Pantheraman
Well-Known Member
Recently I was reading about the wildlife conservancy model practiced in some African countries, those being Kenya, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania. And about their effectiveness in protecting wildlife and simultaneously improving livelihoods. How effective are these conservancies exactly?
Here's how:
"The scale and success of these community conservancies on the only continent where large mammals still run free across huge stretches of land is still a largely untold story. But a new analysis from Maliasili, a Vermont-based NGO dedicated to bolstering local African conservation initiatives, demonstrates for the first time the full extent to which wildlife is often more effectively protected within conservancies than within state-run national parks."
How African Communities Are Taking Lead on Protecting Wildlife.
Looking into this community-led conservation model adopted in these African countries, I firmly believe we should adopt this model in the United States.
Yes, we have a wildlife refuge system that covers an area at least as big, if not bigger than the state of Montana, and yes, we have a large national park system. And yes, we've managed to recover many formerly endangered species.
However, the national parks and wildlife refuge system are government-ran areas. As such they're at the mercy of a current administration, and it's no secret that politicians are puppets to the special interest groups and corporations who hire lobbyists to basically bribe them into doing their bidding. The National Wildlife Refuge System is already chronically underfunded and understaffed and now will be even more understaffed with the layoffs of several biologists and wildlife professionals from the USFWS. Plus, with more controversial species such as wolves, grizzlies, and bison, sure, people are fine with them being inside the park, but naturally animals don't stay within national parks as their populations get bigger and expand. And human-wildlife conflict is bound to happen, and it doesn't help that we're living in a time when state legislatures who are also puppets to special interests think they know better than biologists and wildlife professionals at making wildlife management decisions. Leading to the Rocky Mountain states declaring wars on wolves and in the case of Utah, cougars. And recently, the state of Wyoming tried passing legislation that would create an open season on cougars, but thankfully enough people spoke out against it and it failed to advance.
Community conservancies on the other hand, aren't government-ran, they're community-ran. And let's be honest, the people care more about wildlife than the politicians do, and based on that alone, I'd argue a conservancy model might be more effective in wildlife protection than both national parks and the refuge system. As is the case in the African countries with conservancy models.
True, an American conservancy model wouldn't be an exact clone of the African model. After all, both culture and poverty levels differ between the two places. But they'd be similar, in that with the American model, large areas would be protected by a community for wildlife conservation and other land uses (sustainable obviously) and would be funded by both hunting and wildlife watching.
Anyway, what are you're thoughts on this?
Here's how:
"The scale and success of these community conservancies on the only continent where large mammals still run free across huge stretches of land is still a largely untold story. But a new analysis from Maliasili, a Vermont-based NGO dedicated to bolstering local African conservation initiatives, demonstrates for the first time the full extent to which wildlife is often more effectively protected within conservancies than within state-run national parks."
How African Communities Are Taking Lead on Protecting Wildlife.
Looking into this community-led conservation model adopted in these African countries, I firmly believe we should adopt this model in the United States.
Yes, we have a wildlife refuge system that covers an area at least as big, if not bigger than the state of Montana, and yes, we have a large national park system. And yes, we've managed to recover many formerly endangered species.
However, the national parks and wildlife refuge system are government-ran areas. As such they're at the mercy of a current administration, and it's no secret that politicians are puppets to the special interest groups and corporations who hire lobbyists to basically bribe them into doing their bidding. The National Wildlife Refuge System is already chronically underfunded and understaffed and now will be even more understaffed with the layoffs of several biologists and wildlife professionals from the USFWS. Plus, with more controversial species such as wolves, grizzlies, and bison, sure, people are fine with them being inside the park, but naturally animals don't stay within national parks as their populations get bigger and expand. And human-wildlife conflict is bound to happen, and it doesn't help that we're living in a time when state legislatures who are also puppets to special interests think they know better than biologists and wildlife professionals at making wildlife management decisions. Leading to the Rocky Mountain states declaring wars on wolves and in the case of Utah, cougars. And recently, the state of Wyoming tried passing legislation that would create an open season on cougars, but thankfully enough people spoke out against it and it failed to advance.
Community conservancies on the other hand, aren't government-ran, they're community-ran. And let's be honest, the people care more about wildlife than the politicians do, and based on that alone, I'd argue a conservancy model might be more effective in wildlife protection than both national parks and the refuge system. As is the case in the African countries with conservancy models.
True, an American conservancy model wouldn't be an exact clone of the African model. After all, both culture and poverty levels differ between the two places. But they'd be similar, in that with the American model, large areas would be protected by a community for wildlife conservation and other land uses (sustainable obviously) and would be funded by both hunting and wildlife watching.
Anyway, what are you're thoughts on this?
