Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference

[tigerluver]

Quick tidbit, didn't a critic of the Aldrich snare project point out that there are less tigers now than there were at the start of the project? Here's the quote:
"How did it happen that the tiger population of Sikhote-Alinskiy Reserve has shrunk from 38 to 15 animals under active supervision by WCS? This is nothing but official info [23], which might be favorably biased upwards."

Same source as my last post: http://bigcats-ru.livejournal.com/125545.html

A lot of good points in this debate. My views have changed some.

From all these arguments, I find one thing in common. Conservation is only achieved when there is interest. Human interest manifests itself into action in different ways. I see the debate here is about the actions of interest. But maybe, all we need is to find ways to encourage the interest? Wherever there has been interest, species make it through. Indochina isn't really interested in their wildlife. India, has been for a while now, and has done relatively well.

Also, the presence of scientists only may not really deter poachers, read of the Dian Fossey tragedy? Poachers have no reason to fear scientists, they're criminally involved often anyhow. Rather, I think it's the presence and interest of the government. The modern research we have was given its opportunity due to the interest of the government (these are government funded projects often and under the approval of the local wildlife authorities). Therefore, I feel modern research is a side effect of governmental interest. The protections of species is another side effect of governmental interest. A motivated government can keep poaching at bay well, they have the influence.

Research can magnify conservation only if it's a side effect of the governmental interest. What do I mean by this? Take Panna. The research was done by scientists alone, not backed by government interest. Their work fell on deaf ears.

Thinking over this once more, I'll make a bit of bold assertion and retreat from my ambivalent approach. Darting, collaring, camera traps and their conclusions in their own being have not proven to be the saviors of nature. Madla was tagged, Panna researched well, scientists threw up the red flags and Panna still went downhill. Assam has been scientifically untouched, and it's doing well last I checked. Then there's Chitwan, there was good research done at the end of the last century, and this century the tigers have been doing relatively well. Looking at these three microcosms together, one factor is in common, governmental interest. Panna did not garner the government's attention no matter the science, Assam and Chitwan did, and here we are.

Now same idea, grander scale. Only India's - the country where tiger research is kept to a minimum during the recovery period - and Russia's government have shown interest in tiger conservation. The rest of the governments, not so much.

Have a corrupt and/or disinterested government, it's over. No science will save the day. Have one that has its own, self motivated interest, man and beast can coexist in the grand scale. We need to summon this self-motivated interest. Tying wildlife to cultural pride, economic success, or even political motives are ways to summon this self-motivation. That's what conservationists now focus on it seems, and thus, hands on research of species had died down in recent years. Only censuses have been done, which is essentially non-intrustive - with animals not coming into contact with the officials - including the tract studies (which is just having a person count up prey numbers rather than using camera traps. This is used for prey because prey items often don't have such obvious "fingerprints" like tigers.) Reply