Reconsidering Species Extinctions in National Parks: Reply to Berger

We concur with Joel Berger’s (2003) gut feeling that the intuitive answer towhether a species should be allowed to become extinct in a national park is no. Berger also acknowledges there isprobably no unanimous answer for all species in all parks but then presents a case supporting the negative,anticipated reply. Although there is probably no net benefit to conservation from extinction of a nativespecies within a national park, we view this problem from a different perspective, demonstrated by a case fromCentral Europe. The question of whether a species should be allowed to become extinct in a national park can only be addressed for those species that are not confined to one or a small number of parks or species for which substantial proportions of their population do not occur within the park in question. There can be little doubt that it is entirely unacceptable to let an endemic species go extinct in a park that is in fact its sole refuge. The question should focus on native species only because the extermination of introduced species is sometimes essential, an issue beyond the problem we discuss here (Atkinson 2001). Berger states that pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) in Grand Teton National Park comprise only a small fraction of the state’s population of this species, and he argues his case with scientific and educational values of the phenomenon of overland migration. Given that most species are less charismatic than large, open-country mammals and may therefore contribute little to overall park setting and public experience, their local extinction would probably go unnoticed among nonprofessional visitors. If their general populations were unaffected by the local extinction within a park and if the functional integrity of the park’s ecosystem would not suffer from the absence of this species, would it then be acceptable to let this species go extinct? Being aware that in most cases we may not be