regional exclusivity

[LARTIS]

regional exclusivity

what is ur opinion

what r the pros and what the cons

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

 

[AWP]

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

I think mass travel can be a threat, so it has be regulated to some point. However, I think for many countries, natural areas and wildlife tourists are very needed.

I read an article about Parque Nacional Corcovado in Costa Rica yesterday. For me it is one of the star examples of good conservation in Central America with a large protected area of forests, mangroves and coastal areas that still contains large animals like jaguars, pumas, white-lipped peccaries, harpy eagles and scarlet macaws. However, due to the current pandemic there isn't any income from tourists resulting in weak law enforcement due to lack of governmental money, rise of illegal hunting and gold prospecting within the national park. I hope I won't offend anyone with this, but it shows how depended a country like Costa Rica - which I regard as one of the most developed countries in the region - and its people still are from tourists and how fragile nature conservation is over there. I haven't heard any stories of the mentioned problems Corvocado has to deal with for let's say Yellowstone, Kakadu or De Hoge Veluwe.

Some weeks ago I saw a documentary about the jaguars of the Pantanal. It showed multiple boats with many tourists on a river looking and waiting around a hunting jaguar. It seemed to me a huge disturbance of the animal, although it looked liked the jaguar wasn't that bothered with the tourists. It reminded me of my visit to Kruger, with five or so jeeps speeding to one place and crowding around an active leopard. On the other hand, the high touristic value of the jaguars in the Pantanal gives income to the local people and most important a very good reason to protect the species and its environment, so the jaguar population (and also other species like caiman) is thriving, although the recent bush fires are a real threat.

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

I strongly believe countries have the right to protect their national natural heritage in the case of captive animals, in the way Australia does with very strict regulations of the export (although it seems a bit more loose nowadays with the platypuses of San Diego, the quolls of Leipzig and all those species that English zoo acquired). However, it is easier to accept that a country like Australia with an extensive system of national parks and high standard zoos and wildlife parks claim native species than that a country does it that lacks opportunities for good in situ and local ex situ actions on wildlife.

The chytridomycosis crisis in the neotropics is a good example how western countries can support countries with lesser economic possibilities. It is very good that institutions like Manchester Museum or Atlanta took species like harlequin frogs or lemur leaf frogs in their collections and started captive breeding programms, but it equally important that European and US zoos funded local centra for amphibian conservation and captive programms in the neotropics like I have seen in Panama and Ecuador.

 

[Jurek7]

I am not sure what exactly you mean.

If you mean that a country should have exclusivity on its animals, it is dangerous for animals survival. If a country can protect its wildlife well, it can allow regulated export. If not, it is killing its wildlife and preventing others from helping.

There is one case that renting of giant pandas let China apparently get some money for conservation. However, the giant panda is probably the only animal which is so popular. Even then, zoos willing to cover the cost of great pandas must actively pumping up expectations as something very special. Chinese tried the same with golden snub-nosed monkeys and it failed. There are many cases where animals got extinct with a ban of export, like Javan tigers.

Generally, countries have too high opinion of popular interest abroad in their wildlife, too high opinion of their own ability to protect wildlife, and underestimate local threats.

Me, too, I am very afraid what remains of big animals and nature reserves abroad a year of two in future, when tourists will not be coming. I guess even if tourists will come in future (which is uncertain) there will be no more animals or national parks left.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

regional exclusivity

what is ur opinion

what r the pros and what the cons

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

The issues surrounding eco-tourism and whether it actually undermines conservation in a wider sense are very complex and in many cases these critics do have very valid points regarding tourism being a double edged sword.

I can quite understand why there are critics who state that the practice of jetting off to a distant land to see wildlife just adds to a wider carbon footprint and also that mass tourism in protected areas negatively impacts the environment of these places.

However, I also strongly believe that eco-tourism when done right and thoroughly planned is actually a lifeline for many conservation programes, protected areas and species conservation programes and that without it many areas would simply be swallowed up by urbanization , agriculture or logged to oblivion and the species would vanish.

Take a look at Madagascar for example, recently several NGO's have actually stated that the best way to contribute to conservation in Madagascar is to visit the island and its protected areas because of how reliant conservation there is on ecotourism.

 

[MRJ]

The issues surrounding eco-tourism and whether it actually undermines conservation in a wider sense are very complex and in many cases these critics do have very valid points regarding tourism being a double edged sword.

I can quite understand why there are critics who state that the practice of jetting off to a distant land to see wildlife just adds to a wider carbon footprint and also that mass tourism in protected areas negatively impacts the environment of these places.

However, I also strongly believe that eco-tourism when done right and thoroughly planned is actually a lifeline for many conservation programes, protected areas and species conservation programes and that without it many areas would simply be swallowed up by urbanization , agriculture or logged to oblivion and the species would vanish.

Take a look at Madagascar for example, recently several NGO's have actually stated that the best way to contribute to conservation in Madagascar is to visit the island and its protected areas because of how reliant conservation there is on ecotourism.

It would be interesting to work our how much carbon is trapped by protected areas that need ecotourists to survive against how much carbon is expended getting there. Also on top of that ecotourists are more likely to undertake mitigation measures.

I think this pandemic may be a disaster for wildlife worldwide. I've heard nothing good.

 

[MRJ]

I strongly believe countries have the right to protect their national natural heritage in the case of captive animals, in the way Australia does with very strict regulations of the export (although it seems a bit more loose nowadays with the platypuses of San Diego, the quolls of Leipzig and all those species that English zoo acquired). However, it is easier to accept that a country like Australia with an extensive system of national parks and high standard zoos and wildlife parks claim native species than that a country does it that lacks opportunities for good in situ and local ex situ actions on wildlife.

Just by way of information any animal exported from Australia must be captive bred. Interestingly it makes it difficult when an overseas zoo wants a common species that Australian zoos don't bother to breed.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

regional exclusivity

what is ur opinion

what r the pros and what the cons

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

I don't really understand what you mean by "can a nation ever claim a species ?".

Regarding "claiming a species" who are you implying does this ?

Are you suggesting this is done by the government of the range country where a species occurs or by zoos or conservationists or by the people of the country themselves ?

If you mean the government of the range country where a species occurs in the wild then naturally the policy makers of a country have to make "claims" and impose national laws / legislation / regulations regarding the status of a species in order to effectively conserve it.

Ideally the country in question will in turn abide by international law and the legislative guidelines set out by both the IUCN and CITES.

I think that it is ultimately often helpful if the government of the range country of an endemic species "claims" a species as its own as this implies a level of recognition of the endemicity of the species and an economic / cultural / political valuation of the animal or plant rather than an indifference to its plight (though this can be taken to extremes, get bogged down in bureaucracy and be very unhelpful).

In terms of species kept in zoos outside of the range country and the question of ownership I'll give an example of this issue that I think illustrates the situation well.

It has long been the policy of the Jersey zoo / Durrell Trust in the UK that when they bring species which requires ex-situ captive breeding they officially recognise that the individuals of the species coming to the zoo belong to the government of the range country where they occur in the wild.

So for example the black lion tamarins at Jersey zoo are officially recognized as being owned by the government of Brazil and the aye-ayes, Lac Alaotra lemurs and giant jumping rats as being owned by the government of Madagascar while the Livingstone's fruitbats being owned by the government of the Comoros Islands and so on.

This is backed up by long-term support both financial, logistical / capacity building and in training conservationists for the in-situ conservation of the species in question. I personally think that this really is the best option in terms of taking a species into captivity outside its native range country.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

It would be interesting to work our how much carbon is trapped by protected areas that need ecotourists to survive against how much carbon is expended getting there. Also on top of that ecotourists are more likely to undertake mitigation measures.

I think this pandemic may be a disaster for wildlife worldwide. I've heard nothing good.

Yes, would be interesting to know this indeed.

I suspect that the pandemic and the fallout will be a disaster for biodiversity too and very sadly this will be particularly the case in megabiodiverse countries like Brazil and Madagascar.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

regional exclusivity

what is ur opinion

what r the pros and what the cons

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

The issue of "what if a country fails to protect nature properly" is another one that is very complex and I think it is context dependent.

There are many countries in the "third / developing" world which genuinely struggle with both sustainably meeting the demands of their often impoverished population and in conserving biodiversity at the same time. The sad irony of course is that these are often mega-diverse countries which hold enormous amounts of the world's biodiversity.

Ideally IMO the wealthier nations of the world have a moral / ethical duty to bolster and assist both poverty alleviation and sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity in these countries.

Multilateral treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) set out to address and tackle these issues and to implement national and international strategies to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable development. Some progress has been made over the years but evidently not enough.

In regards to countries which fail to protect biodiversity that is another complex issue and again context dependent but I'll give an example.

In the case of Brazil for example I am very much in favour of what has been suggested internationally of steep perhaps even crippling economic sanctions being imposed on the country due to its shameless ongoing involvement in the destruction of the Amazon, Atlantic rainforest, Pantanal and Cerrado ecosystems.

Bolsonaro's comments about the imposition of sanctions being "colonialism" / "neocolonialism" really make me laugh as the way he employs that term so cynically and self servingly is really quite cringeworthily pathetic. The truth is that Bolsonaro loves and admires the history of European colonialism and is particularly enamoured with American neocolonialism and says as much himself so those comments are a load of bull****.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

regional exclusivity

what is ur opinion

what r the pros and what the cons

do u think the reason to draw in more tourists is valid or is mass travel rather a threat not just because of the carbon footprint but also the threat bigger numbers of people d cause to a natural refuge like galapagos

can a nation even claim a species

what if they fail to protect nature properly

do other parties have the right to take specimen for a captive breeding programm out of mentioned country

with education a key element of zoological and botanical garden d we argue that all people around the globe have the same right to experience certain species

If you are suggesting in your question whether a failure of a government to protect biodiversity may entail other parties to take specimens out of a country for ex-situ captive breeding programe then I would say that this is conditional / situational but in some cases and when done with the consent and encouragement of the government in question then yes.

That said, ex-situ captive breeding programes in a zoo outside of the range country should only really be seen as the last resort as far as conservation goes and should only be done when all other options have been exhausted and the risk of extinction of the species imminent.

What is a far more effective strategy is for zoos to heavily support in both financial, logistical and capacity building / training terms the in-situ effort to conserve a species or ex-situ but within the range country and over the long-term.

 

[AWP]

If a country can protect its wildlife well, it can allow regulated export.

I agree with that, that's what I meant with my example of Australia. The option that @Onychorhynchus coronatus wrote - endangered animals owned by a country and on loan in zoos of other countries - is a good alternative if local opportunies for captive breeding etc are limited.

 

[LARTIS]

sorry my display is very small idk how to answer everybody at the same time
here so explicate what i meant

sorry i was not online until now
my original intention was that there were several thoughts that came to my mind that caused me to see some arguments from different perspectives and i tried to evaluate how to weight each of them
i had not a clear defined opinion yet

but to offer some insight of my opinion
shorten
i d like to have people all over the world to the same acces to education
not all can travel

no animal or other species can be claimed in term we care for them represent those that do not have a voice but since we do not know for sure we d allways remember we try our best

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

no animal or other species can be claimed in term we care for them represent those that do not have a voice but since we do not know for sure we d allways remember we try our best

Ok, I'm not sure I understand what you mean

 

[LARTIS]

coronatus, post: 1286123, member: 16208"]Ok, I'm not sure I understand what you mean [/QUOTE]

sorry i did not elaborate
in terms of rights for other species
i d state that another creature can not be a property
the only parties allowed to keep and act should be professional institutions like zoos botanical gardens and conservation organisations
sorry if i missed a group

 

[LARTIS]

i also wanted to thank everybody that reacted and shared their opinion
i found all posts valid and very informative
i was not familiar with all shared information
sorry i sound like a grandpa any way

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

coronatus, post: 1286123, member: 16208"]Ok, I'm not sure I understand what you mean

sorry i did not elaborate
in terms of rights for other species
i d state that another creature can not be a property
the only parties allowed to keep and act should be professional institutions like zoos botanical gardens and conservation organisations
sorry if i missed a group[/QUOTE]

Well I don't disagree with you on that but I'm not sure how that relates to your questions.

 

[LARTIS]

a clarification
i did not wanted to begin with a statement that i d not deliver when i feel too ambivalent about the concept
also i tried to keep this the shortest version possible to keep and enable an owerview
please keep in mind a text of mine can be interpreated differently

my main question or thesis was
is regional exclusivitj justified

i originally thought of a comparison like to out weight and enable an opinion
some pros and cons might be missing
this was the reason i asked for an opinion

pro
protection against potential objectification of a living creature within a global animal trade

less competitation for the local conservation tourism
more of a gurantee the species d actually get protected and safed along their natural habitat

quick availability and concwntration for research reproduction and rewild projects

con
people globaly benefit
along the species themself
from the education and experience of the exhibition outside their native range
(here the specific question in comparison to the animal welfare fir sure do human all over the world have the same right to experience an animal encounter first hand)

not all people can afford a to travel

potential paradox of an increaded threat for the species and their enviorment because of
a global warming
b pollution might that be trash or sound and stress thru human presence

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

a clarification
i did not wanted to begin with a statement that i d not deliver when i feel too ambivalent about the concept
also i tried to keep this the shortest version possible to keep and enable an owerview
please keep in mind a text of mine can be interpreated differently

my main question or thesis was
is regional exclusivitj justified

i originally thought of a comparison like to out weight and enable an opinion
some pros and cons might be missing
this was the reason i asked for an opinion

pro
protection against potential objectification of a living creature within a global animal trade

less competitation for the local conservation tourism
more of a gurantee the species d actually get protected and safed along their natural habitat

quick availability and concwntration for research reproduction and rewild projects

con
people globaly benefit
along the species themself
from the education and experience of the exhibition outside their native range
(here the specific question in comparison to the animal welfare fir sure do human all over the world have the same right to experience an animal encounter first hand)

not all people can afford a to travel

potential paradox of an increaded threat for the species and their enviorment because of
a global warming
b pollution might that be trash or sound and stress thru human presence

As I said in my posts there are benefits to both strategies and these must be viewed holistically and should not be viewed reductively.

Conservation is incredibly complex and never can be encapsulated within a simplified and myopic box like narrative, this is what animal rights activists do and that erroneous way of thinking should be left to them.

Sometimes regional exclusivity is justified and sometimes it is self limiting and defeats the objective of conservation. It is not a question that has one answer and the answer will be different according to different contexts and situations.

Again, questions of moral philosophy are interesting and often deeply relevant for consideration and for debate but lets not forget that conservation is a crisis discipline and action is required.

We cannot afford to get to bogged down in metaphysics or ivory tower navel gazing which just leads to platitudes and words not deeds at such a critical time of biodiversity crisis.

 

[LARTIS]

I do agree mostly if not entirely.

My critic is not targeted at you.
I seeked more information to be able to built a personal opinion.

The concept is very complex and probably too much to handle on a general philosophical level on here.

I do have to state i struggle to maintain an overview, but think a lack of consistancy is not just annoying but also a potential threat to conservation.

I find it difficult to draw a line. The justification within this if i got this right depends on the personal opions of certain people in charge and those might not just fail the conservation purpose but also the navigation of the ethical compound.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I do agree mostly if not entirely.
My critic is not targeted at u.
I seeked more information to be able to built a personal opinion.

The concept is very complex and probably too much to handle on a general philosophical level on here.

I do have to state i struggle to maintain an overview, but think a lack of consistancy is not just annoying but also a potential threat to conservation.

I find it difficult to draw a line. The justification within this if i got this right depends on the personal opions of certain people in charge and those might not just fail the conservation purpose but also the navigation of the ethical compound.

Yes I didn't take it as a criticism really and I hope you also didn't take my comment as an outright criticism as it was more a constructive criticism.

I have to say I do struggle to read your writing style but I gathered from your comment in the other thread that it is due to the device you are using so I guess that is understandable.

I think that the asking of questions and questioning is essential and imperative in conservation as we must avoid the errors of the past and exercise critical thinking but I also feel that we cannot be dominated and overwhelmed by questioning so that it stultifies and encourages inaction.

It is quite hard to articulate really but I think that academics / researchers sometimes forget that the purpose of conservation is to conserve and if we just take the dictionary definition of the word conserve it is a verb and that implies and necessitates action.

It strongly reminds me of the line from the Kipling poem "If" :

"If you can think—and yet not make thoughts your aim"