Disturbing Story from Kruger
 

Sigh...

this is tough issue and highlights the great problems facing conservation. We can't allow the crocodiles to die off, but people need water to live. :(

That is an interesting perspective.

I have no doubt that the farmers in the catchment areas of the Sabi, Olifants, Crocodile and myriad other regions never consulted with the Mozambiquen authorities when they built sub-standard dam walls. That when the big rains came in 2000 and all the dam walls broke, causing flooding Mozambique (the worst it has ever seen) killing thousands as a consequence. Not that this is a tit for tat issue.

So Mozambique, the poorest country in Africa is enabling itself to compete in the eco-tourism market (they recently announced tender applications for development around the Missinga Dam) This development will hopefully develop the local economy and as the article rightly points out, deliver water to a communities that need it, much the same way as kariba did in the then Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

From my perspective, rivers change their courses, flood plains flood, sand bars shift, chnage and dissappear. Crocodiles and wildlife adapt. In this instance, it can be argued that the river will lose nesting grounds, it's not going to wipe out the crocodile population, it will displace some for a season or three. Frankly I believe that once the back flooding occurs a new dynamic and balance will arise, bringing with it new nesting territories and perhaps changing the equilibrium for a while. In the grand scheme of things, natures balance will restore good order.

I see the article as alarmist, perhaps poorly researched. I see reference to Lawrence Anthony, he's great at what he does, rescued lions from the Bagdad zoo after the miltary all but wiped everything out. However his best achievement, the Royal Zulu biosphere is yet to be realised and when it does, I hope that is what he becomes known for, rather than his "bunny hugging" conservation practises.

Well as long as you believe that "once the back flooding occurs a new dynamic and balance will arise, bringing with it new nesting territories and perhaps changing the equilibrium for a while. In the grand scheme of things, natures balance will restore good order" there's nothing to worry about is there? :D

My cats like to hug bunnies too.

Actually, I really do get your point and it is true that the article is not very well researched at all .... but "BUNNY HUGGING"?!? If your intention is to give people food I'm afraid I choked on that little morsel :(

the days of preservation are over. we need to understand and accept that. bunny hugging implies a simplistic approach to real conservation issues, which at the end of the day have to support the populace, which if they don't will condem them for eternity.

Glance over your shoulder at the affects of a million mouths and more has had on european wildlife over the centuries, look into the plight of the pandas territory in China and it might be apparant. Unless man can earn from the environment, in it's wild form, that wild form is doomed.

Unfortunately thats where we are at as a race on this planet.

I don't for a moment believe that there will not be an impact, there will, hoowever the short term losses are not outweighed by the long term gains in this venture. The Massinga Dam development of the greater kruger bio-sphere is going to create a monstor restocking project, which will see the return of many species, which include the elephant, whose fate has been debated many times. Lawrence Anthony being an advocate for contraception and relocation too.

...... or just simply control the ever expanding human population. less food and H2O needed, less pollution and less conservation/agricultural matters to deal with.
Peace;
Sherry

p.s. Tony also hugs the bunnies every chance he gets, if he can catch them.

mkhonzo

do you mean the press got it wrong?

Bunny hugging is demeaning and dismissive language that is used to exclude anyone who even considers conservation an issue - yourself included - from discussion of so-called "serious" solutions. It is inappropriate in someone of your intelligence. "Naive" is quite enough.

Still, in principle at least I think you are basically correct and am glad you aired this view.

napa the press didn't get it right! Just because it's the press doesn't necessarily mean that it is factual. So IMO, I disagree with the author David Blair. I believe that he needs to do greater research and present a balanced picture. For heavens sake its a river flooding it's banks, and all he can discuss is the fate of crocodile eggs? That alone is an alarm bell, an entire eco-system will be affected not just one species........

Cybor. That of course would be a solution, possibly a little " hitlerite" for my stomach, but yes leave that to the bin ladens/bushes/mugabes of the world I think.

Kimburu, you are on the money, the bunny hugging fraternity does get under the skin of most conservation bodies as they present simplified arguments on many issues that really do not tackle the challenges at hand. It is a demeaning term and perhaps one that I should have avoided using, however the greater Massinga Dam opportunities present a far larger picture of wildlife restoration to the region than the potential loss of crocodile nesting sights. Clearly the bunny hugging naivity does not allow the author to perceive the magnificence of the entire project, it focusses his attention on one (relatively) insignificant species that he hasn't researched or reported accurately.

OK, I'm starting to blow steam....

mkhonzo:
Your bin laden/bush/hilter statement is just a tad on the dramatic side and clearly one sided and frankly, almost laughable. Do you seriously mean to say that taking birth control precautionary measures is in line with massing and killing people.

Also, although it sounds as though you've taken it upon your self to be an expert in such matters, you shouldn't dismiss any media that gives an opposing opinion to yours as pure smut. Complex issues deserve a look from all sides and not just yours.
Kind regards;
Sherry

Mkhonzo

Irony!

Have I understood this right if I say that Lawrence Anthony and others are upset about that lack of communication and consideration on Mozambique’s part regarding the management of rivers will lead to breeding problems for Kruger crocodiles while feeding people and wildlife in Mozambique, when the same kind of behaviour on the part of SA led to the Mozambiquen floods and human disaster that was shown on TV all over the world (without me ever understanding the causes) and isn’t worth mentioning? I don’t know what to call it. Maybe “bad taste”?

As to bunny hugging, it’s often a word used against anyone who cares about conservation or anything at all other than the personal pocket, but inside conservation circles it’s used against those who are perceived as naïve wanting to spend money on individuals of threatened species, when sacrificing those individuals and using the money in a scientifical way would be a lot more beneficial in the long run. What’s bunny hugging and what’s not is almost always very debatable. I’m on the bunny hugging side myself. Then there are those, naïve or not, that think that wildlife, conservationists and rich tourists are good and that poor people living in wildlife rich areas are bad and should be kept away, and even if science suggests that they can coexist with wildlife they should be evicted so that they don’t spoil the wilderness feel for the tourists that so altruistically spend their money to make wildlife valuable – if some of this money is used on schools and wells for the people that have been evicted from the lands where they have lived for hundreds of years it’s called community orientated tourism.

Sherry’s idea might seem a bit hitlerite if she’s wanted to control some human populations (not her own), but I think she is referring to humanity as a whole, maybe especially they kind of destructive human being that’s called a Fodorite and that, as soon as it gets a chance, uses enormous amounts of fossil fuels on long distance high speed travel.

My Lulu doesn’t “hug” any bunnies because there aren’t any wild rabbits around here. Are baby hares called bunnies as well? Anyway, she has never caught any of those. Birds, voles and shrews have been unlucky. If I can, I always save the life of a vole. Lulu doesn’t eat them anyway and she definitely doesn’t need it for survival. I believe the vole has only one very valuable life and I suppose that makes me a bunny hugger. As shrews are a protected species I can save them without being a bunny hugger, I think.

.......or just simply control the ever expanding human population......

Cybor, my "hitlerite" comment refers to the above, which is quite a dramatic stance. Laughable yes, but then again you made the pertinent comment. I am not dismissing birth control, but the bland statement to "control" did have some dictatorial tone to it. However I can't disagree that the burgeoning populace of the world is most certainly responsible for the ultimate demise of wilderness.

As for your comment on my opinion, fair enough, but read it again as I disagree with Blair and said that he hadn't taken the time to research the issue and did not represent the full story. In this instance I felt that what was said in the media was sensationalist and inflamatory. Smut, I think not, my opinion being the only one, I think not too.
I entered the discussion to stimulate thought and air a perspective that disagreed with the author.

I would not dismiss any media because I disagree, challenge it yes, accept it no. And as for taking it upon myself to be the authority on such matters, no and not sure where you got that, but my opinion differs and it has been expressed.

I might just have a few insights and felt qualified to express myself.

Mkhonzo

I appreciated your initial post very much, it provided new information and reminded me of things forgotten, always good. Maybe if I had used "interesting" instead of "disturbing" the reactions might have been different.

Gotcha napa, my reference to the author is that of the article, Blair, and not you as the originator of the thread.