Essay on
How Human Activities Affect Wildlife
Conservation. Composition on Wildlife Conservation
When you hear, "Wildlife", what do you think of? A grassy field with
thirty deer, or an open plain with elephants, zebras, and giraffes?
Maybe a frozen, snowy mountain terrain with a bunch of moose or elk?
This is what would spring to mind for most people as soon as they
hear the term "wildlife", but have you ever pictured your own back
yard? What most people don't realize, is that no matter how deep
into downtown New York you live, or how far out in the boonies of
Southern Indiana, it doesn't matter, you are still a vital park of
nature. Why, even in cities there are at least some animals such as
squirrels, rabbits, and birds.
There are many other ways that humans and the wildlife are connected
other than just the earth that we share. It is important that people
realize every piece of plastic or paper they recycle helps our
environment stay clean so that all the deer, fish, rabbits, and
birds, squirrels. Giraffes, and elephants, elk and moose have a
clean place to live, as well as humans. Also, every piece of trash
you pick up or throw down could also have a huge impact on whether a
deer or some fish will stay alive of accidentally swallow the trash,
thinking it's food or not. Pollution also makes the land unfit, not
just for wild animals, but also our very own domestic livestock.
Every house and building we humans build has a significant impact on
every animal that lives in the surrounding vicinity of about 10 or
I5 miles. The reason for this is that when you destroy one animal's
home, all the animals that prey on this animal may go hungry for a
day because this animal will either move away to find a new home, or
it will die because it doesn't have shelter.
This affects humans because most people eat meat from cows, pigs, or
other farm animals or hunt to get food, and after we destroy an
animal's home and the animal move away, there would be nothing to
hunt. Also, when humans build things or manufacture items, they
pollute air, water, and the land we live on. Drinking or swimming in
polluted water, breathing polluted air, or eating plants sown in
polluted soil could cause damage to both humans, and the wildlife.
In
conclusion, of the many ways that humans and the wildlife are
connected, some are that we share the same air, food, water, and
land, we all are interconnected in the food chain, and we all use
the same raw materials to live. Now what do you think about when you
hear the term "wildlife"?
My
curiosity about wildlife was sparked when my family visited Yosemite
for the first time in 1994. To a child who was born and raised in a
suburb near Los Angeles, Yosemite seemed to be scenery from a fairy
tale with sparkling waterfalls and fresh green trees, home to
numerous species of birds and other wildlife. The forest captivated
my attention and my eye was drawn to the habitats of the creatures
that lived inside this enchanted world. Scenes like these were the
subjects of my first paintings. Nature was my muse, my inspiration
and my favorite subject.
To
this day, nature still inspires me to paint and is the focus of most
of my work. I want to be a part of the 2006 Wildlife Art Fellowship
so I can share my experience with others and promote the
conservation of natural wetlands. Natural habitats such as the
wetland in Portage la Prairie in Manitoba are slowly disappearing.
If I were afforded the opportunity to visit the Delta Waterfowl
Research Station, I would be able to use my experience to motivate
and inspire others to begin preserving some of North America's
spectacular scenery. This experience would give me a new found
respect for the outdoors and further inspire me to paint animal
portraits and landscapes.
One
of my career goals is to obtain a degree in science. I believe this
opportunity would give me an edge in my studies and help prepare me
for college classes and discussions. Because nature has inspired me
in so many ways, I want to give back and help conserve and protect
the beauty of wildlife for our future generations.
I
believe that with this opportunity, I have that chance to give back
to the breath taking scenery and amazing wildlife-that has sparked
my curiosity and inspired my artistic talent.
Additional reference
material you may find useful to help you write your essay
Wildlife Conservation
as Means of Creating Wealth, Protecting Public Health while
Generating Biodiversity.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation arose as a
continental conservation model in close cooperation between the
United States and Canada in the first two decades of the 20th
Century. Organized sportsmen were behind this new system of
conserving wildlife. It grew and developed subsequently in populist
fashion across many jurisdictions via a mixture of grassroots
democracy and elite guidance. It quickly laid the groundwork for
wildlife recovery so that wildlife populations reached great
abundance, occasionally overabundance.
It is based on a number of
root-policies such as the public ownership of wildlife, the
allocation of surplus wildlife by law, the prohibition of markets in
dead wildlife, the killing of wildlife for cause only, the guidance
of management via science, the management of wildlife between
sovereign states by treaties. It was held together by a brotherhood
of blue-collar hunters and anglers. Among its achievements are the
restoration of wildlife continentally, the creation of a new
profession: the wildlife biologist. It spawned a large number of
sportsmen organizations that actively pursue the welfare of wildlife
such as the venerable Boone & Crockett Club, The Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, The Foundation for North American Wild
Sheep, The Mule Deer Foundation, The Wild Turkey Foundation and many
others. It has generated a rich economy based on hunting, fishing
and wildlife viewing in excess of $100 billion dollars annually. It
has created a flourishing technology surrounding all hunting,
fishing, viewing, hiking, camping, filming as well as rich markets
in wildlife art. The general prohibition on keeping wildlife
privately has protected public and live stock health by preventing a
bridging for pathogens and parasites between humans, livestock and
wildlife. Moreover, this prevented the mixing of a plethora of
pathogens under domestic conditions as each species brought into
captivity comes with its “zoo of pathogens”. The SARS outbreak
originating in farmed civet cats is a prime example. Unfortunately
this splendid prohibition has been breached by game ranching with
just the expected results. Wildlife is very meaningful to North
Americans and provides the basis for effective wildlife
conservation, the backbone of restoring North America’s
biodiversity.
The North American Wildlife Conservation Model has evolved
over nearly a century in response to the near elimination of
wildlife from most of the continent by the end of the 19th century.
Garett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” had run its course to the
bitter end followed by the extermination of “vermin” that interfered
with cattle and sheep production including grizzly bear, wolf and
even cougar over wide areas of their range. Several once
spectacularly abundant species went extinct, foremost the passenger
pigeon and the Eskimo curlew. Waterfowl, shore birds even song birds
were then severely depleted by market hunting and uncontrolled
pot-hunting, while the habitat of wildlife was being converted to
plowed fields for corn, wheat or cotton, livestock pastures and
urban sprawl. Yet in these dark hours for wildlife there arose a
unique system of wildlife conservation and management that
restored wildlife to the North American continent and made it a
source of wealth and employment. This restoration of wildlife and
biodiversity to North America is probably the greatest
environmental achievement of the 20th century and the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation may be one of the
great achievements of North American culture. It is most significant
that it turned Garett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” into a
“Triumph of the Commons” , and, contrary to advocates for private
wildlife, it shows that private ownership of wildlife is in the long
term not compatible with conservation.
It has since been
examined by a number of symposia as well as discussions in the
popular press and the internet. It is continental in scope,
encompassing the United States and Canada as it was formed in close
cooperation between leading individuals from both nations. Here
Canada, a loyal colony of Great Britain opted not for the manner of
wildlife conservation of the European mother country, but
chose instead to unite under new common policies with the United
States. It is a model based on raw grassroots democracy, and is thus
the product of innumerable political discussions and decades of
hands-on experience. Consequently, it is not the product of a single
mind, but expresses the collective wisdom of nearly a century of
continent-wide debate and hard bargaining. It retained what has
worked. It has thus a deep wisdom and could not have been invented
by any single mind. We have before us a successful conservation
model, one worthy of scrutiny, regardless of one’s political
philosophy. And yet, ironically, this model of wildlife
conservation has only recently been recognized as such . It is
poorly known or understood in North America, it is politically
incorrect for much of the urban electorate, and it is opposed by
various special interests including some agricultural and
environmental organizations. You will not hear about it on radio
or TV, and even among wildlife managers there are a good many that
must plead ignorance when asked about the North American Wildlife
Conservation Model. A close examination of that model is most
illuminating as it is pregnant with tested ideas about how to mange
a renewable resource in a sustainable manner. However, it requires
certain pre-conditions to flourish, such as a tradition of
grassroots democracy, the acceptance of wildlife as food, ready
access by all citizens in good standing to wildlife harvest and the
requisite tools, including weapons, which raise questions about its
universality and transferability.
What are the successes of the North American Model of Wildlife
conservation?
Successes
In briefly reviewing the major achievements of the North American
Wildlife Conservation model I am following primarily two
publications . Its achievements are, briefly as follows:
1. The recovery of wildlife and bio-diversity continent-wide. This
includes the recovery of species that were at the brink of
extinction a century ago, which means most species of wildlife. Some
conservation efforts went so well that in the case of the buffalo,
the society, The American Bison Society, dedicated to saving the
buffalo voted itself out of existence considering its mandate
fulfilled. Between 1974 and 1999 wild sheep in North America
increased in number by almost 50 percent . There are again millions
of white-tailed deer in North America as well as other big game, but
the recovery also included waterfowl, shore birds and song birds.
Where the recovery was wanting, concentrated efforts are at work to
restore the species, including the much publicized efforts to
restore grey wolves and whooping cranes. The plight of a few forms,
however, has not been addressed by wildlife conservation
groups most notably the woodland caribou .
2. It generated a novel economic use of wildlife so that great
wealth and employment are created while the resource continues to
grow and to prosper. It is not merely sustained! In 1996 some 77
million US citizen spend in excess of 100 billion dollars on
wildlife related activities . They create about 50,000 jobs per
billion dollars (US) in throughput. There are similar trends for
Canada . The following may help visualizing the sheer size of the US
wildlife economy: if one divides the total first-time expenditure of
101 billion dollars into the area of the United States than one
obtains an annual expenditure of about $27,500 per square mile. Here
we can also study the distinction between markets that destroy
wildlife, such as markets in dead wildlife, and markets that
increase wildlife abundance, such as markets based on encountering
living wildlife. An example of the worth of wildlife is documented
by the annual auctions for special big game hunting permits such as
the “governor’s or premier’s permits” for mountain sheep, but also
elk, moose and deer. These auctions, open to all, are limited to one
permit for a trophy species per year. For the less affluent, raffles
have been established for a similar permit. In 1998 a record
$405,000 was bid to hunt one bighorn ram in Alberta, Canada .
Hunting also creates public benefits such as the “freedom of the
woods” that results from keeping large and potentially dangerous
carnivores timid and afraid of humans, as without this we could not
use our woods and campgrounds safely. In addition, once wildlife
populations expand, hunting keeps in check such wildlife population,
which otherwise could expand to cause damage to agriculture,
forestry or the environment at large.
3. It led to a new uniquely North American profession: the
university trained wildlife biologist or manager. The first notable
practitioner among these was Aldo Lepold . He rose to be an idol of
not only wildlife biologists, but of the environmental movement at
large with his inspiring writing . It insured that North America’s
wildlife received well- qualified, professional attention and care
in its conservation and management.
4. One of the greatest achievements of North American wildlife
conservation is public involvement with wildlife. This includes
the whole-hearted participation of the blue-collar segment of
society in contrast to a primary involvement of the elite in
European societies. This makes for a large volunteer force willing
to act on behalf of wildlife. Outwardly, public involvement takes
the form of a large number of conservation organizations, formed at
the federal, provincial or state, and local levels. Notable among
these are sportsmen organizations supporting single species or
related groups of wildlife, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for
North American Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey Foundation, etc. There are
also effective conservation societies such as the venerable Boone &
Crockett Club, the Campfire Club and the Audubon Society. The
volunteers have great achievements to their credit. The Rocky
Mountain Elk foundation conserved over 3.8 million acres of elk
habitat since its inception. A volunteer force of less than 6,000
Americans and Canadians, uniting biologists, managers, hunters,
guides, outfitters and interested parties in a common cause under
the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, increased the mountain
sheep population by almost 50% in the last 25 years. Yet this is a
small foundation! You can read all about it in Return of Royalty7,
available from the Boone & Crockett Club. These are examples – and
there are many others - of what volunteers, irrespective of
nationality, in free association, without call for legislation or
government funding can achieve under existing legislation. The
genius of North America’s system of wildlife conservation is
that it captured the enthusiasm and support of all strata of
society.
5. Taxing for wildlife. North Americans generated a secure funding
base for wildlife conservation, by adopting the user-pay
principle as policy in 1930 by the American Game Conference. Ever
since North Americans have taxed themselves on behalf of wildlife
(Migratory Bird Stamp Act 1934; Pitman-Robertson, Dingell- Johnson
and Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act, Alberta’s Buck for
Wildlife Fund etc.)
6. Habitat conservation. North Americans created an extensive public
system of protected areas for wildlife, including great national
parks and monuments, wildlife refuges, provincial parks and
ecological reserves. Habitat conservation on agricultural land
results from initiatives such as the US Conservation Reserve
Program. In addition there are significant ongoing private efforts
to acquire habitat such as those by the Nature Conservancy or the
many foundations dedicated to wildlife. They act continentally,
continually acquiring habitat by purchase or gift, or habitat
protection through liens on the land. In addition, military
reserves, by long tradition, respect wildlife’s presence and contain
some of the finest wildlife habitats and populations.
7. International treaties. North Americans recognised early the need
to protect and manage wildlife which crossed national borders in its
migrations. They negotiated the first and effective international
wildlife treaties, such as the 1911 Fur Seal Treaty, but above all
the famous 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds.
8. Conservation of large predators. Despite early and continuing
sentiments against large predators, such were nevertheless retained
or reintroduced as a functioning entity of ecosystems. They are
controlled, or protected or reintroduced, depending on
circumstances. Also, predators are better off under hunting
regulations, because the kill is very closely controlled, is under
constant public scrutiny and persons are held accountable for each
kill. Not so in Canada’s national parks in which bears have
notoriously a very high chance of dying due to concerns for public
safety .
9. Preservation of non-game species. Since from the very outset the
out-of-doors was considered an integrated whole. That is, very early
on under the so-called Roosevelt Doctrine conservation was
considered broadly. Consequently, the history of bringing non-game
species under the same umbrella as game species, has a very long
history. However, not all conservation was altruistic, rather, it
was usually motivated by utility. This included song birds which
were considered early in this century effective allies against
various crop insect pests . Moreover, the focus on particularly
desirable game species casts a broad halo effect from which non-game
species benefit. Although specific legislation to save endangered
species has been in effect across the continent, such legislation
could not succeed in the absence of a hunting culture which had
practiced broadly based habitat conservation which simultaneously
conserved bio-diversity.
10. Law enforcement in North America enforcing conservation law is
normally a remarkably civil affair, although it can be as dangerous
as its European counterparts when commercial poaching is involved .
Because wildlife conservation is broad-based and an exercise
in participatory democracy, there is much self policing involved. It
differs from European models in which wildlife is private property
and its protection is pursued accordingly.
Foundation Policies.
The primary or root policies, the foundation values on which the
North American Wildlife Conservation Model is built, were
best summarized in a collaborative paper that included the insights
of Shane Mahoney then chief of Research of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Wildlife Division and John F. Organ, Wildlife Program Chief
of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper is of primary
importance .
Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
Wildlife in North America is Public Property, not merely de jure,
but also de facto. Wildlife may be held privately, but only as a
trust for the public and at the discretion of the sovereign. The
Public Trust doctrine has a long history in the US.
Why is public ownership of wildlife so important for wildlife
conservation?
1. Public ownership prevents the inevitable consequence of private
ownership, such as the domestication of wildlife as well its genetic
alteration to fit market whims. Domestication systematically
diminishes the anti-predator adaptations of a species by making it
more tractable and easier to control under conditions of captivity.
Domestication has led to severely reduced brain-size . Domestication
is done so as to serve specific markets and therefore leads to
genetic alteration of a species to produce desirable products.
Gigantic antlers in deer or horns in buffalo are examples as well as
the restructuring of bison to assume the carcass confirmation of
cattle is another. The latter is done to increase the carcass value
as the carcass of domestic cattle compared to those of wild bison
has a higher proportion of high-priced cuts. Selecting for antler
size in deer selects for social incompetence. Domestication is thus
the systematic genetic alteration of innate adaptations. Such
altered stock can escape into the public domain and pollute public
wildlife irreversibly.
2. Public ownership of wildlife largely prevents the mixing in
captivity of many species and thereby prevents what parasitologists
have labled as “transporting the zoo” (of pathogens and parasites).
Each species carries its contingent of pathogens and parasites
which, transferred to another species may mutate into strains
dangerous to public health. Transferring wildlife into domestication
increases the risk of pathogens escaping into human populations.
Private ownership of wildlife generates a disease bride across which
may pass diseases affecting livestock and human health on one hand
and public health on another. Retaining wildlife in strict public
trust prevents wildlife farming and the building of a disease bridge
between wildlife, livestock and people. It is good public health
policy. The recent SARS epidemic originated in farmed wildlife,
namely in farmed palm civet cats in China . In any confrontation of
private agricultural and public wildlife interests, wildlife is
inevitably the looser .
3. Wildlife in public ownership insures the ecological basis for
native cultures to continue. One way to diminish native cultures is
to make wildlife and their habitat private property .
4. Because wildlife is in the public domain, is it possible to
consider national systems of wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife
treaties .
5. Because the state is ultimately responsible for wildlife, it is
possible to hire professionals to do the conservation and management
on behalf of the public. Here lies the origin of the North American
profession of wildlife biologists.
6. Wildlife in the public domain is subject to public scrutiny and
concern. The public has a say in how wildlife is to be treated. When
grizzly bears become private property, de jure - or de facto by
virtue of being turned owner to owners of private or leased land,
their fate is no longer the public’s business.
7. Once wildlife is made private it pits private wildlife against
public wildlife, a battle in which public wildlife is the inevitable
looser .
Elimination of Markets for Wildlife
The elimination of trafficking in dead game animals, or their parts
and products derived from them, is one of the most effective and
important policy of wildlife conservation. Its introduction
was revolutionary as North Americans at the turn of the 20th Century
were avid consumers and traders of wildlife.
Why is the elimination of markets in wildlife and its parts and
products so important to conservation?
1. The elimination of markets in dead wildlife eliminates a
financial incentive for the illegal taking and selling of public
wildlife. Where such incentive exists it promotes illegal markets
and encourages the criminal element to enter and ruthlessly exploit
wildlife. Law enforcement under such circumstances is hazardous in
the extreme and of questionable efficiency .
2. Eliminating monetary value from wildlife encourages the public to
enjoy wildlife for its own sake. A grizzly bear is no longer a
walking bank account.
3. The acquisition of wildlife outside the market place is bound to
significant private effort. The resulting individual efforts and
exertions, the “sweat equity”, as well as the significant monetary
expenses incurred acts as a deterrent to killing wildlife. So does
the inability to sell legally killed wildlife.
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Allocation of surplus wildlife for consumption by law, and not by
the market place insured an equal allocation of wildlife to citizen
irrespective of wealth, social standing or land ownership. Every
citizen in good standing is able to participate in the annual
harvest of wildlife within the laws set by legislatures. In this
instance, aboriginal people are an exception because treaty rights
also govern their wildlife harvest.
Why is allocation by law so important to wildlife conservation?
1. This policy generates a sense of propriety and ownership by those
participating in the wildlife harvest and is fundamental to the
public participation in wildlife conservation, be it directly
as volunteers or indirectly via the legislatures.
2. This policy, by encouraging citizen to regard wildlife as their
own, generates large national and continental organizations of
citizen who join together into societies on behalf of wildlife.
Large foundations dedicated to single species or species cluster are
a North American phenomenon. These non-government organizations
channel funds and the efforts of volunteers ;’towards the
maintenance and spread of such wildlife as well as the acquisition
of their habitat.
3. Because all citizen in good standing have access to wildlife as
prescribed by law it removes wildlife from any image of elitism, or
as the plaything of the filthy rich, a symbol of privilege. Wildlife
controlled privately by an elite can become a symbol of the hated
elite and suffer the consequences. This can be particularly tragic
when public sentiments against the elite and their symbols are
unleashed in revolutions .
4. Egalitarian allocation provides the basis for an equitable cost
of conserving wildlife through a user pays principle. Because enough
of the public avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain wildlife
for private consumption, there is enough funding for conservation.
User pay means that hunters are footing most of the bill for
wildlife conservation and in so doing provide a benefit to
society at large – the maintenance of wildlife and the continent’s
biodiversity.
5. An egalitarian distribution of opportunities to acquire wildlife
also generates indirect public benefits. One of these is the
“freedom of the woods”. In this case the harassment of bears through
inefficient hunting conditions bears to avoid humans, allowing safe
camping and hiking. Clearly, this depends on reasonably large
numbers of hunters going into bear habitat.
Wildlife Can Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
Wildlife can be killed only for cause. That is, it can be killed for
food, for fur, or in self defence or in the protection of property.
Wanton waste of hunted wildlife may be considered a felony in some
jurisdictions. This policy obliges all hunters to properly make use
of animals killed.
Why is killing wildlife for cause only a desirable conservation
policy?
1. This policy outlaws wanton slaughter which was once not
uncommonly practised in market hunting days or a mark of prowess
among so-called hunters. It reduces wildlife mortality and questions
all killing.
2. Allocation plus regulation of the taking of wildlife by law is
enforced inefficiency. This is a very important point, as it is the
enforced inefficiency of harvest which generates wealth and
employment. Efficient harvest, by contrast, eliminates wildlife
without generating public wealth. Since an animal taken in hunting
must not be wasted, it insures that the hunter spends a fair sum of
money in transporting, processing, storing and consuming the animal.
This generates a demand for services.
3. Enforced inefficiency also triggers the invention of gadgetry, a
consequence of ingenuity rewarded by the marketplace. Ironically,
North America’s wildlife economy is thus comparable to the economy
inherent to automobile industry, where the unending multiplications
of a product that generate some convenience at best, or, at worst
merely enhance the owner’s status, generate huge wealth. Such
gadgetry in no way enhances transportation efficiency.
Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
Wildlife is considered an international resource to be managed
co-operatively by sovereign states. This policy is basic to
international wildlife treaties as well as the broad based,
continental co-operation between professionals and conservation
organizations.
Why is wildlife considered formally as an international resource
conducive to conservation?
1. This policy brings wildlife to the highest political level as a
public good. It insures federal involvement in all nations
affected.
2 This forces - by law - all federal, provincial, state and
municipal jurisdiction affected into active cooperation.
3. This generates a lasting federal attention to wildlife crossing
the borders.
4. Treaty law is considered strong law that supersedes that of lower
national jurisdictions. Thus treaties are effective conservation and
management tools.
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy
Science is considered to be the proper tool for discharging
management responsibilities. This is the Roosevelt Doctrine . This
is another basic policy that gave rise to science-based wildlife
professionals hired by the state to perform wildlife conservation.
Why is science important?
1. Science is by and large our best tool to formulate appropriate
management and policy options, because it is based on a
disinterested pursuit of understanding. It stands apart from
political considerations and favors a hands-off policy by elected
representatives.
2. This policy assures that public wildlife is in the hands of
exceedingly well educated individuals and that it is scrutinized
continuously.
Democracy of Hunting
This is paraphrased from Geist et al. 20013: the concept of “sport
hunting” has origins in Europe .The term “sport” as applied to
hunting referred originally to a code of honor rather than to a
frivolous recreational pursuit. It was subsequently adopted to
distinguish hunting under codes of fair chase from market hunting,
and is not an appropriate descriptor of either the modern European
or the North American hunting The European archetype was
dramatically different than what emerged as “sport hunting” during
the 20th century in North America. The European model allocated
wildlife by land ownership, privilege or income, whereas in North
America, all citizens in good standing can participate. The European
model, a manifestation of class conflict between aristocracy and
commoners, led to wildlife poaching as a means for inflicting
revenge on the ruling class . Indeed, in Africa today efforts to
combat poaching have led to development of programs designed to
direct economic returns on hunting fees to the rural indigenous
peoples who otherwise would have no reason to stop poachers . In
North America, where all citizens have the opportunity to
participate, everyone is a stakeholder, not just the privileged.
This has been termed by Leopold “democracy of sport” . The foremost
spokesman for egalitarian allocation, and participation of common
man in hunting was Theodore Roosevelt. He wrote eloquently of the
societal gain to be made by keeping land available for hunting by
common people . Hunting as a deep-rooted passion is thus fundamental
to wildlife conservation , but only within a framework of
honorable, ethical conduct . By adopting a code of “fair chase”
North Americans explicitly opposed the excess of wildlife slaughter,
particularly such in enclosures, as practiced in Europe at the turn
of the 20th century – as well as historically .
What can we learn from the North American Wildlife Conservation
Model.
1) Hunters support wildlife conservation because there is
something in it for them: a payoff in their annual allocation of
wildlife. The motive is selfish, not idealistic. As a profit motive
drives a capitalistic economy, so a profit motive drives the North
American system of wildlife conservation: the hope for a
richer harvest and a richer experience in hunting. Consequently,
with self-interests in wildlife, hunters become concerned, active
spokesmen for and supporters of wildlife, and experience shows that
wildlife will then flourish. A ruling elite which elevates wildlife
against the self-interests of the common man causes wildlife to
suffer and be destroyed by the common man if and when the
opportunity to grasp power arises in revolutions. This lesson goes
back to medieval forest laws (which were in essence animal rights
legislation), and are valid for today’s top-down animal rights
legislation. Our only hope to retain thriving bio-diversity is to
embrace a human-centred view for the use of the biosphere, in which
wildlife provides for human needs and aspirations and is therefore
valued by a broad segment of society. Please note: a romantic,
purely eco-centric, that is, an impersonal and unselfish view of
biosphere management that, by definition, excludes broadly held
aspirations to use resources by common people, cannot but fail. How
much wildlife can mean emotionally is illustrated by the novelist
William Faulkner’s response to being informed that he had won the
1949 Nobel Prize for Literature and would have to go to Sweden to
receive it. Faulkner said “I can’t get away. I’m going deer
hunting!” And he so informed the Nobel prize officials by mail .
2) Wildlife must remain a harvestable resource, supplying in the
first instance food for our tables. It is an alternative to
agriculture generating utility from the land. It must not be viewed
as a purely recreational resource, as a source of “sport” or
entertainment. Its first order of utility is the provision of a
harvest of unusual food of exceptionally high nutritional value .
Wildlife thrives with attention and dies from neglect. Utility
fosters attention.
3) We must, therefore, retain the utility of wildlife. For instance,
song birds were historically protected not for moral or ethical
reasons and not because song birds were cute and entertaining, but
because they were valued as destroyers of insect pests in fields,
forests and gardens. Today song birds have no utility in North
America, and enjoy little organised public support such as is
enjoyed by native game birds, including turkey, ruffed grouse and
water fowl. Song birds may have the protection of the law, but
little in the form of tangible popular support – even from bird
watchers.
4. We must examine for retention the seven basic conservation
policies which have served us so well in bringing back wildlife and
retaining continental bio-diversity in North America. These contain
may counter intuitive lessons about how to maintain and foster a
public resource. Would we but dare manage forests the way we -
cheerfully - managed wildlife. Would we but manage marine fisheries
the way we manage wildlife in North America –with an open,
transparent and accountable system.
5. One must point to the awesome power of the democratic process, in
which we set aside willingly our differences and unite in a public
cause - fostering the welfare of wildlife and, through it, the
biosphere as well. One should recognize the power of volunteers as
social equalizers, as reciprocal carriers of information and power.
In this way, one retains accountability and openness which has
characterized to date the relationship
between wildlife managers and the public in North America.
Establishing a partnership between managers and the public, and
unlocking the spirit to act in the public good, is an essential
component to achieve wildlife conservation.
6. Today wildlife conservation in North America is beginning
to suffer from an ignorance of the past, be it an uninformed
judiciary or through uninformed managers of wildlife unable to
defend the system. As Emanuel Kant once quipped: We learn from
history that we do not learn from history. We must buck the trend!
The universality of the North American Wildlife Conservation
Model is in doubt, however, because it is built on some fundamental
assumptions, the primary one being that all citizens may participate
in both the harvest of wildlife and its management. And those
assumptions entail the availability of firearms to all citizens and
not merely the countries elite. An armed citizenship, one practiced
in the art of grassroots democracy and accepting of decisions
reached by public debate and compromise, is fundamental. Therefore,
there has to be an acceptance of responsibility for a public
resource, despite embracing a capitalistic economy and values.
Citizen must see wildlife as a common good and must accept sharing
on trust. Even the country’s elite must participate in the processes
of wildlife conservation and must not be exempt from such.
There must be willingness by the public to privately support
wildlife, accepting public efforts at conservation as minimal at
best.
Some agricultural interests would like to tie wildlife ownership to
land ownership and make wildlife a private resource to be managed
according to market demands and sold to the highest bidder. Such
interests openly oppose the North American Wildlife Conservation
model. The same goes for corporations who, for whatever reasons,
control large land areas and are interested generating revenue by
leasing out hunting rights to the highest bidder. Support for these
efforts comes from a significant sector of urban-based affluent
hunters who chaff at bag limits, short seasons and crowded hunting
grounds. Such individuals are effectively supported by gun control
advocates who lobby for a disarmed public. In practice, gun control
means disarming the blue-collar segment of society leaving the elite
well armed. Without effective, egalitarian public hunting there will
be little opposition to the privatization of wildlife, making it a
play-thing of the elite as it has been so often in the past.
Canada’s most unfortunate gun control legislation is well on the way
doing just that and it is thus in opposition to the North American
Wildlife Conservation Model. It is self evident, however,
that in dictatorships this model is unlikely to be accepted, based
as it is on armed civilians who practice effective grassroots
democracy.
Back to Home Page for more Great Essays
Original Student Essays Without
Correction
(Not for instructional
purpose)
Link
to us
|
<a href="http://www.my-english-writing.com">Sample
Essay</a>
|
Copyright
©
www.my-english-writing.com
An
Essay on Wildlife Conservation
