BBC Bias : Kaziranga: The park that shoots people to protect rhinos

[peter]

VINAY

1 - Your position and our response

For those interested in finding them, the article about Kaziranga can be seen as an expression of a cultural bias of some kind. Others, however, might see it as an attempt to start a debate about a conservation policy that can have severe consequences for some. It depends on your view, that is.

If you decide the article is just another expression of a bias, the debate will focus on the differences between the east and the west. If you decide the article is an attempt to start a debate about a conservation policy that resulted in human casualties, the debate will focus on the policy.

You decided the article was an expression of a cultural bias of some kind. You also asked for a response. This means you are willing to use a forum dedicated to the natural world to discuss an issue that should be debated elsewhere.

It also means you willingly ignored forum rules. I added 'willingly', because it wasn't the first time. You have been involved in problems since you joined the forum. As a result, you have been warned more than once. When the warnings had no effect, you were banned for a week. Again it had no effect.

It could be others have a different opinion, but I'm done with you. This forum was started by people interested in animals, not something else. We don't want our forum hijacked and we don't want to nanny members who don't care about rules all the time. 

2 - The issues raised in your posts

I identified two: human animosity (referring to cultural bias) and the consequences of a conservation policy.

2a - Human animosity

This is a non-issue. Every constitution in every country says humans deserve equal chances. Those involved in constitutions stated that race, colour, religion and ideas should have no influence whatsoever. How clear can you get?

The example set by wise men a few centuries ago, most unfortunately, had few results. Preconceived ideas about race, colour, religion and ideas still thoroughly affect the lives of many millions. In the west, debates about race, colour, culture, religion and ideas erupted nearly everywhere. The result is conflicts all over the place and it's not likely that it will ever stop. One could also say that those paid to uphold the law are failing miserably. Same for many politicians. I would get to a bloody shame, but this is humans for you. 

As for the 'media'. In the west, the days of government and sound decisions for the sake of all are past and gone. Today, just like before, it's everyone for himself. We all know what to expect and have not been disappointed in any way. News, like anything else, now is considered a product you can use to affects opinions or make money and that, apart from a few notable exceptions, is exactly what firms involved in 'news' do. I wouldn't consider their 'reports' and 'documentaries' as vital, but many apparently do. It was to be expected. At any rate, human affairs should not be debated in this forum.     

2b - The consequences of a conservation strategy

I live in a country in the west, but also visited wild places. Based on what I saw (and experienced), I concluded there are no fundamental differences between people living in a modern society and those living in wild places. Most people are not interested in the natural world. Not at all. They also know next to nothing about wild animals. They adapt to the local conditions and hope for the best. 

If people in the west would see a tiger, it's safety first. This means they would capture or kill the tiger as soon as possible. Same for those living in wild places. If they could, I mean. When interviewed or questioned, people say they like the natural world and wild animals everywhere. If you look at their actions, however, one would get to the opposite. Big predators in particular are unwanted everywhere.  

In practical terms, one could say that humans and wild creatures are born enemies. Humans don't like the natural world. They like human-dominated landscapes, freeways and money too. At best, they visit a zoo to see animals. Wild animals know they are unwanted and and try to avoid humans, but they have nowhere to go and they are losing the struggle for space everywhere. At times, problems will erupt. Roques are common, back then and today.   

In some countries, some people try to save the last remnants of the natural world. Although there are local successes (Russia in particular), statistics say it's a lost cause. The reason is more humans every year. They need space and are prepared to take it, no matter what. Wild animals pay. Let's take tigers. Four subspecies have disappeared in the last fifty years. The other four survived the unslaught, but only just. In genetical term, they're all but gone. It's not going to get any better in the future and all of us know.  

Half a century ago, India decided to safe some species from extinction. It was quite something, no matter what people say. It still is, I think. Although the number of tigers has not substantially risen, India still has tigers. Ullas Karanth thinks there is room for 10 000 - 15 000 tigers in India, but it will be difficult to get even halfway. The reason is competition for space. 

Those involved in writing the article about Kaziranga have a point, but it also is a fact that tigers and other animals are still poached every year. Worldwide, we're talking about hundreds of tigers. Every year. Another problem is persistent habitat destruction and poaching of prey animals, resulting in empty forests. The only countries where tiger numbers are more or less consistent are Russia, Nepal, India and Thailand. When you look at the details of the conservation policy in those countries, the conclusion is they take protection and legislation seriously. This means that people who ignore laws can expected to be detected, arrested and sentenced. 

For some reason, those who wrote the Kaziranga article omitted crucial information about the trade in wild animals. It is a fact that the trade in wild animals is substantial. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars every year. With that kind of money, one can expect professional organisations and a matching attitude of those involved. This means that some types are more often seen than others. Those involved in big time poaching have to be considered as pro's prepared to do whatever it takes to succeed. Could be illegal drugs, could be slavery and could be tigers or turtles. Everything that is illegal is interesting, as expensive. They don't care about the consequences of their actions. Not back then and not today. 

Lev Kaplanov, who sounded the bell for Amur tigers in the forties of the last century, was killed well before his time. Nobody was arrested, but they think poachers were involved. Rangers working in Russia today are more active than before. Not a few of them have been threatened by organisations involved in poaching. 

Some decades ago, Kaziranga, like many other reserves, compared to an arena. Rangers have been shot and we're not talking about a few maybe. Poachers also decimated the number of rhinos and tigers. In that part of India (the northeast), local groups fighting for independence have been involved in poaching. I'm not saying that locals were involved most of the time all the time, but there's no question that some knew about poaching and money talks everywhere. On the other hand. Most of them stay away from it. A decision that, considering their plight, has to be considered as remarkable. Poor people in particular often have a sense of pride. Also true.

Some time ago, local politicians and those involved in conservation declared war on poachers in Assam. I remember reading an article in the National Geographic in which the new policy (close to 'shoot to kill') was discussed. In some reserves in Africa, this policy also was applied. Those in charge thought it was the only way to survive. When people able to count to three opt for a decision like that, despair usually is close. Wars, apart from destruction, have two disadvantages. One is they open doors you want to keep closed. Two is victims. The poor and the innocent usually are the ones who suffer most.      

As the number of humans rises, the competition for space will sharpen. It's likely there will be two groups: one interested in selling the 'products' of the natural world (wild animals) and one interested in saving them. Those prepared to fight for the natural world suffer from a lack of funds and a clear policy. As a result, poachers are on top of the situation. 

At the moment, I can understand the policy to remove villages from national reserves and to tighten security. The Jurassic Parks that will be created in this way seem to be the best way to preserve something on its way out. This policy has to be applied with force, but any force will result in a counter force sooner or later. Reply