Conservation science and wildlife management are similarly being affected by increases in innovation and technology. A quick stroll around the poster sessions at the most recent Wildlife Society meeting in Baltimore demonstrated uses of eDNA, acoustic data, GPS collar data, drone surveys, various satellite data, camera traps, and many other exciting innovations and technologies. It is truly exciting and inspiring for me to see just how much technology and innovation is being developed and being incorporated in the conservation and understanding of our fish and wildlife resources.

As a civilization, we have made tremendous progress in a relatively short period of time. It's mindboggling to think that since the structure of DNA was first discovered in 1953 by American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick it has only been 72 years and yet now, we can use the technology to essentially identify each and every unique organism on the planet and determine their presence or absence in a system. It has only been 68 years since the first artificial satellite to orbit Earth was launched by the Soviet Union and just 53 years since the first earth monitoring satellite was launched to collect earth-based data in 1972.

Despite our technological advances and the increased understanding they provide, many species and systems are still struggling. A quick look at the major ecosystems in North America demonstrates the challenge. Grasslands, sagebrush, forests, wetlands, the Chesapeake, the Florida Everglades and California Delta, each iconic with their own unique assemblages of species and all struggling with a myriad of issues as we try to maintain ecosystem functionality and the full assemblage of species.

It seems that one of the most common measures of our conservation success or failure is the concept of extinction. Preventing species from becoming extinct is a most basic and quintessential conservation goal and therefore also a frequent and simple measure of success. Clearly, losing a species forever to extinction is undoubtedly a conservation failure. I recently became aware of a billion-dollar startup company called Colossal Bioscience that has a stated goal of “de-extinction.” That was not a term I was familiar with although it appears fairly self-explanatory. Sure enough, among other things, the billion-dollar startup has a stated goal to de-extinct and create a wooly mammoth hybrid by 2027. Other species of de-extinction focus include the Tasmania tiger declared extinct in 1936 and the Dodo bird, extinct in approximately 1662. Their webpage offers a glimpse at their vision and their motivations, and although not inherently nefarious by any stretch, it invites further consideration.

For obvious reasons, the awareness and discovery of this real-world Jurassic Park-like effort caused me a great deal of thought and contemplation. I ponder the large-scale climate change from the last ice-age of 15,000 years ago during which wooly mammoths roamed the tundra. I consider the habitat loss, invasive species, and disease that play a role in virtually all extinctions and wonder how it would be any different if these species and others were successfully “de-extinct’d”, if you will. The earth’s population has never been greater, the coexistence with wildlife never more challenging. We struggle with ongoing coexistence challenges with extant large carnivores like wolves and bears, invasive species like horses and hogs, and both wild and domestic herbivores like elephants and cattle. I think about how and where “de-extinct’d” animals would fit. There are very significant reasons these species blinked out before, and is bringing them back into a more crowded and disrupted space the best thing for conservation?

I also wonder how we struggle to adequately fund conservation of currently imperiled species and degraded systems, yet a private billion-dollar company focused on de-extinction can be created. I wonder how we can foster a public that is broadly more concerned about avoiding extinctions than they are with the de-extinctions. What if we pooled our resources and technology toward effective long-term conservation and the “un-extinction” rather than the de-extinction?

Our ultimate challenge isn’t how or which things we bring back from extinction. Our ultimate challenge is having an engaged and informed society that values conservation in a way that applies the technology and provides the resources to prevent extinctions in the first place. This scenario seems like a prime example of where an ounce of cure is worth a ton of wooly mammoth bacon.

In 2025, let’s continue to integrate our collective skills, technologies, and knowledge to focus our efforts, work collaboratively and at meaningful scales, in a way that not only keeps species “un-extinct” but also elevates society’s awareness and appreciation for conservation such that a new billion dollar shiny object promising to repopulate the frozen tundra with an animal now extinct for nearly 10,000 years doesn’t garner as much excitement and fascination as does simply conserving the species we have now.