Coexistence of humans and animals

A document has been signed by many public figures in which they call to stop the import of anytrophies from trophy hunters, certainly when they kill endangered animals. I agree, those wealthy trophy hunters should not abuse the fact that many countries where these animals live are poor and need money (sometimes for the pockets of corrupt politicians). But I think it should go further whereby trophy hunters should know that they can't return to their own country after their hunt because upon arrival in their own country they will be arrested on charges that they are partly to blame for the extinction of animal species, even when they're royal.

Relation developed versus developing countries
But I realise we should not condemn countries where endangered but also potentially extremely dangerous animals live such as lions and tigers, elephants and rhinos when they decide the animal population became too large, certainly in the face of their growing population.

The Netherlands
Indeed, when western countries such as the Netherlands are not able to manage just over 2000 deer and find it necessary to kill about 4/5 of the population then yes, African countries may have much bigger reasons to control their wildlife populations, although often by transporting animals from one region with too many to another region with too few animals and thus also potentially increasing the gene diversity. Of course, we should try to convince them not to do as the West did with their past (and current) wildlife but who are we to condemn those countries who kill, often to protect their own citizens and food.

Magnificent deer in Richmond Park, London
United Kingdom
Similar in the UK where badgers are killed with the argument this must happen to protect cows against bovine tuberculosis that may be spread via the badgers although it's more complex as killing not sufficient numbers of badgers may even help the spread of the disease. Yes, scientists should be involved to find solutions so both cows and badgers can coexist. Because, disrupt the natural order and something else may come (such as overpopulation of animals that were kept under control by badgers) until a new natural order returns. We know from history. And, to be honest, in the past mad cow disease infected cows and now bovine tuberculosis, the likelihood that our industrial farming methods with focus on a few species of cows (and other animals) that are most profitable and kept in overpopulated  stables may be largely to blame whereby continuous inbreeding results in a group of animals that are all vulnerable to certain diseases.

In Belgium certain areas have problems with growing numbers of wild boar that destroy people's garden. Indeed, they were extinct but after their reintroduction there are now too many and people want to stop them, a contraception may be a solution to control the population. When this problem was discussed on the radio, the response to the journalist's question why no fences are built around the reserve, the response of someone working for a wildlife organisation was that people want to visit the parks but a fence would block their access and thus each individual household should have its own fence. It almost sounded that this person wants that people ask dramatic actions such as killing the animals.

In a fence doors can be included that open inwards so people can enter the reserve at certain places (while the doors can close automatically) where also parking can be present while animals can't escape the enclosure easily. I do accept the argument that boars (and other animals) can make holes under the fence and thus can escape. Still, when sufficient space is available to find food than it's more likely the animals will remain within their dedicated area.
Further and to enlarge the space for the animals, the fence can connect different reserves, sometimes via narrow passages between two towns or a bridge over dangerous roads, even between neighbouring countries so animals can move safely from one area to another so they have larger areas to find food and as a result mix their genes with other groups to prevent too much inbreeding while causing less damage so people's property.
In addition, as recently wolfs arrived in that area in Limburg, they can keep populations of wild boar under control while fences will reduce the possibility wolfs come in contact with humans or people will demand the wolfs are killed, certainly when they kill cheep.
Of course, in regions with few inhabitants, fences are not necessary as is already in many countries because we don't want to spoil our views with fences everywhere while we want to have a feeling there is still real wilderness. 
Finally, building permissions should take into account that certain areas are for wildlife while others are for humans, a real challenge in certain parts of the world. But if Western countries are unable to build fences in such a way that sufficient numbers of animals can survive via the use of their natural instinct, i.e. migration to find food, than we need to continue to kill large numbers of animals because they have insufficient space to find food while we should not ask developing countries to have large natural habitats whereby sometimes fences are needed to protect both animals and humans against each other.

Lungs of the earth
There are still a few major forest areas (such as in Russia, Brazil, Canada, USA and China although Australia follows closely) left in the world that produce our oxygen although we should not forget also grass fields and even oceans produce oxygen while remove CO2 from the air. Some of these can be found in Africa and Asia, all with large numbers of living creatures large and small. I agree with people who say that the rest of the world should also pay to preserve these areas as these can be considered as wasted land for the concerned countries in terms of our current economic models; newer models already take into account that tourism, including to nature reserves, is a major contributor to wealth.

But, as the latest elections in Brazil show, with each change of political leader we risk that a politician rises who promised during the campaign economic growth at the expense of what are one of the last remaining untouched nature. Therefore, we may suggest some financial compensation to keep large areas of the Amazon. Still, we should not only rely on regions elsewhere but have our own projects to restore nature that has been destroyed by previous generations and this includes both woodland and open areas. It all seems so easy while we know it's so difficult in practice because each small project that stimulates the economy is preferred above the longer benefit of more protection of nature. On the other hand, due to new economies such as renewable energy and paperless administration, less space will be needed for industry and thus what comes available should be used to restore nature (partly because it's cheaper) than to clean all polluted ground for housing (of course, too polluted needs cleaning).

The circle closes
And thus, we arrive back where this article started because one of our own projects should be the prohibition of the destruction in other parts of the world of land and oceans and the lives they support (unless approved because they aim to protect people against for instance flooding) by our own people and thus punishment for those who destroy such as hunting endangered (but even other) animals. This way we decide to contribute to the protection of life on this planet while we try to prevent financially and by reason that other countries destroy their natural habitat that should be from everyone but in addition to rebuild our own habitat (as we already try to do) so we too contribute directly to life on this planet and depend less on others.

Note: Art and natural materials such as ivory
And remember, an object is not art because it is from ivory but because someone sculptured something out the original ivory. Thus, something remains art when someone sculptured something out of plastic that looks like ivory. But I accept, mass production of an object in plastic is possible while this is not possible with the natural material that is ivory. But real artists want to produce art, whether it can be sold or not as it is about being creative.
Art in plastic by Paulo


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality