Putting Fish Before People

The Sad History of the Pupfish of Devil’s Hole

Devil’s Hole Pupfish — NPS Photo

A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted. -John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

People often perform good deeds at their own expense. According to John Stuart Mill, if such a deed increases the sum total happiness in the world, then it was worthwhile; otherwise it was wasted. One may debate whether or not the sum total of happiness extends to animals, but that is not the purpose of this article. I believe it does, and that will be the assumption moving forward.

My wife regularly volunteers at our local humane society. She sacrifices her time, often on weekends, to provide neglected cats much needed attention and to help them find permanent homes with kind owners. This is a good example of a person sacrificing something of their own to increase the sum total of happiness; happiness in animals, no less.

Not all sacrifices for the sake of animals yield such a profit on the scales of happiness. In the case of the Devil’s Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis) we clearly see that human efforts, in Mill’s words, have been wasted, if not (in my own words) had a negative impact on the sum total of happiness.

If you’re not yet acquainted with this pupfish, let me introduce you by way of this somewhat dull presentation brought to you by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

As you can see, this is a fascinating species; the rarest fish in the world, in fact. We have gone to great lengths to save this fish, and at face value that doesn’t seem like a bad thing at all. Let me be clear, I have nothing against this fish. How could one harbor any contempt for something quite insignificant and oblivious to the controversy surrounding it? I’m only interested in the moral correctness of the situation as a whole. That being said, let us start at the beginning; in the late 1960’s, when the pupfish came very close to extinction.

Pupfish v. Cappaert

The story of the near annihilation and subsequent rescue of the pupfish by conservationists is typically retold as a success, and it is often one-sided.

In the 1960’s Spring Meadows Ranch, Inc was undergoing development near Devil’s Hole. This ranch, at its peak was cultivating 4,000 acres of land, raising 1,800 cattle, and employing more than 80 people. The ranch was privately owned and worth seven million dollars (1).

To maintain such an operation in as arid an environment as Death Valley requires a good deal of water. This precious resource is what a handful of inch-long-fish and the Cappaerts, who owned Spring Meadows Ranch, would ultimately go to war over. The issue was that several wells in operation on the ranch were connected subterraneously to Devil’s Hole. As a result the water levels became dangerously low for the fish. Furious efforts were immediately enacted to save the fish by conservationists. A brutal court battle over water rights ensued.

The Cappaerts argued that they had the rights to the water beneath their land. The courts disagreed, using precedence to show that the federal government ultimately had the power to dictate what water, and how much, could be used for the ranch’s enterprise.The issue of private property being subject to the control of the government is a topic for another day. In the end, the case went to the United States Supreme Court, where a unanimous vote determined that the water level must be maintained at no more than three feet below its originally marked level. Years of development and enterprise were thrown out the window — there was no way an operation of such magnitude could survive without use of the water; water which it had rights to according to Nevada water rights at the time. The verdict was a death sentence for the ranch.

Via GIPHY

The court stated that, “the Government is not asking the Cappaerts to stop pumping but only to limit pumping to the level at which the pupfish can survive.” (1). However, water is difficult to come by in that region, and the ranch, unable to utilize the abundance of water at its feet, was forced to sell the land and cease operations.

Cost of Perpetuating the Pupfish

Today, Devil’s Hole is protected within the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. Human efforts to keep the fish alive have been extravagant to say the least. In 1972 we began counting the fish during biannual dives. The highest recorded number of fish was 553 in 1977.

Those with the best intentions for the fish, ironically, brought about its next close encounter with extinction. An incident involving improperly stored larval fish traps washing into the pool during a flash flood and killing nearly a third of the population (pro tip: don’t store fish traps next to the endangered pupfish) was just one occasion of poor pupfish management. Following this, as well as several failed attempts at removing too many pupfish for backup colonies, the lowest recorded count of pupfish was 35 (2).

Decades of costly projects and biannual pupfish role calls ensued in the name of protecting the endangered species. A species that by all observations is practically useless and insignificant, its only saving grace being its rarity. All these projects are, of course, funded with tax dollars. The latest and greatest project came in 2013 in the form of the Ash Meadows Desert Fish Conservation Facility. This facility cost $4.5 million to complete and boasts a state-of-the-art laboratory and a 100,000-gallon tank, for more backup colonies (cross your finger for success this time)(3). This doesn’t include the cost of maintaining the facility.

This is an exorbitant amount of money and should cause anyone to question whether its justified.

Casualties of the Pupfish

via GIPHY

If we judge this situation according to John Stuart Mill, then we must examine carefully the amount of happiness and suffering that has resulted from preserving the pupfish. I believe the latter is far greater. Ask yourself what the demise of a few hundred tiny fish is worth.

Let’s consider the Cappaert’s ranch first. The time and money invested in the ranch was significant, amounting to years and millions of dollars. The ranch would have produced consumer goods for decades to come. We might be able to successfully argue that the rarest fish on the planet is worth such costs. However, you must also be willing to say that the more than 80 employees who became jobless, are worth the pupfish’s survival as well. These were each individuals, many, no doubt, with families to support. If you’ve ever been on your last dollar and out of a job, then perhaps you can take some measure of the suffering incurred here.

We must also take into account the monetary resources being dedicated to these fish. Many would argue that you can’t put a price tag on a species, no matter how small. Let me quantify these dollars a bit differently then. The cost of cancer treatment can vary, but it averages out to about $10,000 each month (4). This means that for the same cost as the cutting edge Desert Fish Conservation Facility alone we could have treated 37 individuals suffering from cancer for an entire year. These are actual lives that could be altered for the better. This, of course, is just one area the money could benefit. There are dozens of causes that would be more worthwhile than the pupfish.

To argue that these efforts to save the pupfish are morally right, you must say that it is worth the suffering experienced by Cappaert and their associates. You must also say that spending the incredible amounts of tax dollars that we have on this species has been the best way to devote that money in order to increase the sum total of happiness. I, for one, cannot justify these actions by way of utility.

Conclusion — Letting the Pupfish Go

Happiness and suffering are difficult to quantify, but when we take all of the above into consideration I posit that the amount of suffering involved clearly outweighs the happiness these fish experience from our efforts to keep them alive. Indeed, an animal like the pupfish has no concept of extinction, and no understanding of the efforts being made on its behalf; whether its experiencing any increase in happiness is questionable, since its situation has hardly changed at all from its own perspective.

The greater good here — the choice that would maximize happiness, and the right thing to do is to let the pupfish go.

Of course, this will not happen. We are currently neck deep in our commitment to keep the pupfish alive. Wrongs doled out nearly four decades ago certainly cannot embolden people to bring about change today. No, we will continue to fool ourselves into thinking that the wrong thing is noble rather than sensibly calculating how to impact the world for the better.