In the article, The Unnatural Kingdom by Daniel Duane, advancements in digital technology are keeping nature the way we want it. In the article, two methods were mentioned that conservationists are using to restore populations of endangered animals. Relocation and the collar system are methods currently being used to restore these populations. These methods are for the best interest to save endangered species.
Both relocation and the collar system allow conservationists regulate populations. In this article, relocation of pregnant sheep allowed their diverse genetics to be introduced to other species in a given area. By introducing new genes to the gene pool, this causes an increase in diversity and population. The collar system tracks where the animal is and its every move it makes. This system allows conservationists to keep track of the populations by killing certain animals with high populations, which are usually going to be predators in this case, to regulate other populations of animals which are often prey. Both methods would need lots of human intervention and constant monitoring of all species. Both methods also would need the use of technology to analysis the data, crunch data, monitor animals, along with the use of GPS.
Relocation and the collar system both affect the animals differently. Relocating an animal is not as invasive as putting collars and tags on animals to track every movement they make 24/7. By observing the populations of animals and placing them in various areas to increase the population, the natural aspect of the animal is not affected as much. Putting animals in a different location may affect them a bit psychologically at first, since they are taken out of their habitat and placed in an unfamiliar area. However, over time the animal will adapt to its surroundings. Also, conservationists would probably relocate animals to a locations similar to the one they were in previously. Collar systems on the other hand, disrupt the "natural" aspect of animals in the wild. These animals have to live with a collar around their neck and tags in their ears, just to monitor their every movement. The process of puncturing an animals ear with a tag and forcing an animal living in the wild to wear a collar around its neck is more invasive.
The collar system has a better chance at being successful because you are able to observe and regulate species in more detail. However, I personally do not agree with the method of tracking species by putting a collar on them and labeling each animal with a tag. The whole concept of restoring populations in the wild is to keep the animals "wild." By putting a collar on an animal, like you do to animals in your home, it takes away the "wilderness" of the animal. If this is the method that is going to be used from now on, restored populations should not be considered "wild." However, if the collar system method is used, the term "wild" may change. Despite the collar system method to restore populations, human intervention in the wild also takes away from animals being "wild." Animals are not able to be left alone to figure things out with this human intervention, which again makes animals in the wild seem domesticated.
Restored populations of big horn sheep will have less genetic diversity than they did 200 years ago because of population size. 200 years ago, the big horn sheep population was very high, whereas now the population had to start all over. The gene pool is not very big due to the low population, but will increase as population increases. This overall will eventually increase the genetic diversity. Conservationists are using the method of relocation to improve genetic diversity. As mentioned in the article, pregnant sheep with diverse genes are being introduced to new groups of species, which is increasing genetic diversity.
