Talk:Torreya Guardians

Harbison House grove in image caption of the Results section could be linked to its wikipedia page
That wikipedia page is Thomas Grant Harbison House. I tried to do that but it didn't work. The House is listed on the National Historic sites register so it has a wikipedia page already — and that short page mentions it has Torreya taxifolia on it and links to that named wikipedia page. Should this action be done and can somebody do it?Cbarlow (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)CBarlowCbarlow (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Too similar to official website
I'm not good with esiting, so I thought I'd drop this here. Several sections seem to be, though properly annoted from original sources, pulled from their own website. This seems to be a problem to me, as it seems to be written with the voice of the Torreya Guardians authors. 2601:645:400:D:55BD:92C0:EEF:CA8D (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Founder of Torreya Guardians proposes an additional section
Below I will paste in a section I created in my Sandbox today that I title "Reception within the Bioethics profession." It would follow the existing 2 sections of similar titles: "Reception within Conservation Biology" and "Reception within the Forestry profession." Three scholarly references (one website and two journal articles) are used. No references point to the Torreya Guardians website or myself, Connie Barlow (founder). In all the wikipedia page editing I contribute as a volunteer, I preference quotes or short blockquotes for anything that is controversial. These are, of course, all of fair use length — which I am familiar with in my previous science writing and editing career — especially the 2 anthologies I created in the early 90s that were published by MIT Press.

Because I am so closely related to this wikipedia page, henceforth I will always use this Talk page to propose new additions, as I am doing now. Please note that the second blockquote you will see below expressly characterizes this group in a negative way, using the term "amateur". I could easily have used only the first 2 sentences in the blockquote. But because I have a bias in favor of this group, I also chose to use the final 2 sentences. HERE IS THE EXACT WORDING I SUGGEST FOR THIS NEW SECTION, AS TITLED: Cbarlow (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Done! I like it! Thanks for proposing it here first. Mottezen (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mottezen! And for responding to my request promptly, too. Cbarlow (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Reception within the Bioethics profession
Bioethics professionals have pointed to the actions undertaken by Torreya Guardians as an example of why assisted migration is inherently controversial when proposed or used as a tool for helping native plants or animals adapt to ongoing climate change. The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Biodiversity, published in 2017, includes this mention of Torreya Guardians:

When it comes to ecosystems, presumably the most oft-cited example of assisted migration concerns Torreya Guardians who transplanted seedlings of Florida Torreya (Torreya taxifolia) in North Carolina. The translocation was motivated by the endangered status of Florida Torreya and by their view that the species belongs to the Appalachian Mountains as it is thought to have lived there before (Torreya Guardians 2014). As these examples show, naturalness as belonging leaves room for different kinds of interpretations of the relation of ‘belonging’.

The author of a 2020 article published in the journal Ethics and Environment also chose Florida torreya for ethical analysis of assisted migration. In this case, the controversy entails more than the usual questions of whether, when, and how to apply assisted migration. The matter of who gets to make that decision is also central:

Some would argue that it is unclear if this group [Torreya Guardians] should be labeled as "eco-vigilantes" or as "species saviors." However, what is clear is that if governments do not take swift and effective measures to save the ever-growing list of endangered species, groups such as the Torreya Guardians will, in all likelihood, grow exponentially. This possibility is problematic because despite their good intentions, they are amateurs — they run the risk of doing more harm than good. If assisted relocations are to take place, they should be undertaken by well-trained professionals working under the auspices of governmental and academic organizations. Cbarlow (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Add new final para to "Implementation of Assisted Migration" section
Currently, the final para is one sentence. I propose we keep that sentence and then add important 2023 material, as follows, NEW:

Four law review articles published between 2009 and 2017 concluded that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) need not be amended to use assisted migration in species recovery. The citizen actions by Torreya Guardians in moving an endangered plant substantially northward of its native range remained an outlier to the official endangered species policies until June 2023. It was then that regulations governing the parameters of recovery plans were amended "to reduce the impacts of climate change and other threats such as invasive species." Deletion of "historical range" as a location parameter for "experimental populations" effectively authorized assisted migration for listed species. A press report on the regulatory change mentioned the citizen actions of Torreya Guardians as having preceded the official shift in willingness to consider northward experiments for other endangered species. Following the regulatory change, another journalist wrote that the "aggressive approach to conservation" by the Torreya Guardians "featured prominently in numerous scientific articles that followed, discussing the pros and cons of assisted migration." Cbarlow (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has replied to this suggestion, nor added it to the Article page, I will do that myself now. Cbarlow (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)