Wildlife and Biologist Influence

            When people discuss humanity’s effect on wildlife it comes with a negative connotation. People hear about the negative impact that humans have and will hear how there are decreasing populations of wildlife and that human influence is forcing animals to change many of their natural habits to survive in this modern world. But what about the biologist that are conducting the research and their impact on wildlife? If researcher’s actions potentially risk the health and life of an animal, can it reasonably be said that the research was worth it? These are questions that critics of wildlife research have that should be addressed. When it comes to wildlife the potential risks are far outweighed by the benefits of being able to help the majority.

            While many people feel that wildlife has survived without human help and that human interference of any sort can only do more harm than good, it is important to remember that their world has changed because of human influence. A good example is bighorn sheep in northern Nevada. The bighorn sheep in northern Nevada had no trouble surviving before Americans brought domestic sheep. However with the introduction of domestic sheep, bighorn sheep began dying off rapidly to sicknesses from domestic sheep. One job that NDOW’s Game Division has to deal with is monitoring bighorn sheep populations and movements. This is because any bighorn sheep that come in contact with domestic sheep can get pneumonia and bring it back to the rest of the herd, causing a die out that can wipe out entire groups of sheep. With this in mind, biologist view any influence from surveying and collaring of bighorn sheep as necessary to protect the population.

            Another argument that is made is that the use of collars and tags has too many negative affects to be used. Tracking collars, tags, and pit tags can be used to identify wildlife individually and be used to track wildlife movement with satellites and telemetry gear. This is very convenient for researchers and provides a plethora of information about the wildlife, but the process of tagging or putting a collar on an animal can be very stressful even when sedatives are administered. After the event of having a tracking collar put on, the simple act of wearing a collar could be difficult for the animal. To address the issues of wildlife wearing a collar biologist do their best to attach the collars in manner that is loose enough to account for growth and breathing, while still being tight enough to not fall off. Collars are also set with a timer that makes them fall off the animal after a while to be retrieved by the biologist, thus preventing an animal from completely outgrowing its collar.

            By carefully researching and managing wildlife, biologists are better equipped to preserve and promote wildlife. Though this can seem like an unnatural order of things, the world that we live in has many things that are unnatural to them which can prove hazardous. To preserve larger numbers of wildlife human intervention has become a necessity and will be as long as there is still a human influence.

Works Cited:

“Keith Goetzman.” UTNE, When Tagging Animals Goes Wrong.2011. Web. 2016.