship chance given what is likely to be a reduced ability to hunt or survive ?

Then of course, there is the ethical question of whether we even should entertain the thought of bringing this species back given the fact that the closest living relative of this animal the Tasmanian devil is in such a bad way.

 

I wonder if people would value a species more if it was lost and then brought back? Having experienced the loss of a species would they work hard so as not to lose it again? As they say, you don't know what you've got' til it's gone.
Also I think we should start looking at ecosystems as if they are organisms. If we can return a species it strengthens the ecosystem and helps to save other species.

 

Totally agree with you about the importance of taking an ecosystems conservation approach Ned.

 

These are all good questions, and ones that are definitely on the minds of those working to make this technology a reality. I'm not sure if you've ever seen it, or if it's even still available anywhere, but TEDx had a wonderful event specifically for deextinction where a lot of experts (mostly pro, but some against) were brought in to discuss the science or ethics of the subject. it's really an interesting piece and it's what sparked my interest (and support) for the subject.

I would say, let's not forget, if cloning can bring back the Thylacine why couldn't it bring in more devils?

(And as a side, I'd just like to point out that the Thylacine hasn't been extinct for over a century yet )

~Thylo

 

Yes, glad you mentioned this as I was about to mention these TED-talks myself.

I have to say that out of all of the experts that spoke at that event it was the older gentleman (unfortunately I can't remember his name but I assume from his position that he was an ecologist) who poured cynicism on the whole notion of de-extinction that I found myself agreeing with most of all.

Yes, that is a valid point but I am more inclined to think (in a cynical sense about human nature and the tendency towards fads ) that under that hypothetical situation the technology would be used first and foremost for the de-extinction of thylacines rather than being put to use for still extant tasmanian devils.

Hahaha, true , good point , that fact hadn't escaped me , but I was thinking more of some of the wildly ambitious (and frankly quite silly in my opinion) ideas that make the rounds in the news of plans on bringing back dodos, cave lions and mammoths.

If it came down to it I would be much more in favour of the de-extinction of thylacines and passenger pigeons than species that have been gone for several centuries or millenia like the mammoth.

 

Focusing on the lack of co-operation between Malaysia and Indonesia is bit of a red herring if you ask me. It always perplexed me how often it was mentioned as the major hinderance to saving the species given Malaysia have never really had much skin in the game (and certainly next to nothing now). Three non-reproductive rhinos where never going to make much of a difference.

But like I said, if they successfully create viable embryos in a lab, good luck to them. And you never know where the relations will lie at that time.

 

This is a really popular argument against de-extinction science and your views are definitely shared by a great many. The response I would give however, is that this argument operates under the assumption that the money funding the cloning research is money that would otherwise be spent on the conservation of another species. Or even spent on conservation at all. I could be wrong, but I know if not a single conservation body that funds cloning research.

Cloning science has a great many applications outside of de-extinction. I would take a stab that the scientists working on the resurrection of extinct species are piggybacking on breakthroughs in the field of cloning in general rather than leading all aspects of it.

You see this with the thylacine cloning efforts. They have been abandoned at various stages over the last 20-odd years as they hit a technological wall. Then others working in other areas of cloning make breakthroughs that have implications for the thylacine and the project is re-funded and booted up again. De-extinction is more like a pet project in the world of cloning science than in any way driving it.

 

I'd argue "the lesson" is entirely lost on the people perpetrating the extinctions in the first place. Quite simply, they don't care. It's a bit like spanking the good children in a classroom to make the naughty kids feel bad*

But let me offer another angle: The eventual reintroduction of a recently extinct species like the thylacine into its respective ecology more likely than not is of great benefit to the other extant species that live there.

Have you seen the TED talk about how the reintroduction of the wolves in Yellowstone improved the ecology of the rivers? If not its pretty fascinating stuff and a nice reminder of how intertwined ecological systems are. The affects of recent extinctions of species like the thylacine are likely still slowly rippling through the Tasmanian wilderness.

Red foxes are (as they are in cities worldwide) very common here in my home of Melbourne. And a great many live amongst the containers and warehouses of our expansive docklands. The odd fox is known to relatively regularly hitchhike on cargo shipping to Tasmania, and a fair few have been reported emerging from a container and skulking off into the night by port workers in Launceston.

However there is also some recent research that suggests that the existence of devils is actually one of the reasons why foxes have never established on Tasmania, rather than devils existing in Tasmania because of the lack of foxes. The Devils, goes the thinking, actually eat the fox kits. Mainland Australia, in which the larger marsupial carnivores like the devils are extinct is absolutely overrun with feral foxes and cats and the latter in particular is one of the leading causes why Australia has so many threatened species.

It is quite possible the reintroduction of devils or indeed thylacines would even help control these introduced carnivores to the great benefit of the other species in the ecosystems.

I'm totally hypothesising of course, but the idea our native apex predators had a profound impact on our ecology is not at all without merit. I think it's fair to assume the loss of devils and thylacines in Australia has been (and will continue to be) just as devastating for our environment as it would be in Africa if we just whisked away all the lions and hyenas.

In my opinion cloning recently extinct species like the thylacine could improve our environment and even foster additional public interest and funding in preserving it.

Therefore I can't help but think that deliberately rejecting the possibility of restoring these species under the idea of providing people a poignant reminder of the adverse affects of extinction, feels ineffective at actually fostering a change in attitudes but also a bit like we are just cutting off our nose to spite our face.

*This is just a metaphor and I don't condone spanking any children, good or bad, let alone in a classroom.

 

Yes, I think you are right , some good points raised here.

Personally I just cannot help but feel concerned about what the wider implications of de-extinction could entail for conservation and especially the perception by the public.

However, I do think you are probably right in that this technology doesn't represent a threat to securing funding for conservation because it is more related to cloning science than the world of conservation.

 

Interesting theory about the Australian foxes. I am quite familiar with the impact of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone. And I must agree that reintroducing recently extinct species such as the Thylacine WOULD in fact benefit all the other members of the ecosystem as well.

However, I stand by my opinion. If people get into the "extinction is no longer forever" mindset, ecosystems may be even worse off than they already are.

 

As I have stated, this is by far my greatest concern. And who knows if the animals we cloned would even (ecologically) resemble the species we were trying to recreate? We wouldn't ever know!

Also what if a resurrected species presents a new problem? Passenger Pigeons were famous for their massive numbers. But could they even survive in the changed world we live in today? What if they survive too well and end up coming crop pests? Wasn't there a study on the potential negative effects of cloning the Passenger Pigeon?

 

Yes, I agree with you on these points. How would we even be able to ensure that a cloned thylacine behaved in an ecological sense as it's ancestors once did in the forests of Tasmania ?

It seems more than a little difficult to me and especially considering that this animal would have to be presumably created using a closely related surrogate species like the Tasmanian devil or quoll (both of which are in need of effective and costly conservation interventions themselves).

Moreover, given the fact that there is such a knowledge gap in what we know about the ecology of the species how could we ever create an animal that would be able to be reintroduced back into the wild ?

It is honestly difficult enough to reintroduce extant species like the golden and black lion tamarins back to the wild (and this even with very sophisticated conditioning and decades of research having been done to improve the likelihood of success) let alone a thylacine.

Whatsmore it strikes me that cloning (if this was even successful) would just produce something that looked like a thylacine but that lacked the very essence of the species.

 

These exact same questions can be thrown at any animal that goes extinct in the world for a long period of time, too. Nobody knows what the original ecology of the Pere David's Deer was like. In fact, nobody even really knows where exactly in China the species lived since it was discovered by western science AFTER becoming extinct in the wild. Guam Rails and Guam Kingfishers have been extinct in the wild for over 30 years, quite a few generations for these birds. None of these animals know how to behave properly in the wild. Mexican Wolves and Przewalski's Wild Horses didn't know their ecological roles either, the latter having been extinct in the wild for nearly 40+ years, with the captive stock having been in captivity for nearly a century at that point. How many generations from the wild is the current Kihansi Spray Toad population, having last been seen in the wild in 2004?

It would be difficult to reintroduced a species brought back from extinction into the wild, but it's also difficult to reintroduce species currently extinct in the wild back into the wild for the same exact reasons described above. I don't find "it's difficult and we don't know what will happen" to be a good excuse for giving up and not trying at all. That's the attitude that led zoos to give up on trying to start a Northern White Rhinoceros program, which is ironically a species that can only be saved by cloning technology now.

But @toothlessjaws is correct, the people you're worried about here already do not care. His comparison to hurting good children in order to punish the bad is absolutely correct. People who refuse to educate themselves will always refuse to educate themselves, and these are not the majority of people giving to conservation efforts. The fact that extinction doesn't HAVE to be forever doesn't mean extinction no longer means anything. Extinction in the wild already exists, and people take that seriously despite the animals still existing. As I've already explained, cloning back an extinct population is not possible. What would happen is an extraordinary amount of money and resources would be spent bringing back probably only a handful of individuals and then captive breeding would need to take over from there. There's no reason that those who care enough about the environment today wouldn't be able to be educated enough to understand that cloning is not a viable solution to saving species, only an extremely expensive, extremely risky 'all hope's lost' option.

One correction here, Malaysia didn't only possess non-reproductive rhinos. The idea was to move the last remaining wild Bornean Rhinos in Malaysia into Indonesia so as to increase the genetic diversity found there, but Malaysia and Indonesia could not cooperate to do so. Additionally, the captive male 'Tam' was not non-reproductive. The original plan was to have him sent to Cincinnati to breed with 'Suci', but this could not be coordinated before her death in mid-2014. The idea was then to transfer Tam to Way Kambas to breed with the females there, but this, too, was caught up in endless political red tape for years until Tam's death in mid-2019. Now the taxa is extinct in Malaysia and they no longer have much of a role to play in the saving of the species, having not done what little they could have to help the cause.

~Thylo

 

@ThylacineAlive, I totally concur with all your points.

On the Malaysia thing, you're correct that Tam was technically fertile - although I'm sure I read he had an absurdly low sperm count.

Nonetheless, I still think the focus on Malaysia/Indonesia relations as being the biggest hurdle was a red herring. It appears to me that the biggest problem in the past (and continues to be) is lack of co-operation within Indonesia. The fact that the Bornean rhino captured so far has been retained to be part of a separately managed sanctuary and that the Way Kambas team know little of whats going on says a lot. I fear that if this is the way thing are going to play out, all hopes are going to rest on Way Kambas and thats not great.

 

Article about the search for Sumatran rhino :

Searching for Sumatran Rhinos | News | Save the Rhino International

 

The only real piece of news from this is that the young female Delilah at Way Kambas has been weaned/seperated from her mother. The next stage will be planning how to breed from her, without using father, uncle or brother, which are the only options at present. Unless they try AI from stored semen that is.

 

I was told by a keeper at Port Lympne in the late 80s that was involved in trapping and moving the rhinos in Sumatra even though they had permits all the way along and for everything needed nothing could move without bribes/money at every stage this is what it is like in these places if theres no money there is little interest in doing anything!

 

I agree with you fundamentally, but I think that potential funds for the cloning of a species like the Sumatran Rhinoceros are more likely to come from similar sources to conservation than funds for the cloning of a species like the Thylacine or even the Woolly Mammoth. I'd suggest that cloning the Sumatran rhinoceros would be more likely to be interest someone like the owner of Pairi Daiza, whereas the cloning of the thylacine might serve as an interesting side project for a vaguely interested billionaire.

As a side-note, sumatran rhinos were important seed-distributors in the South-East Asian rainforest back when they were still widespread there. Their local extinction, along with the decrease in Asian elephant numbers in the same area has surely caused a decrease in the spread of plant seeds via faeces, which in turn can result in a decrease in variety of tree species. Therefore, we can conclude that the reintroduction, whether natural or via cloning, will benefit the local rainforest and allow species that depended on the tree varieties affected to recover as well. Furthermore, it will encourage positive feedback, the process by which, for example, an increase in trees will lead to an accelaration in growth later on.

Thylacines, however, are a different matter. I would hope that negative feedback (the process by which an increase in a certain species is balanced out) would relieve any sort of preliminary shock in the ecosystem. Would thylacines drive out or even prey on cats? Being suited to the ecosystem in question gives them an advantage over the cat in particular, and its superior size and strength might suggest that a cloned thylacine could gain a foothold in its native forest and gradually push out the feral cat.
Furthermore, while the arguments that the 'extinction is forever' slogan would no longer be 'valid' are of course correct, I think it might well be the case that a small population of cloned thylacines will receive more attention worldwide than they did when still extant, and thus money gained from such projects could be diverted into new conservation programs to protect still extant but endangered species. Perhaps a centralised NGO for Tasmanian or Oceanian wildlife could be set up and largely funded by donations for the thylacine?

Of course, I may be entirely naive in my hope that cloning will not just be another money-making scheme with zero conservation relevance or helpfulness, but I think the saving the world's wildlife and new technology must go hand in hand to work. Already, conservationists are embracing technology such as drones to keep track of wildlife populations and monitor bird nests, but I think if used correctly and thoughtfully, with a clear goal in mind, cloning could well save a few keystone species.

 

I think you've touched on something very pertinent with this comment and unfortunately I think it is a very common phenomena in conservation interventions all over the world. Sometimes intracountry efforts to save a species can be just as difficult (if not more) and prone to failure than intercountry interventions.

This is especially the case when there are strong and entrenched regional divides / cultural differences and / or competing institutions which get in the way of collaboration. These factors ultimately all have strong potential to delay progress in or even derail projects.

I do follow news about Sumatran rhino conservation when I can but I'm not so familiar with the organizations or institutions working with the species (or rather not working with in some cases) on the ground. That said, I think you are probably right that there are some major intracountry issues that are contributing to impeding any progress from being made in Indonesia.