Overpopulation and Wildlife Coservation

Printable View

10-25-2011, 02:19 AM
Ken Watkins

Overpopulation and Wildlife Coservation

 I have been requested to start a discussion thread relating to my comments made in my thread “Son of B2”.

I asserted that the biggest threat to Wildlife was human population growth rather than the usually accepted or more highly publicised “whipping boys”, poaching, hunting and the trade in animal parts in some far-eastern countries

Whilst some people may not wish to accept this, others are as concerned as I am.

The Royal Society is only one year away from concluding its report into this very subject

http://royalsociety.org/Does-population-matter/

There are many interesting threads on the internet relating to this subject, but the best and simplest summary can be found here

http://www.populationmedia.org/2011/...h-on-wildlife/

Let’s face it human “population” is not the only problem although it is the biggest, there has been a preponderance of negative publicity both in the press and on this forum recently in particular in regard to Rhinos and Elephants.

Rhinos

The plethora of attacks on South Africa relating to the dramatic increase in Rhino poaching is totally biased and sensational. The truth is that without South Africa, Project Rhino and Kwa-Zulu Parks there would be few if any Rhinos in Southern Africa, virtually every country in which you see a Rhino in Southern Africa it has had the animal provided by South Africa.

South Africa has by far the highest population of both Black and White Rhino, if you were a poacher where would you go to get horn?

By the way the population of Rhino in South Africa is increasing by around 2% a year.

The suggestions that the Chinese need “education” to stop using Rhino Horn are quite frankly both disgusting and racially biased.

Constantly referring to Rhino horn as being a Viagra substitute is not only misleading but totally false it is used in traditional Chinese medicine for reducing fever. The popularity for this “medicine” is still there and always will be. The attempts to ban and/or criminalise its use will be as successful as the battle against the use of ”narcotics”

There is a very simple solution to this problem, that is for CITES to legalise trade in this substance. South Africa is more than capable of providing sufficient horn to satisfy world demand for this substance, by the terribly simple method of de-horning farmed Rhino. For those who believe that this is cruel and indefensible, I can only ask why so many people approve of de-horning Rhinos in the wild as an acceptable method of conservation.

The Chinese have already established a Rhino farm and have secured approximately 300 Rhino for this very purpose, this is allowed as there is no international trade involved in this process CITES is after all the “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”

By continuing to ban this trade CITES is effectively removing the possibility of sustainable income for poor African countries, this cannot be correct.

Elephants

The situation relating to poaching of Elephants is probably even more badly handled, in particular by the Western Press and the many NGO’s whose sole purpose seems to be spreading malicious gossip.

There are plenty of Elephants in Southern Africa, they are not endangered, I have just returned from Zimbabwe, where to be frank they are reaching plague like populations, the same is true for Botswana and Kruger National Park.

A good friend of mine John Frederick Walker the eminent naturalist and author, has published probably the most detailed (and readable) book on this subject “Ivory’s Ghosts”

His position is the same as mine and is simply summarised in a way I could never manage, in the following article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101602729.html

Of course nothing has happened since and Tanzania was not allowed to sell its stock of Ivory, because they had no proof of the origins following a fire in the storage warehouse, just how short sighted is this.
The ban was effectively kept in place by a coalition of other African countries lead by Kenya, most of these (excluding Kenya) countries have no Elephants at all, having failed to manage or protect their populations.

A few more links

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0816.htm

http://www.alleycat.org/Page.aspx?pid=325

I must apologise for the length of this but it is after all a major influence on our ability as Wildlife Photographers to get “that shot”, and there is so much smear and innuendo taking place.

I would be most interested to see what others think on this prickly subject,
10-25-2011, 07:57 AM
Chris Ober

This has the potential of becoming both an informative or combative thread. Please remember to keep things civilized and polite. If it gets out of hand, posts may be edited or deleted and if it keeps up, the thread will be closed.
10-25-2011, 08:14 AM
Ken Watkins

Chris,

Thanks for your comments, I also hope for a "quiet" discussion of the points I have raised.
10-25-2011, 08:51 AM
John Chardine

Ken- I'll just stick to comments about population growth. BTW, first I thought you meant human population growth, which is of course the Earth's no. one conservation problem. Nuff said on that one.

Being an ecologist, I don't see wildlife population growth as being a "problem". First, I'll apologise if the following is "old-hat". Environments and habitats have "carrying capacities" for each species living there. What determines carrying capacity is complex and multi-variate but the outcome is relatively easy to understand: as populations reach carrying capacity, density-dependent effects come into play which ultimately reduce breeding success and/or survival rates. This can occur through starvation, disease, and other mechanisms. This acts to slow population growth down to a point where the population size more or less matches the carrying capacity of the environment. Often populations will over-shoot the carrying capacity before declining to it, however, populations of large animals under density dependence very rarely if ever go to extinction as a result of this process. Rather, populations fluctuate around the carrying capacity and the process acts to regulate populations. Although the results of this process are often considered problematic (starvation, disease, mortality, breeding failure, habitat destruction, waste of a resource in exploited populations), I would not view it as a conservation issue per se, with the species concerned. Rather, the mechanism produces a fine balance between the resources available to a species and population size so ultimately you could argue it is good for populations.
10-25-2011, 09:44 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Ken- I'll just stick to comments about population growth. BTW, first I thought you meant human population growth, which is of course the Earth's no. one conservation problem. Nuff said on that one.

Being an ecologist, I don't see wildlife population growth as being a "problem". First, I'll apologise if the following is "old-hat". Environments and habitats have "carrying capacities" for each species living there. What determines carrying capacity is complex and multi-variate but the outcome is relatively easy to understand: as populations reach carrying capacity, density-dependent effects come into play which ultimately reduce breeding success and/or survival rates. This can occur through starvation, disease, and other mechanisms. This acts to slow population growth down to a point where the population size more or less matches the carrying capacity of the environment. Often populations will over-shoot the carrying capacity before declining to it, however, populations of large animals under density dependence very rarely if ever go to extinction as a result of this process. Rather, populations fluctuate around the carrying capacity and the process acts to regulate populations. Although the results of this process are often considered problematic (starvation, disease, mortality, breeding failure, habitat destruction, waste of a resource in exploited populations), I would not view it as a conservation issue per se, with the species concerned. Rather, the mechanism produces a fine balance between the resources available to a species and population size so ultimately you could argue it is good for populations.

Hi John,
Well said, I agree. But isn't there a newer factor too? Human population is squeezing habitat, so wildlife population density is rising due to animals being forced into smaller habitat, which then forces conditions you cite above. And in some areas, e.g. US, predators have been killed (cougars, bears, rattlesnakes, etc) so populations of herbivores (e.g. deer elk) are exploding, causing them to move into human areas more and more, which then leads to the remaining predators moving into human population areas too. What a mess.

Roger
10-25-2011, 09:54 AM
Ken Watkins

John and Roger,

Sorry I seem to have mislead you both, my comments were meant to be mainly about "human" population growth.:2eyes2::2eyes2:

Chris Ober has kindly amended the second sentence of my post, to reflect my real meaning.

Please feel free to comment again.

Cheers

Ken
10-25-2011, 10:40 AM
John Chardine

OK Ken, I was on the right track then initially. Human population growth is IMO the conservation issue of the day for sure, and it doesn't really matter where you are, although some places are more under pressure than others. The comments I made about population regulation in wildlife species also apply to the human species as well. However, we seem to have an almost never-ending ability to raise the carrying capacity of Earth to meet our needs. For example, look how more efficiently crops are grown these days. However, for me this is all postponing the inevitable because you cannot grow indefinitely in a finite space. One day it is all going to come crashing down around our heads and we will suffer all the normal effects of a population reaching carrying capacity: as mentioned, starvation, disease, over-crowding, reduced breeding success, reduced survival, and on it goes. Maybe this will not happen before the global human population is supposed to stabilise, several decades from now. Until then our environment is suffering "death by a 1000 cuts" as little by little (sometimes not so little), the natural world is being eroded.

Roger- you are absolutely right and my comments were somewhat theoretical. As human populations grow, the carrying capacity of environments for wildlife often decreases so a species can suddenly be at carrying capacity and not creep up to it as populations usually do. I agree, what a mess.
10-25-2011, 11:48 AM
Daniel Cadieux

Unfortunately, and I don't like to use the term "good timing" this time but it is a bit of a coincidence, here is an article that just appeard this morning on CNN's website:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25...er-group-says/
10-25-2011, 01:32 PM
Enrique Patino

It is true that grains and other vegetable foods are grown much more efficiently these days (even livestock), but politics in general, and food politics in particular tend to affect who gets to eat what it is grown. A lot of food that could be eaten by starving humans goes to feed livestock for those that can afford to purchase these products. And energy transfer between trophic levels is only like 10% (?) efficient. So, it is not that simple - in terms of human carrying capacity. Livestock in some countries get subsidies for their maintenance that could feed a family in some countries. Human population growth is indeed a big problem, including clearing land for the production for human food and livestock food (and now also ethanol for automobile food) but it is the irrational behavior of humans (read politics) at a global scale that tips the balance to a greater degree. Luckily the planet will heal itself, if we ever get to ta point where we make it inhabitable for humans. Just think of all the new species that may evolve millions of years from now to fill the void left by all those that may go extinct. We may just not be here to photograph them... :t3
10-25-2011, 03:45 PM
John Chardine

Some good points Enrique. You underline how complex this issue is. I also blame economists for the "growth at all costs" paradigm: a healthy economy is a growing economy, a stable economy is stagnant, a receding economy means the sky is falling.
10-25-2011, 04:34 PM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Some good points Enrique. You underline how complex this issue is. I also blame economists for the "growth at all costs" paradigm: a healthy economy is a growing economy, a stable economy is stagnant, a receding economy means the sky is falling.

Right. And a growing economy generally needs population growth.

On the plus side for photographers, with shrinking habitat, is easier to find a concentration of animals to photograph :w3:e3:Whoa!:

Roger
10-26-2011, 01:29 AM
Ken Watkins

 Firstly I would like to thank everybody for the contributions so far, I am pleased that so many people treat this as seriously as I do.

As we all know politicians and even ourselves always like to blame anybody else for every problem in the world, and enlist the assistance of the media to reinforce their positions, with sensationalistic statements.

A fine example of this is the news that the Javan Rhino is now extinct in Vietnam , and of course it is the entire fault of the poachers, and by inference the traditional medicine practiced in the far-east.

Most people consider that the presence of the Rhino in Vietnam, if they were there at all, was a totally unviable population.

Here is some info from Wikipedia which sums up the situation

"Cat Tien

Once widespread in Southeast Asia, at the end of the Vietnam War the Javan Rhinoceros was presumed extinct in Vietnam. The tactics used in the combat wrought havoc on the ecosystems of the region: use of napalm, extensive defoliation from Agent Orange, aerial bombing and use of landmines. The war also flooded the area with inexpensive weapons. After the war, many poor villagers, who previously relied on methods like pit traps, now had deadly weapons at their disposal, enabling them to become efficient poachers.
In 1988 the assumption of the subspecies extinction was challenged when a hunter shot an adult female, proving the species had somehow survived the war. In 1989, scientists surveyed Vietnam's southern forests to search for evidence of other survivors. Fresh rhinoceros tracks belonging to at least 15 rhinos were found along the Dong Nai River.^[36] Largely because of the rhinoceros, the region they inhabited became part of the Cat Tien National Park in 1992.^[31]
By early 2000s, their population was feared to have declined past the point of recovery in Vietnam, with some conservationists estimating that as few as 3–8 rhinos, and possibly no males, survived.^[24][34] Conservationists debated whether or not the Vietnamese Rhinoceros had any chance of survival, with some arguing that rhinos from Indonesia should be introduced in an attempt to save the population, with others arguing that the population could recover.^[7][37]
In early May 2010, the body of one of the last Javan rhinos in Vietnam was found in Cat Tien. The animal had been shot and its horn removed by poachers.^[38] In October 2011 the International Rhino Foundation confirmed that the Javan Rhinoceros was extinct in Vietnam.^[39]
Genetic analysis of dung samples collected in Cat Tien National Park in a survey from October 2009 to March 2010 showed that only a single individual Javan Rhinoceros remained in the park. As this individual was found dead in April 2010, it is now probable that this particular subspecies is extinct, leaving only the rhinos in Ujung Kulon."

If the above is correct then it is self evident that not only is this old news, but it has been reported with almost no reflection of truth as to the actual reality of the situation..

One can only presume that this publicity is purely for the purpose of raising funds for conservation of the remaining relatively viable population in Sumatra, where it would appear that the population is slowly recovering, lets hope so.
10-26-2011, 05:14 AM
John Chardine

The other side of this of course is what each of us do which contribute to our "ecological footprint". A very simple model allows an estimate of the total (global) ecological footprint:

total ecological footprint = population size x average individual ecological footprint.

At current global human population sizes (almost 7 billion) the multiplier effect of this in the above equation is powerful and has a big effect on total footprint. However, what each of us does in our daily lives (individual ecological footprint) also has a big effect so we of course need to be conscious of this and do our best to reduce our footprints to a minimum. To truly tackle and reduce our total ecological footprint as a species we need to deal effectively with both parts of the right hand side of the equation. In my opinion we have gone some way to reducing our individual footprints (but nowhere near enough), but we have failed miserably to deal with global population size.
10-26-2011, 07:35 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins


If the above is correct then it is self evident that not only is this old news, but it has been reported with almost no reflection of truth as to the actual reality of the situation..

One can only presume that this publicity is purely for the purpose of raising funds for conservation of the remaining relatively viable population in Sumatra, where it would appear that the population is slowly recovering, lets hope so.

Ken,

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion. While the last known rhino may have been killed in April 2010, it took more than a year to confirm there were no others left and the species was truly extinct. So the Oct 2011 report is simply confirming what was suspected. That is new news. And that is publicity. I think there should be publicity to raise awareness. If that raises funds to help a remaining population, great.

I think the discussion and references have shown that there are many reasons for wildlife population decline, but once a species becomes very small then a significant factor is often poaching if the animal has value (and that can be anything from meat to feed people to selling parts). When the population becomes critically small, any publicity to raise funds for conservation and protection is a good thing. It's too bad it has to get to that point.

Roger
10-26-2011, 07:38 AM
James Shadle

Ken, said: "I asserted that the biggest threat to Wildlife was human population growth rather than the usually accepted or more highly publicised “whipping boys”, poaching, hunting and the trade in animal parts in some far-eastern countries"

I assert that the biggest threat to wildlife is human beings.
Whether it's from over population, habitat fragmentation, poaching, pollution etc., humans are the root of virtually every problem.
10-26-2011, 07:53 AM
Ken Watkins

Roger,

I have a great sense of suspicion when I read this sort of story, if the population was as seriously depleted as it seemingly was, then why was this not previously raised in sensational press reporting, as they say bad news sells papers. My gripe is why was this not known to the outside world before it was too late?

James,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have stated, and I am glad you have said it:cheers::cheers:
10-26-2011, 09:03 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

Roger,

I have a great sense of suspicion when I read this sort of story, if the population was as seriously depleted as it seemingly was, then why was this not previously raised in sensational press reporting, as they say bad news sells papers. My gripe is why was this not known to the outside world before it was too late?

Ken,
I agree. It is very hard these days to get attention to many worthy news stories, so it seems only the most extreme things make it.

Roger
10-26-2011, 03:34 PM
Brendan Dozier

Very informative and thought provoking discussion.

I just looked at this graph of world population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wo...-1800-2100.png

Since 1960, the world population has increased by about a billion every 13 or 14 years!
I think we have gone beyond the carrying capacity that John mentions long ago. It won't be pretty, but nature will take care of the problem over time.

I'm afraid we can't do a lot, but I think we can at least try. I think Ken brings up some interesting points and agree that putting inaccurate information out there does not help in addressing the problems that arise from over population & endangered species. However, I do think that when provided with accurate information, that education can be very helpful. Regarding the Rhino horns, I understand what Ken means regarding traditional Chinese medicine, and that some conservationists and media have been insensitive. However, I believe you can introduce to one's culture new ways to reduce fever, without being racist or destroying that culture. All cultures evolve and share with other cultures over time. It's all in the way the new ideas are introduced and shared, without force and hate.

Deep thoughts:

When you look at how the human species own success actually over time destroys its own host, the earth, I can't help but think of how bacteria behave in the same manner. Over time bacteria pollutes its host with so much waste there is just a mass die off.

Humans are the result of the successful evolution of the DNA molecule. Has anyone ever asked why DNA has to replicate so **** much?!! :bg3:

Isn't it interesting how corporations act in the same way, why are they driven to achieve global dominance at all cost? DNA drives humans, humans run corporations. Hmmmm? Maybe we are at a point where there will be a massive die off of the corporations. Hopefully before a mass die off of humans! :bg3:
10-28-2011, 01:30 AM
Ken Watkins

Oh well it seems that this has slowed down which is a pity for me as I had hoped it would attract more responses, in particular from those who crtiticised my assertation in the first place.

Anyway I think it has been a very interesting excercise, it is my belief as people who love the "WILD" need to be more involved and as fully informed as to the difficulties it is facing, and try to do something to assist. I have a point of view that is supported by many people, unfortunately too many (excluding the contributors to this thread) are prepared to support the propa ganda of others.

Just today I saw a very nice image of a Black Rhino on 500px yet again the same propaganda was repeated, people really need to find out for themseves what is going on and not rely on self-interested others.

IT IS ALL VERY SAD
10-28-2011, 04:00 AM
Morkel Erasmus

The news from Vietnam is very sad indeed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Shadle

I assert that the biggest threat to wildlife is human beings.
Whether it's from over population, habitat fragmentation, poaching, pollution etc., humans are the root of virtually every problem.

Well put, James!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

Oh well it seems that this has slowed down which is a pity for me as I had hoped it would attract more responses, in particular from those who crtiticised my assertation in the first place.

Anyway I think it has been a very interesting excercise, it is my belief as people who love the "WILD" need to be more involved and as fully informed as to the difficulties it is facing, and try to do something to assist. I have a point of view that is supported by many people, unfortunately too many (excluding the contributors to this thread) are prepared to support the propa ganda of others.

Just today I saw a very nice image of a Black Rhino on 500px yet again the same propaganda was repeated, people really need to find out for themseves what is going on and not rely on self-interested others.

IT IS ALL VERY SAD

Ken, I would like to know who "criticised your assertions"? Unless the world has gone bad and "differing opinions = criticism" nowadays...:w3

Which "propaganda" is being unduly supported? It's a well-known fact (as you also pointed out) that the rise in rhino poaching is directly linked to medicinal use of the horns in the Far East, as well as for boosting virility in those regions among certain people...it's not just a "viagra booster", it is indeed well known that it used as a "cure" for fever or even cancer. By pin-pointing one method of decline (poaching) and its root-causes (misinformation/traditional beliefs) one cannot be directly accused of being "racially insensitive"...that is a straw man :Whoa!:.

For example: When our current president claimed that a "cure" for AIDS was a shower after intercourse, nobody held back their criticism of his "misinformation" because it would be construed as "racially bias"...it was just an ignorant misconception, as is the belief that rhino horn (which is effectivelty overgrown hair/nails) can cure any kind of fever or disease or boost virility.

I also cannot see the connection that pointing out these factors outright denies the fact that an increase in human population in ecologically-sensitive areas has a diverse and lasting effect on ecological sustainability :2eyes2:. In the thread you referenced I did concede that I agree with your main point but how will you address the growth in human population? By telling me I can only have 1.5 children in my family, like they do in China with the one-child-policy? :eek3: This is exactly why I think the main focus is on eradicating behavioural patterns and miconceptions that lead people to abuse the natural environment, especially in rural areas that surround areas of ecological importance. You won't get the people living all around the Kruger National Park to pull up their stakes and move away from the area. You can only educate them on why the natural heritage is important, why it needs to be conserved, etc. Even that is a difficult task given that the average poacher in this area can earn many times more from one successful poaching operation than he does all year working his "legal" job, and "money now" talks louder than "preserving the natural heritage for future generations". There are so many factors to consider...and I think the focus in the media is on the things on which we can have an immediate impact as opposed to getting sucked into an idealogical debate on what the ideal population of the earth should be and how to get there.

In the end I AGREE that overpopulation is a problem. I tend to agree more with James to the fact that WE are the problem. In many ways and in many facets. :S3:

Regarding the plight of rhinos specifically:
1. The reason there are so few left of most species in the world is due to the the "overpopulation" and spread of humans across the globe.
2. The reason they have to be placed in confined conservation areas is because of "overpopulation" and human greed/expansion, for sure.
3. The reason the remaining animals are being KILLED is because of OTHER factors, like the ones mentioned above.
4. The "overpopulation" resulting in confined areas leads directly to it being easier for poachers to locate the animals.
5. And so it is all connected in the great "Circle of Decline"

Just a few thoughts. I am going to be away for the weekend so won't be able to respond, and frankly I do not have a lot of time to spend in forums other than the critique forums these days...but will check back here next week sometime...
10-28-2011, 04:14 AM
Sabyasachi Patra

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Shadle

Ken, said: "I asserted that the biggest threat to Wildlife was human population growth rather than the usually accepted or more highly publicised “whipping boys”, poaching, hunting and the trade in animal parts in some far-eastern countries"

I assert that the biggest threat to wildlife is human beings.
Whether it's from over population, habitat fragmentation, poaching, pollution etc., humans are the root of virtually every problem.

The Menace of Homo-sapiens:

Personally I see the impact of overpopulation everywhere. In India, there is a net addition to the population every 29 seconds (net addition is birth minus death). This population growth would still have been some how manageable, if people would have lived as they did earlier in smaller towns or villages. Due to our faulty development model and urban planning the cities are growing bigger and bigger. Industrial growth is around the cities. So there is migration from the villages to the cities. And these people need among other things power and water. So we need to build large dams across rivers to generate power and water. This leads to submergence of large areas. You need to take the water from these dams through canals to satisfy the thirst of millions of urban folks. The canals cut across pristine forests and divide wildlife populations into smaller fragments decreasing their genetic diversity. Migration corridors of elephants are affected etc etc.

The power needs to be wheeled across several hundred and thousand kilometers. The Transmission and distribution losses are about 30% in India. So you waste more and more and need bigger dams for your power needs. There are some polluting thermal power plants and nuclear power plants coming up in wetlands (as these plants need vast areas)...

Together with this, slightly higher money that you get as an industrial worker, you yearn for a house of your own. You then move and buy lands elsewhere. Human greed is endless. You hope for appreciation of your investment. So you buy land and houses in different parts of the country. Needless to say, the impact is huge. This planet is not capable to handle our greed. It has barely enough for our needs, not our greeds. Some of you would have visited Bandhavgarh National Park in India. More than a decade and half back, the cost of the land there was a few thousands. A decade back I was shocked to hear that the cost had gone up to 30,000 rupees. A few years back, it was 500000 rupees and now there is no land left to buy.

To satisfy this greed of people, there is a deadly cocktail of real-estate mafia, police, politicians, forest officials, and other people who are creating housing schemes further fragmenting our forests. Our forests have become islands and there are hardly any linkages between those. So if one forest loses its tiger population, tigers from the neighbouring forests cannot come and take their place. So the impact of poaching is enhanced many folds.

Other Human induced changes:
If fragmentation of habitat is the major problem faced by our bio-diversity, the impact of invasive species is second. IUCN admits that as well. Some details about that can be found in my recent newsletter: http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/indiawilds-newsletter-vol-3-issue-x/

Let us take an example to analyse it further.
Ken says in one of his posts that Elephants have become numerous and perhaps he believes that some of these elephants can be killed and ivory trade legalised to satisfy the demands of people. Ken has been visiting wildlife sanctuaries for a long time and when he says that elephant population has increased, I would not completely discard it as untrue. Since he hasn't given any numbers, I guess it is his perception and this perception has been based on certain things that he has seen. Since I haven't visited that place, I can only give an example of elephants in India. Many people say that elephant population has increased, elephant conflict has increased, elephants have become a menace etc.

Elephants need large areas to move and forage. They need many species of plants to eat. In my newsletter- the link given above - you can see in the image that there is a huge spread of invasives. Lantana camara and Parthenium hysterophorous have colonised large tracts of our forests and that reduces the amount of grass and other plants. These weeds are allelopathic ie. negatively impact other species. When other species are not available, what will the elephants eat?

Coupled with the invasion of invasives, there is huge anthropogenic pressures on the forests. Daily people enter the forests to collect NTFP (Non-timber Forest Produce) ie. various fruits, plants etc. That reduces the food available for monkeys, herbivores etc. To make matters worse, domestic cattle and goats etc enter the forests and increase the competition for food. So the number of herbivores reduces. They try to come out and find food in the buffer areas, in the fields etc. And many of these agricultural fields have come up in places which were forest land. And to further make matters worse, our people plant crops like banana, maize millet etc which are savoured by elephants due to taste and those being more nutritious. Now these people, start throwing fire crackers at the elephants. I have seen elephants really getting incensed at the smell of gun-powder. In the process, once in a while, a few guys get trampled by elephants. Its upto you guys to decide who is a menace here.

In one elephant conflict area, the district collector (who is the head of administration of that district) made a statement “elephants are damaging your crops because you have still left open space. Make all the areas concrete and elephants won’t come to your house.”

The next question, is why these agricultural fields near the forests need to grow crops that are not in sync with that area. Even arid areas grow crops that need more water. People grow crops hoping to sell at a higher price. If someone sensible could have educated people not to grow crops that are not suitable as per the climate, soil etc, then a lot of problems would have vanished. Unfortunately, common sense is uncommon these days.

As Ken stated, other people also say that elephants, tigers etc in a particular reserve have exceeded the carrying capacity. Unfortunately, no body realises why in some places you find more wildlife in the fields rather than inside the national park boundaries. Also, I am restricting myself as this will become too lengthy. Please check the work of noted elephant researcher Iain Douglas Hamilton in Manyara. There are cyclic changes in the habitat which is spread over many decades. What is now woodlands were grasslands etc etc. Our span of attention and research is very narrow. We just don’t have perspective spanning over centuries. With such a limited perspective, how on earth we think of limiting the number of one species? And it is an irony, that human species, which is completely ineffective in regulating its own population is trying to regulate the population of other species. Who are we to assume the role of God?

I am reminded of Albert Einstein's words:

"Only two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity. And I am not so sure about the former."

In a discussion in Wildscreen festival, titled the Selfish Green, Jane Goodall says that "if we conduct a census to find out which species is the best one to disappear to ensure the survival of other species, then the answer is us humans". She had also said "1) we have to level of our population. 2) To reduce what the elite communities in the world think they need. If every human being in this planet acquires the standard of living as the ordinary person living in america, then we need four planets. We need to persuade people that life is not only about money and stuff. Life is about more. We need people to find a meaning in different values in life. 3) We have to alleviate this crippling poverty thats everywhere around the world …."

Cheers,
Sabyasachi
10-28-2011, 04:50 AM
Ken Watkins

Morkel,

The answer to your question as to who disagrees with my "assertions", should be obvious to everybody who has read the various threads in question, let's face it you have your ideas and I have mine.

I have even been criticised for disclosing where I took my Rhino photographs, something I know that you have in the past chosen not to provide.

If you stlll really believe that Rhino Horn is used as a replacement for Viagra then that is your choice, but it is not supported by anything other than missleading statements by "do-gooders", the same people who still perpetuate the entirely false claims about dagger handles in Yemen.

As for a cure for cancer this "myth" comes from the claim by the president of Vietnam, I have yet to see any medical substantiation , but of course it impresses his population.

It's use in traditional Chinese medicine is almost entirely for "fever" reduction.

I certainly believe that constantly blaming the Chinese has its basis in racism, just because they live differently and have different beliefs should not lead to the avalanche of abuse that can be found on the web.

You should be proud of the work undertaken in your country in bringing both Black and White Rhinos back from virtual extinction.

Cheers

Ken
10-28-2011, 04:53 AM
Ken Watkins

Sabyasachi,

May I congratulate you on your response, in particular the quote from Jane Goodall which to me sums up the situation perfectly.

I will look at seeing what I can find out about Elephants in Southern Africa, where by visual means alone, I can most definitely say that populations have increased.

Cheers

Ken
10-28-2011, 05:15 AM
Ken Watkins

Sabyasachi and everybody else,

I found this report on Elephant populations which I think sums everything up very well

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12392/0

A good friend of mine works as the African vet for WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) and he has visited and collared many Elephants mostly in Northern Africa, in unlikely places like Ghana, Ethiopia and more recently Sudan, where I am reliably inforemed there are quite a lot!
10-28-2011, 05:26 AM
Morkel Erasmus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

Morkel,

The answer to your question as to who disagrees with my "assertions", should be obvious to everybody who has read the various threads in question, let's face it you have your ideas and I have mine.

I have even been criticised for disclosing where I took my Rhino photographs, something I know that you have in the past chosen not to provide.

If you stlll really believe that Rhino Horn is used as a replacement for Viagra then that is your choice, but it is not supported by anything other than missleading statements by "do-gooders", the same people who still perpetuate the entirely false claims about dagger handles in Yemen.

As for a cure for cancer this "myth" comes from the claim by the president of Vietnam, I have yet to see any medical substantiation , but of course it impresses his population.

It's use in traditional Chinese medicine is almost entirely for "fever" reduction.

I certainly believe that constantly blaming the Chinese has its basis in racism, just because they live differently and have different beliefs should not lead to the avalanche of abuse that can be found on the web.

You should be proud of the work undertaken in your country in bringing both Black and White Rhinos back from virtual extinction.

Cheers

Ken

Ken,

If you really read my post above you would have seen that I said (as in the "Son of B2" post) that I DO agree with the main assertion. What I don't agree with is your assertion that we shouldn't blame poaching and the ignorant use of the horn for medicinal reasons in the Far East.

I have indeed chosen not to disclose where my rhino images were taken...why is that bothersome to you? If you choose to disclose, then fine, but don't you think for one moment the poaching syndicates don't watch the internet and do google searches? Even if there's no tangible proof for this, isn't it better to be "safe than sorry" about divulging this kind of information, especially when posting recent images which can be dated via EXIF information?

Indeed there is no medical/scientific proof that rhino horn can reduce fever, cure cancer, cure rheumathism or boost virility...that's the whole crux of an elaborate I raised to which you paid no mind. I pointed out various factors that influence these things and tried to structure my reply so as to invite discussion or rebuttal, but you seem intent on merely hammering on things that have been said already. Merely laying all wildlife issues at the feet of a very complex problem like "overpopulation" raises a lot of questions with very few practicable solutions, whereas identifying key behavioural and idealogical issues that can be addressed within smaller cultures, contexts and scenarios is a much more efficient and effective way of "eating the elephant" (proverbially speaking - ie that you can only "eat an elephant" piece by piece). :w3

I am indeed proud of what's been done to "save" rhinos in the past by conservation authorities in our country. Just the same as I am now "shamed" by the handling of this situation by the current "powers-that-be". It doesn't help us to glory in the victories and success of the past if all that is steadily being undone by the actions of the corrupt and the lack of action of the inept. Even if your idea for farming rhino horn legally were to be implemented, how will you prevent the whole "system" in Africa from corrupting it and defeating the purpose of the practice?

I never said that I look down on any culture based on what they believe and how they live. Thinking that an idea/practice espoused by a person is ignorant/idiotic is NOT the same as viewing the human being who holds that idea to be of lesser value than yourself. This is a common minomer these days, where the meaning of the word "tolerance" has been distorted and contorted from what it traditionally has meant.

As an example:
These days I can be labelled as intolerant purely because I disagree with another's belief or practice. In the modern view of tolerance, we can hold DIRECTLY opposing worldviews/opinions and both have to be viewed as having equal value and being equally "true". In the traditional/historic view of tolerance, I can differ from you respectfully without conceding that our DIRECTLY opposing views have equal merit and are equally "true". One has to be right and the other wrong, or we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right. I can thus be "torelant" of the person by not calling the one with whom I have a difference a derogatory name or treating him/her with indecency or lack of respect, but I can view the idea espoused as "ignorant" or "idiotic". And I am not saying this about you - merely trying to belabour a concept...:bg3:

Anyway - spent too much time typing away already...just wanted to weigh in as I was one of those who suggested you start the thread...:Whoa!:
10-28-2011, 05:45 AM
Ken Watkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Ober

This has the potential of becoming both an informative or combative thread. Please remember to keep things civilized and polite. If it gets out of hand, posts may be edited or deleted and if it keeps up, the thread will be closed.

Chris,

I fear you were correct.

Cheers

Ken
10-28-2011, 05:51 AM
Morkel Erasmus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

Chris,

I fear you were correct.

Cheers

Ken

We must be viewing 2 entirely different threads. :eek3:

I see no reason to shy away from an interesting discussion with varying viewpoints. If any mod/admin feels that Chris' initial fears have been realised, please feel free to delete anything said by me that would fuel a "combative" mood or that can be deemed as "uncivilised". :bg3:
10-28-2011, 06:32 PM
dankearl

Ken, having read your posts and the subsequent posts, I am a bit confused.
It seems like we all want the same thing here, to make sure these animals survive.
I do not understand your argument though, of course human population is stressing and having an impact
on all wildlife, but Rhino's in particular pretty much exist only in reserves or parks today, so what does the overall
human population have to do with survival or not?
The poaching is the problem, they are protected in reserves, so poaching is taking a toll.
The reserves have a limited space, so human population figures to the extent that the reserves will not get larger, but if the reserves
are large enough to support greater populations, then poaching is clearly the problem.
The argument that it is not about them being a "viagra substitute" is probably correct, but what constitutes a Rhino horn (hair) is no cure for
"fever" either, so the idea that people are using them for that is equally wrong and should be stopped.
I would argue that since population control is probably not going to happen (unfortunately), it is much easier and more effective to use
every means possible, education, fines, law enforcement, etc., to stop poaching.
Maybe I do not understand, but the idea to legalize a fallacious practice, is really sticking a head in the sand.
Why continue to foster such an inane idea that Rhino horn cures anything?
If anything, that is demeaning to a group (Asians) to think that they cannot fathom that this "medicine" is bogus if presented the facts
and educated about this.
It is a thought provoking subject and I thank you for bringing it up.
10-28-2011, 11:22 PM
Ken Watkins

Dan,

I will try to elaborate further and hopefully clarify the points you have raised.

The main point of this thread was to find out what the posters thought of the much believed notion that Wildlife is declining and that the main causes are Hunting and Poaching.

My belief is that it is population growth that is the major threat, but that it is all to easy to find a "whipping boy" rather than face the fact that it is everybody's fault.

The points I raised in regard to Rhinos and Elephants were intended to be examples of the use of the " Hunting and Poaching" approach to easing our collective conscious.

With regard to the perceived Rhino problem, this is grossly overstated, the populations in Southern Africa have grown appreciably in the last 50 years. The problem now is where to put them, and this absence of space is down to population growth.

"Education" has failed everywhere else, why should it work on the Chinese, lets face it sex education has hardly resulted in less teenage pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.

In my response to a query raised by Sabyasachi I posted alink to the IUCN data for Elephants, there is a similar thread relating to Rhinos

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search

In this summary it states that the population of all three major species of Rhino are increasing!

Cheers

Ken
10-29-2011, 08:28 AM
Peter Dexter

This month it was discovered that ten Costa Rican fishing boats had entered the Colombian marine resrerve of Isla Malpelo and caught and cut off the fins of two thousand sharks. I group of Russian divers who had come to see sharks discovered the mutilated bodies.

I am reading a book now that frequently touches on the effects of man on animal life in the wild. It is called The Darwinian Tourist by Christopher Wills (it also has his extraordinary photos).
10-29-2011, 09:07 AM
Roger Clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

The main point of this thread was to find out what the posters thought of the much believed notion that Wildlife is declining and that the main causes are Hunting and Poaching.

My belief is that it is population growth that is the major threat, but that it is all to easy to find a "whipping boy" rather than face the fact that it is everybody's fault.

It seems to me from the responses and links in this thread everyone agrees that human population is the root cause, but many factors contribute to wildlife population decrease. While habitat loss may be a factor in one period, poaching, particularly when species population is low can be the major factor at another time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

The points I raised in regard to Rhinos and Elephants were intended to be examples of the use of the " Hunting and Poaching" approach to easing our collective conscious.

With regard to the perceived Rhino problem, this is grossly overstated, the populations in Southern Africa have grown appreciably in the last 50 years. The problem now is where to put them, and this absence of space is down to population growth.

See (Black Rhinoceros): http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/6557/0
"Throughout most of the 20th century, the Black Rhino was the most numerous of the world's rhino species. Relentless hunting of the species and clearances of land for settlement and agriculture resulted in the population being reduced from a probable several hundred thousand at the start of the century, to less than 2,500 by the early 1990s (the minimum population estimate in 1995 was approximately 2,410 (Emslie and Brooks 1999). Between 1970 and 1992, large-scale poaching caused a dramatic 96% collapse in numbers. From 1992-1995 total numbers remained relatively stable with increases in some countries (those with the best-protected and managed populations) being cancelled out by declines in others. However, since 1995, Black Rhino numbers at a continental level have increased every two years when continental population estimates have been revised reaching 4,180 by December 2007 (Emslie 2006; Emslie et al. 2007; AfRSG data 2008)."

So the above is good news for Africa in general, but population of less than 5000 means any hunting could be devastating. Education must be a key component in the survival of the species.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

"Education" has failed everywhere else, why should it work on the Chinese, lets face it sex education has hardly resulted in less teenage pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.

I disagree that education has failed everywhere. Education is working in Africa, at least in some parts. It has also worked in North America bringing back species (e.g. bald eagle, American bison, wolf, lynx). Continued efforts at education can have an impact. I know in northern Tanzania, education has helped reduce poaching, though it still occurs. The danger will be during a particularly difficult period (drought, economy) when hunting could severely impact remaining population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

In this summary it states that the population of all three major species of Rhino are increasing!

This is great news, but with populations so low, continued education is still a key to furure survival.

Roger
10-29-2011, 09:33 AM
Grady Weed

Ken,

I must agree with James Shadle about humans being the culprits of most of our problems, wildlife, over population, destruction of habitat etc. I lived in Florida for almost 25 years, moved to Maine about 22 years ago. In that time I've seen significant loss of habitat and destruction of the land wildlife uses, or we contain them to use.

Here in Maine I've made an effort to be out in the woods and ponds each day that I can. I run into all types of weirdo's who kill something or trash up the woods, some out of ignorance, most out of disrespect for nature and themselves.

I recently watched a group of "hunters" release farm raised Pheasants onto some wooded land, then several hours later "hunt" them with dogs. The scared Pheasants just flew away after the initial release and hid in the brush. The hunters returned and sent the dogs right to the same spots as they saw the birds land into. When the dogs flushed them they of course shot them with their shotguns. I was sickened to say the least.

I also know of an elderly trapper who traps 80-120 beavers each winter, he has done so for the past 22 years I've been up here. I do not have anything against hunting or trapping, so long as it is done in a humane way and with a sportsman like conduct. I hunt, but really do not approve of most hunters methods.

Hunters are no the only ones to ruin the habitat. Loggers up here clear cut, cut roads into sensitive marshes and any where they can put a dirt road to harvest timber. It often looks like a war zone after they get done. Look at the paved roadways we drive on.. You could fill tractor trailer truck loads of trash, endlessly! The list goes on and on.

Nothing will change until WE CHANGE. All of us are responsible for helping others to change. We have only one earth. Abuse it and we will certainly lose it. I do have one question for you. What do you hope to accomplish by this thread? I ask that in a respectful way.
10-29-2011, 10:04 AM
Ken Watkins

Roger,

Many thanks for your comments, when I made my last response regarding education I was really referring to the generalised suggestion that the Chinese need educating.

Educationin Africa relating to wildlife proection has certainly been most effective in particular in Namibia where the practice of "sustainable management" (as approved by WWF) is now not only increasing animal numbers but increasing income and safety for the locals

There would be none or very little poaching of Rhino, if farming were to be legalised, nor indeed would any Elephant be shot if countries were free to sell ivory from "naturally" dead elephants.

Grady,

My intention in raising this point was to raise awareness that there are far larger factors than hunting and poaching, but I think that most contributors already knew that, neverthe ess the comments have been very interesting for me, and hopefully everybody else.
10-29-2011, 10:36 AM
Enrique Patino

It is also important to note that it very much depends of the species in question. Some species are born, grow up and reproduce in the same place - and some have very complex life histories. Some reproduce very young, some reach sexual maturity later in life, some reproduce only once. IF Rhinos or Elephants are the species of interest here, then you can make some more "general" generalizations... I say this because some species thrive in garbage dumps, clear cuts, even oil spills. I think that human population growth is affecting "diversity" more than just "numbers." The number of living units can increase or remain stable, while the diversity (number of different species) can decrease at the same time.

As for hunting and poaching - this can be a problem when the species is already in jeopardy by other factors (including excessive hunting in the past that resulted in severe population declines - think of seals and whales). Also think of a species of rockfish that lives 100 years, for example. Depleted populations will take a long time to recover once the "pressure" if off... just some thoughts...

enrique
10-29-2011, 11:16 PM
Ken Watkins

Enrique,

You bring up some good points regarding this not really being a modern problem. The major slaughter of Elephants took place in the 19th century mostly for piano keys and billiard balls, it only ceased to be as bad when a "plastic" alternative was invented.

Much the same thing happened with Whales, Walruses and Seals , they were mainly slaughtered for oil for lamps, when petroleum came along they were hunted less. Thankfully the populations are once increasing now.
10-30-2011, 11:57 AM
Brendan Dozier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Watkins

Enrique,
You bring up some good points regarding this not really being a modern problem. The major slaughter of Elephants took place in the 19th century mostly for piano keys and billiard balls, it only ceased to be as bad when a "plastic" alternative was invented.

Much the same thing happened with Whales, Walruses and Seals , they were mainly slaughtered for oil for lamps, when petroleum came along they were hunted less. Thankfully the populations are once increasing now.

And the invention of new medicines to reduce fever, provided it is introduced to a culture in a sensitive manner, could also help reduce the demand for rhino horns.
10-31-2011, 05:27 AM
Ken Watkins

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Dozier

in a sensitive manner

That would great, in fact a major breakthrough