Cheetahs heading towards extinction as population crashes
bbc.com
bbc.com
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.
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?
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).
Look at cats and dogs not going extinct. Of course, it's not 'wild animal' friendly.
http://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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can imagine that many startups and founders are willing to let go of their unicorn dream and jump aboard (including me).
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_...
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)