Do you think species extinct in an area should be reintroduced?

[benjansss]

Putting aside species that went locally extinct by natural means, if a species hasn’t been absent from an area for several hundred years or longer the other species there are extremely unlikely to have lost the adaptations that allowed them to cope with their presence and even if that were the case evolution isn’t a one way street if it becomes beneficial organisms can often revert back to older forms. In New Zealand for example a huge part of conservation is reintroduction and it has been very successful at bringing species back from the brink and also more often then not benefited many of the species that were still there eg bringing back birds helps trees disperse seeds etc

[sedgequeen]

Golden Paintbrush, Castilleja laevisecta, was wiped out in the Willamette Valley of Oregon but survived in northwest Washington. It was recently reintroduced. I’m glad. There was lots of debate about genetic consequences, but honestly, how can you “contaminate” a non-existant gene pool? Not much worry abut ecological consequences. It is a hemiparasite (a plant that gets water but not food from other plants) but really doesn’t seem to be a problem.

[thrasherbird]

I feel that if a species is extinct/extirpated due to human causes, then they 100% should be reintroduced. Of course their potential to survive in that area should be taken into consideration, but if it is possible for them to survive/thrive once reestablished, we should do everything in our power to correct our past mistakes. I’m looking at you, California grizzlies…