ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

PANTHERA TIGRIS ALTAICA 4


4a - Poaching

In April 2012, Nachodka 'businesssman' E. Romanov was paid a visit. Police. They found 34 Himalayan black bears, 12 brown bears, 4 rare eagles (Stellers eagle), 6 Amur tigers and a lot more. Although he was jailed, they had to let him go. The criminal case failed because it took too much time. As a result of that, the criminal investigation - the base of the case - expired.  

Although free, Romanov wasn't off the hook. A civil case was started. In February of this year, almost 5 years after the event, it was finally concluded: Romanov was fined $155,000 by the Primorye Regional Court. Although it was substantial, Romanov, described as an 'influential businessman', most probably considered the fine as a joke.   

Here's the link to the article in 'The Siberian Times'. The photographs are graphic:
    
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/n0864-poacher-fined-155000-for-illegal-hunting-of-6-endangered-tigers-and-46-bears/

The criminal case against Romanov was based on laws that proved inadequate. This is the reason why Sergei Donskoi, the Russian Minister of Natural resources and Environment, proposed to adapt the law in October 2016. His proposal was supported by Putin, but I don't think the new law is ready for use.  


4b - New outlook needed

I'm not sure what was meant with 'influential' and 'businessman', but my guess is Romanov made some money and used it to start his own empire. This is how it works in capitalism: those able to outwit others profit. In the end, this ability will produce wealth for all. As the system is based on personal initiative and the production of wealth, those able to perform in this department will get to the top sooner or later.  

Wealthy individuals are no different from others in that they like to be acknowledged as well. Most buy their way into decisions and invisible power, but some need to underline their status in a more visible way. Illegal hunting is one way to show superiority. And this is what is really is, as it shows contempt for those who rule. 

Although this system produces more (material) wealth than others, it also produces poverty (a basic ingrediënt of capitalism). Another result of free enterprise is habitat destruction. The natural world is getting smaller and smaller.  

Humans (referring to individuals), at times and to a degree, can overcome some of the consequences of poverty, but this is not true for those making their home in the natural world. When their habitat disappears, they disappear. And when they go, they will not return. 

Capitalism is not that old, but the effects on the natural world have been severe already. When things don't change, habitat destruction will continue at an ever faster rate. As a result of higher temperatures and more precipitation, ice will melt. Rising sea levels will quickly affect weather systems, resulting in more thunderstorms and more floods. Rivers will need more room, which will affect many settlements. In poor regions, calamities are to be expected. At first, those affected will be assisted in some way. But when the number of calamities rises, only those who can afford it will survive. Many organisations and systems will collapse. Ever considered the consequences? What do you think will happen when states collapse? 
 
I'm not saying the system in use needs to be changed drastically as soon as possible, but we got to put things in the right perspective. In capitalism, we have two major players: market and government. 

As to markets. In theory, consumers and providers meet at a place called reasonable price. Initially, the strategy of a firm was to provide a good product for a competing price. In the last decades, however, most small firms were eaten by big ones. These big corporations concentrated on transforming customers into zombies. That and deals. It had an effect.  

In the near future, corporations will enlarge their market by affecting behaviour. The next step is providing services that have been put aside by 'modern' government. When government has been sidelined as well, corporations will finish the job by offering a global policy promising wealth and stability for all. It will be just another deal. This time, however, the outcome for those that didn't see it coming will be somewhat different. As the natural world, except for a few 'Jurassic Parks', won't contribute to (material) 'wealth', it's game over in that respect as well.

What I'm saying is government, in spite of all problems resulting from incompetence and conflicting interests, has more future than its opponent. It's not a plea for the opposite of capitalism, but we would be better off with a system in which there is a kind of balance between government and business. With 'a kind of' I mean government should have the last word. The reason is it has, or should have, a wider scope than business.

If we don't act fast, it could be game over. Maybe it already is. When I watch the proceedings in the world's largest economy, I wonder who is directing who. In Europe leading politicians seem a bit naive, but further east, things are definitely different. Hence the campaign directed at leading politicians, perhaps? I mean, do we really have a free press? And who is misinforming who? And why?

Anyhow. Change is in the air and it doesn't look promising. We need to change a number of things. Here's a few ideas.  

When biologists want to know if an eco-system is healthy, they look at apex-predators. Apex-predators can only survive when the eco-system is ok. When politicians want to know if a society is healthy, they should adopt a similar strategy. The difference between biologists and politicians is in the object of study: for biologists, big cats are apex-predators and for politicians it's us. The easy part is that humans and big cats are no different: both are predatory mammals. This means that we should develop a similar strategy as biologists; preservation and restoration of eco-systems. The means that consolidation has to replace economic growth as the leading objective. Problem solved.  

As to the Romanovs of this world. Humans are social animals. They adapt to the system used. Same for those considered as criminals. Studies into criminal behaviour have shown that political and socio-economic circumstances, regarding crime, are way more important than anything else. Same for legislation and the way it is applied. Law and order often isn't law and order. Not anymore. When governments have to cut, Justice is the first department they consider. At least, in Europe.

Conclusion. The system in use has a number of shortcomings. It's no problem in a period of economic growth, but during a recession things often quickly deteriorate as a result of more cuts. As we've had one crisis after the other in the last three decades, it had an effect. In the country where I live, local politicians, judges and all others involved in justice say they just don't have the capacity anymore to do what is expected. The result is even less trust in politicians and more people voting for parties opposing everything in general and in particular. One day, they'll get a majority. Most of their foremen will dwarf Trump in the department of unsound decisions and I don't mean maybe.            

What we need is sound decisions taken by responsable people guided by insight. Their policy should be directed at developing a new outlook. An outlook in which preservation and survival are key words. As we can only survive when the eco-system is preserved, we could call it a policy of rehabilitation. In order to contribute, I'll contact the director of the Utyos Wild Animals Rehabilitation Centre in the Russian Far East, Eduard Kruglov. Over there, they know about an apex-predator that could compare to us: the Amur tiger. Reply