My good friend Angeline just sent me a very interesting article. It is definitely from an economist point of view pointing at wildlife professionals and environmentalists. Extremists in both don't want to compromise that the best solution is a sustainable one. You all can read the article for yourselves, but I thought I'd give you my take one what they are saying.
I don't necessarily agree with hunting all of the time...especially for sport, and I'm not saying it is right, but sustainable use is the best way to preserve any kind of resource. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Endangered species at least need to be protected until populations reach a level of sustainable use--and can subsequently be removed from lists/protection (i.e. wolves and bears in the US are a good example). Then, the world needs to agree upon and enforce sustainable use.
The editorial mentions the "other reasons" that species are endangered, but it doesn't discuss the importance of addressing those "other reasons".
I do agree that wildlife needs to be viewed as more valuable to man, but I don't agree with their use of the term sustainable exploitation. They do bring up a point about what they are terming sustainable exploitation in that it makes money and saves species. Tourism, which they mention, is a way to allow people to view wildlife in a more valuable manner, but not once their population levels reach carrying capacity.
I do agree with the statement that many groups are more concerned with the harm to individuals than a population, and once again, I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, but a happy medium works for everyone including the wildlife and other resources. We wildlife professionals, if I can term myself one because of my academic background, are being taught to understand carrying capacity and sustainability. We also discuss what is known as the Bambi Effect. After the movie Bambi was released, there was a large anti-hunting and not just wildlife, but animal, protection movement. I'm not saying those movements didn't help with monumental legislation and aren't still helping, but in order to maintain a healthy population, carrying capacity must not be breached, which leads us to the most sustainable solution that is use in a manner that allows the population to continue and remain fit. Fitness, in biological terms, does not mean being the toughest in the group, but it is the ability to reproduce viable offspring and continue a population. If carrying capacity is reached, it is just as dangerous and inhumane as slaughtering entire populations because that is, in a sense what it does...it destroys populations in what is known as a crashing population.
I'm not sure if I agree with their statement about lifting bans to save species. Lifting bans to bring populations back to or below their carrying capacity is one thing, but I do not believe it is right to lift bans on populations that can not sustain themselves. If a population can not sustain itself, then that defeats the purpose of sustainable use...or in their terms...sustainable exploitation (I don't like that term...).
Sustainable use of populations and individuals allows for us to use resources effectively, but also maintain them for future generations of wildlife and human populations including poverty stricken areas. Sustainable use of populations also allows for a very important aspect that is forgotten in everyday life...biodiversity. Biodiversity is what maintains the ability for populations, communities, and biomes to adapt to change. Biodiversity can be termed as genetic diversity, but is not necessarily limited to that. So, it is important that we work together to create a sustainable future...for the right reasons.
What are your thoughts OT blog?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Sustainability in the Eyes of an Economist?
Labels:
biodiversity,
carrying capacity,
economics,
sustainable use
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I side with the utilitarian perspective that it is important to discern what is best for the entire population of a species. There are many instances where killing (or allowing the killing of) an individual animal is better for the entire species. (This could lead to a social argument if we project this philosophy to humans, but I'll leave that for another day.) Hunting in America has helped preserve some habitats because the fees for hunting contribute to land preservation (and hunters sometimes lobby to preserve their prey's habitat.) On the other hand, some people destroy habitats and biodiversity by importing exotic deer and changing habitats so they can make money by providing a luxurious hunting experience to some rich hunters.
In general, economic tools (like the one mentioned in the article) are necessary to help protect natural areas and biodiversity. But their implementation and regulation is tricky. It is equally important that we create a greater awareness of and appreciation of natural areas and life on Earth.
The editorial reminded me of a documentary I saw many years ago. It was also on elephants and compared the situation in Kenya (open flat land) with Zaire (brush and hills). Zaire was allowing hunting because tourist could not see the elephants. Dr. Cynthia Moss critized this as "elephant ranching". Still, the article shows that we have tough choices in many of the environmental issues.
Post a Comment