My hometown of Roseburg, Oregon, USA has an AZA-accredited non-profit wildlife park dedicated to education, conservation and research, with an estimable Cheetah program:
"...Wildlife Safari began breeding cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in 1972 and successfully produced a litter the following year. Since then, 178 cheetahs have been born at the park."
Cool place: rather than have the animals in cages, you drive through the park in your car.
We drove down there once from Eugene, and my parents' crappy VW bus, which was always breaking down, broke down right in the middle of the lion area. Luckily, they are equipped for these things and they towed us out.
International anti-poaching foundation is good http://www.iapf.org. The founder is a former Australian sniper who teaches local park ranger how to fight poachers.
World Land Trust - one of their main strategies is funding land purchases to protect habitat and to provide corridors between existing conservation areas.
What good are all those documents in regularly self-destabilizing countrys?
I never understood how you can claim to "own" something like land in some African crisis regions- where the "ownership" totally depends upon the current Regents poplar agenda and is heavily taxed with corruption & extortion.
Yes? Lots of south-american countrys (Argentina, Ecuador and Mexico), famous for swallowing helping money and producing geysers of extortion schemes and good intentions being used for as cover story for bad intentions.
I'm all for saving wildlife but really the problem in Africa is lack of jobs, education, nutrition and infrastructure. If you fix those problems the wildlife will have a better chance.
I have looked into some of the wildlife charities in the past and many of them have not done as well as one would hope and this is in part because it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.
Yes it is probably outrageous but increased urbanization and education in Africa would be the best thing for Africa.
IMO give money to charities that help build infrastructure, and education.
Even food and agriculture charities will massively help as many have no choice but to eat bushmeat [1].
That is outrageous? In my view you are skirting the truth (consciously or not). We are so concerned with human morality that we can reach conclusions full of sophistry and half truth like this.
Without making a value judgement, the uncomfortable reality is that there are too many people and the most effective policy would be one that addresses human over-population.
Yes people could conceivably reduce their foot print by urbanising, but economic growth also has environmental impact - and probably in some unforeseen ways in the region.
At a high level I agree with you and over the years I admit have become soft or I would argue more open minded and even keeled.
The need for population control policy has been discussed many times on HN. Some argue technology can fix the problem as well as education others are more to the extreme saying we need almost draconian enforcement.
Many scifi writers have explored extreme (and dubious) urbanization which include carbon nano towers (Arthur C Clark Space Odyssey some year I don't remember).
Historically urbanization has a cultural impact on lowering reproduction (source needed but I recall reading it I think in the Economist). That is you may not need as much policy as you might think.
> So you're suggesting industrialisation to save the environment?
There are different levels of industrialization and modernization. Do I think technology can improve things and be more efficient ... I do.
Do I think Africa should become like the early industrial revolution... I do not... But I do think it can have modern cities and that in general it would help... I do.
Cheetah project not far from my home city. They're pretty much the most successful cheetah breeding operation there is. (The habitat situation is dire enough that in captivity breeding is the only viable option left).
Bit annoyed that their site doesn't have a convenient donate button though...will mail them about that.
Judging from the article it might be pretty expensive, one of the things they talked about was the space requirements which makes sense, cheetahs need to run. I think that's part of why this is such a tricky problem to solve.
Theyde loose the ability to naturally hunt and over-trust humans.
Cheetahs aren't like pidgeons they're predators and the best place for them is in the wild.
The problem is this then that they go after life stock and be killed for it. In Namibia there are NGOs that for free, will take them off you.
Of course the problem remains you've lost your livestock and people want revenge. It's the same story for African wild dogs (perhaps the most successful predators).
Given that the alternative is their eternal absence, and the total loss of a species, options are quickly disappearing.
The best place is in the wild, but the worst place is as stuffed relics in museums. When their numbers dwindle low enough, I'd expect the species would be lost to unsustainable inbreeding producing compounded birth defects.
Incidental taming and domestication as a side effect of preserving the species might be better than no species at all. At least habituation to human contact is a reversible process. Rendering a species feral becomes an option, once their numbers are strengthened.
Captive breeding has been very successful:
"The centre first achieved international recognition for bringing the cheetah back from the brink of extinction ..."
>Another of the big concerns about cheetahs has been the illegal trafficking of cubs, fuelled by demand from the Gulf states, as reported by the BBC earlier this year.
Last I heard the Iberian Lynx was down to about 70 wild cats, with about as many again in captive breeding programs. They were on the brink of caring about genetic diversity.
a hyperbolic proposal: poachers of any endangered wildlife should be caught and released into wildlife enclosures without weapons where they can be hunted by animals for food. fund it by installing cameras and sell it as reality tv.
true. I did read the article but it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm than to express an opinion of wanting expansion of human settlements in africa to cease.
it's more socially acceptable to want poachers to come to harm
Interesting opinion. I agree that there's a common human tendency to look for someone to blame, so bringing poachers to justice might look like an easy solution rather than changing behavior. The article discusses ways of attacking the problem of range preservation.
Is the opinion of wanting poachers to come to harm (rather than be criminally penalized) one you share yourself? If not, do you have figures that back this up?
please note the use of the word 'hyperbolic' in the original post.
I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals where poaching IS the major problem.
and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they just didn't do it.
but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of prison?
Yes, you used "hyperbolic" to describe your proposed solution. Your justification of it (in your followup) shouldn't be, and that is what I was responding to. Attributing exaggerated opinions to others is one way discussions get derailed.
As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
Work towards them having assets, towards those _not_ poaching having prestige, and towards improving their lives so that they prefer staying out of prison.
It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally.
In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)
Humans are encroaching on forest lands. The recent Kurzgesagt video states that overpopulation is not a problem, which is fine statistically, but there are other implications like these.
This is an area where the startups and disrupting efforts completely fail. We read and learn from so many blog posts about "startup X is shutting down" - but what about species? Would be nice to see wildlife and animals as priority (e.g. for Ycombinator). Also, movie makers like Disney who make fortunes from animating animals, should contribute. Otherwise, the only animals we will see is a Pixar movie.
The reason there's no interest is because the primary concern for investors like YC is generating a high return on investment. No matter what feel-good stuff Sam Altman might say about YC's goals in basic income research or other non-profit initiatives, at the end of the day, they have to deliver returns to their LPs.
But Governments can. They are already spending billions of dollars and a major chunk of that goes wasted due to inefficiency, corruption, red-tape etc. The kind of stuff that big organisations like IBM or HP had that startups came and disrupted by being more efficient and nimble. Imagine if Governments can setup and run a transparent organisation like YC whose sole purpose is to promote startups in those important areas like environment conservation and clean energy without worrying about profit.
I can imagine that many startups and founders are willing to let go of their unicorn dream and jump aboard (including me).
This is a correct description of the current situation. But maybe we never explored it? Many fields which were not considered good investment opportunities, are now bringing nice returns.
People say they're against animal cruelty and express concern for the environment, but they seem unwilling to back that up with action. Could economic pressure help?
Specifically, since this is being driven by the development of farmland, does anyone know
1 - Whether eliminating agricultural subsidies would have a noticeable impact, and
Instability resulting from war or corruption leads to the collapse of enforcement of anti-poaching laws, and simultaneously encroachment by farmers and miners occurs either in a likewise lapse of enforcement or through direct sales by said corrupt sovereigns.
The only cure is a ubiquity of states which are willing and capable of protecting and rewilding these lands, restoring entire indigenous ecosystems, and halting or mitigating the destructive effects of climate change.
In regard to market forces, the US does not subsidize these grazers, unless you mean aid to their host countries.
Our complicity lies in a series of free trade agreements which pushed US production around the world while the carnivorous part of the American diet followed culturally.
As this global demand for meat already exists, the die is cast. It is a problem for culture at this point (short of dietary fascism).
Different people and different Ag subsidies. Eliminating subsidy in the west isn't going to make much of a difference to subsistence farming in Africa.
Yes it would. What many countries do with agricultural subsidies and exports is effectively dumping. It's to protect domestic farming which is a fine goal but doing this and taking crap about free trade is a joke, and it really screws undeveloped countries whose only potential competitive advantage is low cost of labour. Just look at EU farmers and all the support they get.
This article was as much about human population growth, however unstated, as it was about cheetah population decline.
If you want to see animal populations growing, look at rats, roaches, cows, and others that benefit from our lifestyles.
If you want cheetahs and other animals not to go extinct, recognize that our growth models fundamentally conflict with them. The carrying capacity of the earth for humans is higher without cheetahs than with them.
But what can we do about growth models in Africa? That's where most of wildlife seems to be.
As far as I understand, European wildlife is quite boring ever since the glaciers, and then we humans killed most of remaining megafauna. I would definitely like to see some of those restored.
Corey Knowlton was eloquent, made his point well, and really made me reconsider my conservation views in light of my opinions about how the world actually works.
tl;dr: Without an economic justification, species are destined to go extinct. Ecologically managed trophy hunting (e.g. culling older animals) provides one such incentive. Hand wringing and then subsequently forgetting about {insert endangered news species of the day} provides zero incentive.
Every time I visit my home Nairobi, I am grateful for the country not giving out wildlife land to make a quick buck. Seeing reserve parks the size of cities with animals in the wild is breathtaking.
But with big parks and poor Kenyans, it's fairly easily for someone to pay $10000 to kill an endangered animal. Rhinos, lions, elephants and now cheetahs.
56 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadhttp://www.wildlifesafari.net/cheetah.html
"...Wildlife Safari began breeding cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in 1972 and successfully produced a litter the following year. Since then, 178 cheetahs have been born at the park."
We drove down there once from Eugene, and my parents' crappy VW bus, which was always breaking down, broke down right in the middle of the lion area. Luckily, they are equipped for these things and they towed us out.
Caring about big cats that ended up in the US: https://bigcatrescue.org/
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/index
(Sir David Attenborough is one of the patrons.)
I never understood how you can claim to "own" something like land in some African crisis regions- where the "ownership" totally depends upon the current Regents poplar agenda and is heavily taxed with corruption & extortion.
Who invests into such monetary black holes?
Not as bad as some parts of africa though.
I have looked into some of the wildlife charities in the past and many of them have not done as well as one would hope and this is in part because it doesn't really solve the underlying problem.
Yes it is probably outrageous but increased urbanization and education in Africa would be the best thing for Africa.
IMO give money to charities that help build infrastructure, and education.
Even food and agriculture charities will massively help as many have no choice but to eat bushmeat [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmeat
Without making a value judgement, the uncomfortable reality is that there are too many people and the most effective policy would be one that addresses human over-population.
Yes people could conceivably reduce their foot print by urbanising, but economic growth also has environmental impact - and probably in some unforeseen ways in the region.
The need for population control policy has been discussed many times on HN. Some argue technology can fix the problem as well as education others are more to the extreme saying we need almost draconian enforcement.
Many scifi writers have explored extreme (and dubious) urbanization which include carbon nano towers (Arthur C Clark Space Odyssey some year I don't remember).
Historically urbanization has a cultural impact on lowering reproduction (source needed but I recall reading it I think in the Economist). That is you may not need as much policy as you might think.
There are different levels of industrialization and modernization. Do I think technology can improve things and be more efficient ... I do.
Do I think Africa should become like the early industrial revolution... I do not... But I do think it can have modern cities and that in general it would help... I do.
http://dewildt.co.za/how-can-i-help/
Cheetah project not far from my home city. They're pretty much the most successful cheetah breeding operation there is. (The habitat situation is dire enough that in captivity breeding is the only viable option left).
Bit annoyed that their site doesn't have a convenient donate button though...will mail them about that.
How likely is that to fail, and how detrimental would it be to individual cheetahs?
Cheetahs aren't like pidgeons they're predators and the best place for them is in the wild.
The problem is this then that they go after life stock and be killed for it. In Namibia there are NGOs that for free, will take them off you.
Of course the problem remains you've lost your livestock and people want revenge. It's the same story for African wild dogs (perhaps the most successful predators).
The best place is in the wild, but the worst place is as stuffed relics in museums. When their numbers dwindle low enough, I'd expect the species would be lost to unsustainable inbreeding producing compounded birth defects.
Incidental taming and domestication as a side effect of preserving the species might be better than no species at all. At least habituation to human contact is a reversible process. Rendering a species feral becomes an option, once their numbers are strengthened.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Wildt_Cheetah_and_Wildlife_...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_bison
In that case, essentially all eater share blame proportional to the energy and land efficiency of the food type they eat.
Interesting opinion. I agree that there's a common human tendency to look for someone to blame, so bringing poachers to justice might look like an easy solution rather than changing behavior. The article discusses ways of attacking the problem of range preservation.
Is the opinion of wanting poachers to come to harm (rather than be criminally penalized) one you share yourself? If not, do you have figures that back this up?
I guess my point was driven by thoughts around preservation of endangered animals in general rather than just this specific case. There are animals where poaching IS the major problem.
and I guess i don't want specific harm done to them, i would much rather they just didn't do it.
but what does 'criminally penalized' look like in your opinion when the poachers might have no assets to fine, no reputation to lose and no fear of prison?
As for criminal penalties for poachers, I'd want to learn a lot more about the situation before weighing in. That said, prison can serve multiple purposes, one being a deterrent, and another, preventing future infractions by removing the individual from society. The latter is congruent, at least in part, with your desire that they don't poach.
It may be different up in the chain of 'command', but those doing the poaching (typically) aren't evil people; they just want to make a living. In other ways: they aren't criminals, they act criminally.
In this case, tourism may be part of a good answer. Rich westerners pay good money for seeing cheetahs. There may be more money there than in agriculture on those poor grounds. It may not work for cheetahs, though, because they need so much room (and in the case of Iran, other changes may be needed to get tourism going)
I can imagine that many startups and founders are willing to let go of their unicorn dream and jump aboard (including me).
Specifically, since this is being driven by the development of farmland, does anyone know
1 - Whether eliminating agricultural subsidies would have a noticeable impact, and
2 - How likely that is to happen?
Look at cats and dogs not going extinct. Of course, it's not 'wild animal' friendly.
The only cure is a ubiquity of states which are willing and capable of protecting and rewilding these lands, restoring entire indigenous ecosystems, and halting or mitigating the destructive effects of climate change.
In regard to market forces, the US does not subsidize these grazers, unless you mean aid to their host countries.
Our complicity lies in a series of free trade agreements which pushed US production around the world while the carnivorous part of the American diet followed culturally.
As this global demand for meat already exists, the die is cast. It is a problem for culture at this point (short of dietary fascism).
If you want to see animal populations growing, look at rats, roaches, cows, and others that benefit from our lifestyles.
If you want cheetahs and other animals not to go extinct, recognize that our growth models fundamentally conflict with them. The carrying capacity of the earth for humans is higher without cheetahs than with them.
As far as I understand, European wildlife is quite boring ever since the glaciers, and then we humans killed most of remaining megafauna. I would definitely like to see some of those restored.
Corey Knowlton was eloquent, made his point well, and really made me reconsider my conservation views in light of my opinions about how the world actually works.
tl;dr: Without an economic justification, species are destined to go extinct. Ecologically managed trophy hunting (e.g. culling older animals) provides one such incentive. Hand wringing and then subsequently forgetting about {insert endangered news species of the day} provides zero incentive.
But with big parks and poor Kenyans, it's fairly easily for someone to pay $10000 to kill an endangered animal. Rhinos, lions, elephants and now cheetahs.