18 responses to “Current conservation practice – not fit for purpose, why might that be?”

1. 

   Susan Cooper/findingourwaynow.com

   August 13, 2013

   It is a terrible thing that we have forgotten that our world is comprised of delicate balances that must be maintained. Voted. 🙂

   Reply
   1. 

      Tony

      August 13, 2013

      Many Thanks for the comment and your like pushed me to my 200 likes landmark. It might not sound like much, but every one means something for this rather introvert man.

      Reply
2. 

   Finn Holding

   August 13, 2013

   Hello Tony, is one of the main reasons not the catastrophic increase in the human population?

   Reply
   1. 

      Tony

      August 14, 2013

      Population pressures undoubtedly, are to be added to the mix, as they are in nature itself. One example, being a lack of sandeels for our Puffins, at the time of breeding, in certain seasons. I suspect there are other answers we should also address. Perhaps, I will do an updated version of the poll in time.

      Reply
3. 

   Midwestern Plant Girl

   August 14, 2013

   I’m a moron sometimes. I can’t get to your poll on my phone… will go when on PC.
   But to chime in on the conversation, I agree that population needs to back down, invasive species removed from native areas and more protected areas like forest preserves have to happen. Pesticide use and Monsanto have to be eliminated! OMG, don’t get me started! :-\

   Reply
   1. 

      Tony

      August 14, 2013

      I love it when people get started, MPG. I’ll await your vote.

      Reply
      1. 

         Midwestern Plant Girl

         August 14, 2013

         OK! Just voted! I only left 2 unchecked – Predator/prey as I feel there’s almost always something (or someone!) to eat. I still don’t believe that US humans are responsible for climate or climate change. I like to use this analogy; If the earth has been around for 1 year, that’s 365 days, us humans have only been on the planet for the last second b/4 the end of the year. We don’t know JACK about climate yet. Heck, I was taught in school that each continent was a plate!! Look what we know now!! Climate is the least thing we need to worry about… For now.
         We should worry about not F-ing up our water sources or food sources, which are HUGELY important. Pesticides kill everything sooner or later! Monsanto has me pretty freaked out also! I actually wish I could just be a regular schlep that buys their food & just eats it happily, than to know what I know.
         Yes, I feel us humans ARE an invasive species. We have no regard to anything else but us humans. Many humans have no regard to how they will feed their offspring, aside from taxpayers like myself.
         Protected land isn’t even protected anymore! A forest preserve by my home is getting smaller because a road is to be widened. 50 feet on either side for 3 miles is getting wiped out so more humans can spread out farther from the crowded cities. This land was supposed to be PROTECTED!!!
         Whew! Composure. Ahh. Ok, I think I’m finished…. For now!

         Reply
         1. 

            Tony

            August 15, 2013

            Wow, that is a good letting off of steam, ha ha. Whilst I don’t agree with absolutely everything you say, I agree with a whole lot of it. Thank you MPG. Can anyone follow that?

            Reply
            1. 

               Midwestern Plant Girl

               August 15, 2013

               I thought I may have been a bit harsh. .. But thanks for letting me blow stream!
4. 

   Pier

   August 14, 2013

   Interesting poll Tony. From a non-environmentalist perspective, it seems to me that we are just behaving as another predator species and we might be wiped out in a blink of a geological eye, unless we evolve as a species, and learn to care. Therefore my vote has been “we’ve lost touch with nature”.

   Reply
   1. 

      Tony

      August 14, 2013

      Interesting viewpoint Pier. Pardon the pun but let us hope our peers (!) are listening. Yes, regarding our loss of connection with Mother Nature, I feel we need regular nature-related discussion on the mainstream media, in order to restore our relationship with the Natural World. Make our involvement with nature a necessity, rather than merely a passing thought for today, only to be forgotten the next. I guess, as you state, mankind is the most influential predator of all and we have it in us to look after the ecosystems we prey upon.

      Reply
5. 

   Pier

   August 14, 2013

   Or maybe we should change paradigm. From a predator-prey perspective to being the most “conscious” part of a worldwide symbiotic ecosystem. Recently I was told the story of how the Dolomites were formed , by one of the geologists who wrote the dossier for the UNESCO recognition. They were built by a group of life forms symbiotically cooperating to keep as close as possible to water surface for survival, in one of the geological cycles where they were under the sea. By far the biggest architecture built on our planet by life.

   Reply
   1. 

      Tony

      August 15, 2013

      Indeed Pier and I suspect there are many symbiotic relationships, yet to be discovered in nature. That is, if they get a chance to reveal themselves before we send in the bulldozers. We take far too much for granted and there is a need to understand Natural World processes before we are doomed to fail, as Mother Nature is certain to have the last word.

      Reply
6. 

   theresagreen

   August 17, 2013

   I’m divided on the ‘caring’ issue – I think if everyone decided to ‘reconnect with nature’, as encouraged by open space policies and the media, surely existing wildlife habitats will come under even more pressure? It seems to me that the majority of people that regularly visit our Nature Reserves, woodlands and open spaces are there to exercise their dogs and sometimes their children in a pleasant space with little awareness of, or regard to its importance to the resident wildlife. And what if they do become aware? People still need open spaces to enjoy in their own way and with populations increasing rapidly and available public spaces staying the same, our wildlife is surely going to continue to downsize to fit into ever-decreasing spaces. If the mission is to engage more people with wildlife then more space is required so the wildlife that doesn’t want to engage with us or be ‘managed’ has somewhere to go – otherwise we’ll end up with a country-wide zoo park and very few truly wild spaces!

   Reply
7. 

   Tony

   August 17, 2013

   Theresa, you express some well thought out views right there. As for the downsizing, I think it’s already occurring and the wildlife (more especially, the specialists, when taking farmland birds as an example) are getting forced into corners of often unsuitable habitat and are increasingly subjected to imbalances between prey and predator. Of course, that is my own view and I don’t expect everyone to agree, but I must stress the current science, in part, lends itself to such a conclusion. So far, the poll is states to me at least, that conservation is a most intricate process, which will continue to require collaborative thinking, should we be able to halt these horrendous biodiversity declines.

   Reply
8. 

   Tony

   August 19, 2013

   Hi,

   As it doesn’t show up on my page directly, I just wanted to copy a comment into here, which I had from Darren Engel.

   Darren Engel – 6 hours ago

   In many areas the system of creating a reserve or protected area for a species is simply not good enough especially in habitats affected either directly or indirectly by people. I perceive a practical need to change our relationships with animals in habitat disturbed areas. For example in Australia many marsupials are being decimated by the more successful foxes and cats. Small marsupials are being eradicated in an undetermined rate and Quolls (native cats) are being out competed if not eaten also. A number of scientists here believe if everyone had native cats and small marsupials as pets instead of cats, rabbits etc then there would not be a threat. The family that wants to get rid of their pets will release them into the wild instead of a stray cat which eats on average one native animal a day or a rabbit which out breeds everything. There would also be a viable domesticated gene pool. Of course not all wild animals can be domesticated but many can, the sugar glider a small gliding marsupial from Australia is now a major pet in the usa with over 30 000 being kept while in Australia it is still illegal to keep any native mammal.

   Reply
9. 

   GarryRogers

   November 21, 2013

   Very interesting comments. Thanks Tony. I agree with much of what was said. I liked the comment about recreation which was one of Leopold’s complaints. “Recreational development is a job not of building roads into lovely country, but of building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind” (Leopold 1949: 176-177). The majority of the responders might agree that our problem is habitat loss due to human population growth fueled by focus on innate appetites rather than awareness of nature and the consequences of our actions.

   Reply
10. 

    Moving towards a better future for our wildlife | naturestimeline

    August 7, 2014

    […] Or perhaps a new holistic approach to effective conservation practice? […]

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.