Will Wildlife Survive the 21st Century? By Ron Thomson (first published in 1990) Many people today, for very good reasons, are asking the question: Will wildlife survive the 21st century? In fact, I recently participated in a public panel discussion in Cape Town which debated this very question, and I addressed the issue in the following manner. The answer to this question is totally dependent upon how the developing international wildlife culture evolves. If this culture can be moulded so that its objectives match those of the IUCNs World Conservation Strategy then there is a great future for many wildlife species. If, on the other hand, the present very strong but irrational influence of the animal rights movement continues to interfere with the logical practices of wildlife management programmes, then wildlife has very little future. The animal rights movement today is very powerful. It is an industry that unscrupulously preys upon human emotions and it does not deal with ecological facts. Its victims - besides wildlife - are sensitive people who are unversed in wildlife realities, so it has been able to generate fantastic support amongst First World urbanites who are now totally detached from nature. The movement has tremendous political clout and, as a consequence, it adversely influences many vitally important wildlife management practices. Unfortunately, the animal rights force is today the strongest factor moulding the new international wildlife culture. This requires an explanation. The World Conservation Strategy has three principal objectives: 1 To maintain the essential ecological processes and life support systems - such as soil regeneration and the cycling of nutrients; 2 To preserve genetic diversity -that is, to prevent species loss; and 3 To ensure the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (notably fish and other wildlife, forests and grazing lands), which support millions of rural communities as well as major industries. Nobody seems to disagree with the first two of these objectives - but animal rights supporters do not accept the third one. In fact, their rejection of this principle identifies them. So these are the animal rightists! But what is a wildlife culture? The word culture itself means: The distinctive way of life of a group of people; or, their complete design for living. Cultures are complex and moulded by knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, custom, and so forth. Indoctrination plays an important role. And a wildlife culture involves all these things as they apply to wildlife. The important thing to understand about culture is that it does not have to be right to be influential - it just has to be in force. The cannibalistic culture of primitive peoples in the not too distant past is an example of that f act. Different nations have different wildlife cultures. For example, the people of the United States have absorbed the notion that their countrys history of market hunting was bad -so you cant buy indigenous venison in a restaurant in the United States. And you cant farm indigenous wild animals in America either. In South Africa, which has a similar hunting history, just the opposite applies. Here wildlife ranching has become a healthy industry, and not only can you buy venison in restaurants, butchers shops, and even in street corner cafes, there is also a thriving venison export industry. At the recent CITES meeting the Bolivian delegate stated that his president wanted ALL wild species to be placed on the Appendix 1 list - that is, on the endangered list of the Convention which proscribes all commercial trade! These are but three examples of national wildlife cultures. There are many more. But how can these different national cultures affect the future of wildlife internationally? Here is an example. The US decision to place the African elephant on the CITES Appendix 1 list came about in the following manner: A very influential animal rights organization in Washington DC was the first to make the proposal. The US Fish and Wildlife Service then appealed to the public for - what the service called -information regarding how it should handle this-proposal. The result: 529 animal rights-orientated groups supported the proposal; 23 other organizations were against. So, the US decision was based upon a popular vote. CITES decisions, in fact, should be based upon sound biological data; and on trade statistics. It is, after all, a Convention that is designed to regulate trade in wildlife and wildlife products. So CITES, as a consequence of the pressures of many very powerful First World wildlife cultures, has degenerated into a political forum in which the animal rights groups hold sway. In fact, the Convention is being used as a weapon by the animal rightists to frustrate wildlife trade; and ultimately stop it. So ... this is why the answer to the question will depend upon how the evolving international wildlife culture develops. If international society re-embraces the principles of the World Conservation Strategy then there is a reasonably -good future for wildlife. But even if they did so, to achieve the strategys objectives, we must take far more cognizance of man than we have done in the past. Wildlife does not live in a vacuum. It lives in ecosystems which it shares with man - and in which man is the dominant species. The problems of declining wild species are nearly all related to the activities of man - so man must become part of their solution. In this respect, it must be understood that man has various needs- to which psychologists have assigned a hierarchy - a need cannot be achieved until the one that comes before it has been gratified, or to a great extent fulfilled. The first group of these needs are instinctive physiological ones that are associated with mans survival; his need for air, water, food and shelter. After that, in order of priority, come the learned higher-order needs of safety love or affiliation; esteem; and, finally self actualization. Briefly, what this implies is that man will risk his life to get water or food, if he will die without them; and that only when he is replete, and safe, will he think of the companionship of others; once he has all these things then, and only then, will he look for self-esteem, and the esteem of others; and finally, when he has achieved all else, he will seek self-actualization - that is, he will strive to become whatever is the ultimate in his life. This syndrome applies to man everywhere no matter what his culture. Now lets apply this theme to Africa. Elephant and rhino poaching in Africa is NOT caused by greed. Poaching is the symptom of the problem; POVERTY is its primary cause - which is the result of collapsed national economies, and it is exacerbated by a huge human population explosion. And inertia, ineptitude and corruption in both bureaucratic and political circles provide the final ingredients for a lucrative black market. In 1970, Africas international debt was US$6 billion. Today it is US$130 billion. Just to pay off 20 percent of the annual interest on this debt would take 40 percent of Africas annual foreign currency earnings. This has caused development stagnation - or reversals - and has resulted in no jobs. And over this same period of time the average needs level of the rural people of Africa has been persistently depressed until they are now down to the instinctive survival level. In some places of Ethiopia the people have hit rock bottom. It is not pure coincidence that this period of escalating debt coincides with the era of the poacher. So, there is no point in appealing to the people of Africa to preserve their wildlife heritage. The poachers - the people - couldnt care less. All they want is what they can get for the sale of the horns or tusks. And that is precious little. In 1970 Zambian poachers were getting the equivalent of a miserable US$30 for a pair of rhino horns; and a good pair of elephant tusks cost even less. Yet the real value of these animals is enormous. Zoos will pay US$50 000 for one black rhino. A Big Five Safari is worth-over US$100 000. The future of wildlife lies in getting a realistic proportion of the profits from these kinds of legal sources into the pockets of the rural people of Africa - and they would stop poaching overnight. This is precisely what Zimbabwe is succeeding in doing. And to those dismal jimmies who still believe that to put a price-tag around the necks of wild animals is to place them on the slippery slope to extinction, consider this: The most utilized animals on earth are domesticated animals -and nobody ever thinks that they will ever become extinct. The reason for this is quite simple. Domesticated animals are a vital part of mans life support system - so he cannot afford to let them become extinct. So ... make wild animals an equally important part of mans life support system and they too will be assured of a place in the sun forever. If wildlife is to survive in a future world, in which mans current 5 billion population is due to double within the life-span of many people alive today, then mankind must knock wildlife off its pedestal and stop treating it like a sacred cow. Wildlife, in reality, is nothing more than a wild product of the land - just as cattle, sheep and goats are domesticated ‘products of the land - and, whether we like it or not, wildlife must become integrated into mans life support system if it is to survive. If this does not happen, man will replace wild animals with domesticated ones, and he will turn wild habitats into grazing lands for his cattle, or into cultivated lands for his crops. The prognosis is as simple as that!
Posted on: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:05:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015