Support Research in Wildlife Conservation

Before an endangered species can be "saved," its numbers, range, ecology, biological nature, and vul­nerability to changes in its environment must be determined; basic research provides this informa­tion. We cannot preserve a given species effectively until we know how large a protected habitat must be established and what characteristics are essential in its design-There are acute shortages of trained specialists in tropical forestry, conservation genetics, taxon­omy, resource management, and similar disciplines. Many young people who are interested in these ca­reers have selected others because of the dearth of funding for such research. The funding covers training and salaries of skilled personnel, research equipment and supplies, and miscellaneous ex­penses such as transportation costs.

As an individual, you can inform local and na­tional politicians of your desire to have conserva­tion research funded with tax dollars. When more funds are available, colleges, universities, and other research institutions will be able to justify adding faculty and research positions. As a result, more young people with interest in conservation research will be able to undertake the necessary education.

Organize an International System of Parks

A worldwide system of protected parks and reserves that includes every major ecosystem must be estab­lished. Conservationists estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the world's land should be set aside for this purpose. The protected land would provide humans with benefits in addition to the preserva­tion of biological diversity. It would safeguard the watersheds that supply us with water, and it would serve as a renewable source of important biological products in areas with multiple uses. It would also provide people with unspoiled lands for aesthetic and recreational enjoyment. In addition to the es­tablishment of new parks and reserves, particularly in developing nations, parks and reserves in devel­oped nations must be expanded. As an individual, you can help establish parks by writing to national lawmakers.

Control Pollution

The establishment of wildlife parks and refuges will not be enough to prevent biological impoverish­ment if we continue to pollute the Earth, because it is impossible to protect parks and refuges from threats such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and cli­mate change. Strong steps must be taken to curb the toxins we dump into the air, soil, and water-not only for human health and well-being but also for the well-being of the organisms that are so im­portant to ecosystem stability.

Provide Economic Incentives to Tropical Nations

There are few economic incentives to encourage the preservation of biological diversity (see Meet­ing the Challenge: Wildlife Ranching as a Way to Preserve Biological Diversity in Africa). This issue is particularly critical because developing nations in the tropics, the repositories of most of the Earth's genetic diversity, do not have money to spend on conservation. Their governments are consumed with human problems such as overpopulation, dis­ease, and crushing foreign debts.

One way to help such countries appreciate the importance of the genetic resources they possess is to allow them to charge fees for the use of that genetic material. Much of the money thus earned could be used to help alleviate human problems. And some of the money generated by genetic re­sources could be used to provide protection foe wildlife, thus preserving biological diversity for continued, sustained exploitation. Genetic and biological diversity has always been considered common property, like air, belonging to all nations. Traditionally, developed nations have had free use of genetic diversity to develop products that, in some cases, have had great economic value. In a sense, developing countries are exploited when developed nations use their biological resources at no cost and then profit by selling the products made from those resources back to developing countries.

The idea of a country selling its genetic re­sources, much as it sells its mineral resources, is controversial. For the most part, developing na­tions support genetic commerce because they stand to benefit financially from it. The users of genetic resources, primarily developed nations, oppose their sale for several reasons. First, they view ge­netic materials as a "shared" resource that cannot be sold because it belongs to everyone. Also, it is difficult to assign a market value to such materials. Despite the objections to selling genetic resources, it is indisputable that such a step, if conducted.

Wildlife Ranching as a Way to Preserve Biological Diversity in Africa

The scenario of clearing the wildlife from a section of land to make room for cattle and crops is increasingly enacted in Africa as the expanding human population strives to find a better way of life. This course began during Africa's colonial days, when European settlers the best lands for themselves, leaving p more arid, infertile lands for the native s. Cattle and European crops do well in moisture areas of Africa. But native Afri­cans, who emulated the European colonists, (covered that cattle and crops such as on-s, tomatoes, and peppers don't succeed in lands. Cattle crop the grass so short that cannot survive dry spells, and the soil is ft exposed and prone to erosion. The cattle themselves don't fare well because they are susceptible to diseases. And nontraditional European crops require irrigation, an expensive proposition for native farmers.

Where does wildlife fit into this picture? It doesn't. Farmers do not like wildlife because wildlife kills or spreads disease among dangerous neighbors for farmers.

Zimbabwe has grappled with the cattle-people-wildlife issue and come up with an unorthodox solution—wildlife ranching. Be­ginning in 1975 with the passage of Zimbabwe's Wildlife Act, private landowner may own wild animals. More and more farm wildlife ranching, African game earns more money than cattle in several ways. For one thing, tourists and photographers are willing to pay to observe and photograph wildlife. Hunters pay to stalk and kill wildlife. Game yields beautiful hides and leather as well as lean, low-cholesterol meat.

Wildlife ranching, besides being finan­cially attractive, is less harmful to the environment animals, unlike cattle, eat a variety of plants and don't permanently damage the vegetable addition, some wild animals require less water. As game farming takes hold in Zim­babwe, African attitudes about wildlife are changing. People are more tolerant of wildlife animals earn up to three times more than cattle in dry areas.

Environmentalists who are also animal preservation and therefore oppose game ranching. However, wildlife ranching represents a com­promise between people (who must use the land to earn a living) and wildlife (whose populations are declining) Africans engaged in wildlife ranching are earning more than they thought was possible, and wildlife herds are increasing in size. As long as wildlife is economically profitable, it will survive properly, could help to protect the wildlife that is most threatened.

A second way of providing economic incen­tives to developing nations is for developed coun­tries to forgive or reduce debts owed by such na­tions. In exchange, the developing countries would agree to protect their biological diversity. Such for Givens of debts provides a tangible reward for pre­serving a nation's wildlife resources. Once again, you can help in the formulation of such policies. Let your lawmakers know where you stand. Join and support conservation groups. Cam­paign to preserve our biological heritage for future.