A Controversial Tool in the Conservation Toolkit
As the climate changes, the geographical ranges of many species are shifting poleward and upward in elevation to track their preferred temperature and precipitation regimes. But for prairie species, this movement is often blocked by vast, inhospitable landscapes of agriculture and urbanization, or simply outpaced by the speed of change. The traditional conservation paradigm has been to protect species in place. Assisted migration—also called assisted colonization or managed relocation—proposes a radical alternative: to actively translocate species to new locations where models predict the climate will be suitable for them in the future. At the South Dakota Institute of Prairie Futurology, our Ethics of the Anthropocene working group is grappling with the profound questions raised by this idea. Is it our ethical duty to help species we have endangered through climate change? Or does this represent a dangerous, hubristic overreach, risking the creation of invasive species and the disruption of recipient ecosystems?
Developing a Decision Framework
The Institute has not taken a blanket position for or against assisted migration. Instead, we have developed a rigorous, multi-criteria decision framework to evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis. The framework considers scientific, ethical, and practical dimensions. On the scientific side, we assess the climate vulnerability of the candidate species using our downscaled models. Is its current habitat projected to become completely uninhabitable? Is there a suitable 'climate analogue' habitat within feasible translocation distance? We conduct extensive risk assessments of the candidate becoming invasive or introducing novel diseases in the new location. We also study the ecological role of the species: is it a keystone species whose loss would collapse an ecosystem, or a more peripheral one? The ethical dimensions are thornier. We consider the intrinsic value of the species, our causal responsibility for its plight, and the potential justice implications—does the translocation negatively impact local communities or indigenous rights in the recipient area?
Our first major test case involves the Dakota skipper butterfly, a threatened prairie specialist. Our models show its remaining habitat fragments in the eastern Dakotas becoming thermally stressed within 30 years. Potential recipient sites in Manitoba, Canada, have similar soil and plant communities but a cooler, projected future climate. A multi-year research project is now underway, with a controlled, experimental introduction of a small number of skipper larvae into secured, monitored plots in Manitoba. The goal is to study establishment success and ecological interactions before any broader recommendation is made. This cautious, research-first approach is a hallmark of our ethics. We also run public deliberation forums in both the source and potential recipient regions, believing that such a consequential decision must involve democratic input, not just expert decree. These forums are often difficult, surfacing fears about 'playing God' and deep attachments to local ecologies, but they are essential for building social license.
The Broader Philosophical Reckoning
The assisted migration debate forces a broader philosophical reckoning with our role on the planet. It challenges the ideal of 'pristine wilderness,' acknowledging that no ecosystem is untouched by anthropogenic climate change. It asks whether 'natural' adaptation is still a viable concept in a human-dominated biosphere. Some scholars within the Institute argue for a 'functionalist' approach: we should assist the migration of key ecosystem engineers (like certain deep-rooted grasses or burrowing mammals) to maintain critical functions like soil stabilization and water cycling, even if the resulting community is a novel assemblage. Others advocate for a 'focal species' approach, prioritizing culturally iconic or highly endangered species. The Ethics working group publishes its frameworks, case studies, and deliberation outcomes openly, contributing to a global conversation about conservation in the Anthropocene. The work is uncomfortable but necessary. It recognizes that passive preservation may be a form of negligence, while reckless intervention is a form of arrogance. Navigating this narrow path—with humility, rigorous science, and deep public engagement—is perhaps one of the most defining ethical challenges for futurists working in ecology. The prairie, with its fragmented state and rapidly changing climate, is a frontline for this debate, and the Institute aims to lead not just with answers, but with a better process for asking the questions.