So the major threat to wildlife is generally habitat loss. As the human population increases, the pressure on animal habitat increases. When we see the pictures of starving children we naturally donate money to help keep them alive, and taking a longer view we support NGO's that provide the kind of services that guarantee an increase in population. Of course being great humanitarians we put the protection of human life first and so increase populations without first increasing education, infrastructure and a country's economy. This leads to a larger population limited in the main to subsistence farming who then compete with wildlife for land.
Sustainable development (where population increases move at a pace that can be handled occured in the first world - they could happen in the third world, but not when first world NGO's attack one part of the issue without addressing the rest) I think is the best solution for man and beast, but I don't know if it's possible.
The condition of man appears to be self interested and short termist, I do not see how that will change. People see what is available in the world and want it, that will not change and so the pressure continues to increase on wildlife.
You might notice I take an extremely pessimistic view, best summed up by a cartoon from Bizarro, published some weeks ago.
You see the world in the doctor's consulting room. He says "the bad news is you've got advanced stage humans. The good news is they've just about run their course and you should be on the mend soon."

I may not have expressed my thoughts as well as I would like, tending to operate from a stream of consciousness rather than sitting down and planning.

NapaMatt,
That cartoon has been haunting me.

Matt,

I think it's justified pessimism, though very hard for most people to accept.

There was almost deafening silence when I suggested Africa's wildlife areas were steadily moving towards "zoo-dom" out of necessity, and some already resembled glorified zoos...silence except for a couple of denials that it was so.

John

Napamatt, I take a similar view (at times. perhaps in my darker/most realistic moments). My sister told me the other day she saw a bumper sticker that said "Six billion people can't be right."

CW said: "I would go back to Ngala before a Sabi Sand camp. It was just more fun and more rewarding not to know what would be around the next corner..."

John, is this what you mean with zoo-dom?

nyama,

That's one of the things which distinguish zoos.

John

Not pretending to be an expert of any kind on this emotional vs hard core facts issue, I'm keeping quiet, but this article stirred some interest in me nonetheless. It's appropriate for this discussion, I think. Matt, you may add Eugene Lapointe to people you like to interview?

Hunting for conservation solutions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6091334.stm

Safarimama: very good and relevant article for this discussion. Coming from the former head of CITES, the premiere organization for regulating trade to protect speices, that is certainly an expert view point on this subject.

NapaMatt: that's a fascinating observation about our efforts that help the population boom which creates so many other negative impacts. My dark view point is humans are exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth and just like other species as all the territories become crowded fights and diseases will occur in a natural effort to make a population correction, hopefully we haven't crowded out too many other species first.

Napamatt

Last time I did a fundraiser for charity (the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation) I had a few people ask why I'd chosen that charity above ones that are people-based. A few even went so far as to say that they would prefer not to donate as they wanted their money to go to people charities (which is fair enough, it's their choice).

I tried to explain that humans weren't on the verge of extinction. Quite the opposite. They countered that we may not be as a species but that individuals were dying from cancer, starvation, disease... I said that I understood that, and that, yes of course, if those people happened to be my own loved ones, of course I'd be desperate for their survival, but that the species as a whole was thriving to the point of choking the planet. So I didn't feel that my money would be best spent helping yet more of our species to survive. I think at least one person looked at me in horror and called me a heartless b*tch.

On the other hand, it's only those of us who not only do not have to worry about where our next meal comes from, whether we can get work and therefore money to feed, clothe and shelter our family who have the luxury to ponder saving the planet. Hand on heart, I absolutely cannot blame that individual who is desperate to feed his loved ones, lives in a place where jobs and food are hard to come by and chooses instead to farm lands that are meant to be protected, or hunt meat that's meant to be protected. Can anyone here honestly claim that if they lived in the same circumstances with their loved ones literally dying of starvation, that they would not put their loved ones above wildlife and nature?

And that's the problem because we cannot save the planet unless a much bigger percentage of the population takes up the challenge too and for a huge percentage of the population there are much more basic needs to worry about.

:(

http://www.justgiving.com/kavey

Kavey

I feel exactly the same way. My charitable contributions now go to animal causes because humans are in no danger of becoming extinct, and the solutions offered by many charities fail to provide long term benefit.

A thought struck me last night that most people I know, and probably most people, consider wildlife little more than an irrelevance, if they consider it at all.

Yes, same here. I tend not to contribute much to charities for pets either (which I know is a cause dear to some of our friends here at Fodors, and I'm not knocking it) because again, I know I only have limited funds to donate and whilst I'd love to be able to help with everything I want to help the endangered environment and wildlife first.

Sometimes helping the people in an area can also help the wildlife, but it's not always a directly predictable link.

Yes absolutely, and actually, I think the more successful conservation projects do take this in mind - they know that by providing training, jobs, schools, medical facilities etc. to local communities they are providing an incentive for them to support conservation activities...

The human species not in danger of extinction? Hmmm, have to think about that. Fair chance the species will do itself in, in the long run. That wouldn't bother me much, except that humans will probably take the best things of the world with them.

I give to people charities, mainly in developing nations, but my priority will always be the environment and animal welfare, whether it's wildlife or domestic animals (any idea how much cruelty people inflict on cats 'n' dogs, for example? Our cat is a survivor of human ignorance. It's a real eye-opener how he has progressed from being the cat from hell since we acquired him).

I've also given to the Selinda Foundation, one of those safari operator-run funds designed to help local communities and the causes of conservation.

John

I think its a good idea to select for system wide approaches now. It's virtually impossible to conserve the wildlife without accounting for the local people and likewise as NapaMatt first brought up simply keeping people alive without any education and economic outlook counteracts anything done for wildlife. It's a shame that there are a billion little non-profits that are well intentioned and working on little pieces rather than a concentrated focus on huge system approaches but I guess that's what government is supposed to do a better job with and of course many of the mega non-profits carry overhead and are often run by people that are far removed from what they work for.

There does seem to be a growing movement of multi-organization partnerships that are more effective at addressing many sides of the issues, perhaps better informed donors is what is needed next.

Good debate.

For those who have contributed to this post, I recommend the book "Monster of God" by David Quammen.

One of the best books I have read (though I admit that much of my reading is of the field guide and biology variety).

The book is quite relevant to this discussion.

James

John
I have no doubt that you are right in that, at some point, the human race will extinguish itself. Certainly that's what seems likely unless there is a huge, huge change in the way our species uses and abuses the planet's resources and I just don't see it happening in time.
But right now, in the short term, our numbers continue to rise and rise and that's what I mean when I say we are not in danger of extinction!

Thanks for the safari talk hint. I'll be checking that out. And the book suggestion, Monter of God, as well.

Some pessimistic themes on this thread, many of which I share. Sometimes I try to find comfort in the fact that in 5-6 billion more years the sun will burn out anyway according to the estimates I've seen. And what's a few billion years in the whole scheme of the universe? At other times that brings me no solace at all.

I’m just too tired to participate in this thread. The only thing I’m capable of doing is curling up to sleep with my brain in some kind of liquid state that only serves for listening to the soundtrack of Out of Africa. Anyway, Kimburu writes exactly what I’d like to have said. Listen to him.

These things are being discussed at www.bushdrums.com where Jan Goss is a hardcore poster and Matt is doing an amazing job with Safaritalk.

Thanks Nyamera for that comment. Things have come on since October when I commenced with the project and it is only recently that the site has been concluded graphically, though I might change the font in the title banner.

You may know of my association with the Congo Rangers in Virunga national Park (through Wildlife Direct) and this week I have been talking with Dr. Mike Cranfield, Exec Director of The Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project (www.mgvp.org) whose mandate covers all of Virunga including DRC, Uganda and Rwanda. They cover a huge area under difficult conditions but perform essential work with the gorillas, and I'll have an interview to publish soon, and will start promoting their work.

You see this is what Safaritalk is all about: to raise awareness and eventually funds through donations for such entities. Safaritalk doesn't need sponsorship or money, everything is funded by me: what Safaritalk needs is active participation and content from members for the more content there is the more people will be attracted to it. And if just one makes a donation because of it, then Safaritalk is working. Content is king or so they say...

Safaritalk isn't about me, it's about Africa and whilst I sit at my keyboard writing and researching there are many at the sharp end who are really making a difference. I hope I can support them in some small way.

Matt

This thread certainly was a great read.

But I especially liked what I read about the human population growing too big.

Good points were made by Napamatt, Leely, PredatorBiologist, Kavey, ...

What Kavey wrote about the human race not facing extinction etc... my thoughts exactly!

It seems I'm not alone after all! LOL

It's actually one of my big frustrations; nobody who is in the position to make a statement about this dares even to mention it! Let alone dares to do something about it.
I'm talking about politics of course; if a politician would express himself "anti-growth", it would be political suicide (or so they think). In my country, our government now pays IN FULL for any IVF treatment. How crazy is that?!
Another example; Mr. Gore woke lots of us up with his "unconvenient truth", and also shows us that horrible graph about the population sky-rocketing ...but in the end, when proposiong solutions, where's the statement "stop breeding like rabbits"?

I could go on all day.

Most of the times when I bring this sorta thing up, I get into a situation much like Kavey described; I get the evil look, or a disgusted look.

The only ones who dare to say the truth are some scientists, and some narrators on wildlife-related TV channels.
I heard one guy say the other day "we used to protect the people from the wild, now it's high time we start protecting the wild from humans".
But I guess he's addressing the wrong people; we know!

Perhaps it's time we start sticking together. Form a group. Join hands and put our shoulders under a common set of statements regarding this issue.

We'd need a website, some slogans to wake people up, etc...

And in the end perhaps we'd be big enough to influence any government decision that has an impact on human headcount.

I think it's high time...

Sorry just read a few of the comments here and firstly there is no difference between sport conservation hunting or whatever people call it and poaching,
in corrupt African countries no habitat will ever see a single cent of the " Big Bucks ", I actually like some of the stats you read about - 75% of buffalo escape lion hunts, thereafter hunter shoots buffalo in the head, I guess survival of the fittest just went out the window.
One more thing just to bring to people notice, park fees are USD 40 per person, and vehicle entrance with drive is about USD 20 per day (increasing to USD 60 in May 08), and with Mara doing a minimum of 1000 people per day in from mid June to November in one reserve, Nakuru probably 500.....
U still need more money for conservations??.

Imi: no doubt corruption and simple mismanagement can negate any kind of conservation efforts and make increases of funds a moot point. However, the fact that all the other major safari countries have protected about 3 times as much land as Kenya (see my stats in a previous post) it would appear that they are having much success with the various land protection tools available creating vast areas of 'sustainable use' that greatly supplement the major parks and reserves.

And yes, seeing those figures from the Mara they need a lot more money for conservation! The Mara gets 290,000 visitors a year, multiply by $60 pppd and you get USD$17.4 million. If they could somehow manage the entire park for USD$5M which would be bare bones and not realalistic and then spend the entire remaining $12.4M on buying new land they would only be able to acquire 25,000 new acres a year (at $500/acre) and this has not even passed on any funds to the local people as stakeholders. The revenues from existing parks are no where near what the government needs to create more conservation habitat areas, they need a lot more money for conservation.

Msg to: imi

From who did you hear that the Mara entrance fee was going up to $60US next year?

Thanks!

I know what you're trying to say, But shooting an animal so that you can stick it on your wall ….sorry to me that’s all wrong.
About the park entrance it should be gazette soon