How our perception can affect wildlife conservation

[JKuku]

https://wildthingsinitiative.com/our-pe ... -is-wrong/

Our Perception Of Nature Is Wrong

Wildlife conservation suffers from shifting baseline syndrome. Our perception of what constitutes natural wildlife populations is often skewed, negatively impacting the survival of at-risk species.

An article published on New Scientist showcased a recently study detailing how young people have trouble remembering how abundant wildlife used to be. Younger generations normalize the wildlife they see in the present and forget populations are steadily declining.

The study confirms a phenomenon known as shifting baseline syndrome (SBS). First popularized by Daniel Pauly in 1995, SBS is characterized as people forgetting, or younger generations not knowing, how much wildlife once lived on this planet.

Essentially, our perception of nature is wrong since we don’t realize how much we destroyed it. A 2009 study found SBS could be broken into two sets of “amnesia.” Generational and personal.

Generational amnesia occurs when information about the natural world is not passed down between generations. Younger generations will view many wilderness areas as pristine despite the areas being in much better condition in the past.

Personal amnesia occurs much faster and in a single lifetime. This is what the most recent study proved as younger generations did not accurately define how abundant bird species were earlier in their own lives.

There are genuine fears SBS can negatively affect wildlife conservation. For instance, people may not realize that certain populations of wildlife are in peril. They perceive low numbers as “natural” preventing conservation efforts from helping the species recover.

The opposite fear also holds true. There may be species with populations we incorrectly deem too large and artificially restrict through culling.

Tony Sinclair started studying wildebeest in the Serengeti back in the 1960s. He noticed what he thought was a positive trend.

Wildebeest populations were growing at alarming rates, from 250,000 to 1.4 million in a matter of years. Sinclair was delighted with the growth rate but landed in the hot seat after presenting his data to park officials and other biologists.

Many thought the growth was unnatural. Wildebeest numbers were now much higher than anyone had ever seen in their lifetime. Culls were the obvious solution to the overpopulation crisis.

“Everybody thought we were being irresponsible,” Sinclair said. Adding opponents believed they “should have been culling these animals because they’ll overgraze the place, destroy the habitats, and they were going to cause a collapse of the system.”

But Sinclair thought they should allow nature to play out.

The thought process behind Sinclair’s decision was simple. “The way I looked on it was that animal populations have been in existence for millions of years without having to have humans control them.”

Sinclair was correct. Wildebeest populations naturally stabilized at 1.4 million and the ecosystem even improved.
Wildebeest grazing in large numbers meant there was less grass leftover to fuel fires. Fewer fires meant trees could finally establish in the area. More trees meant browsing species could expand their populations.

The Serengeti would not be anywhere near its prowess today if it weren’t for people like Sinclair. He knew better than to let perceptions win out over nature.

Rinderpest, a disease brought to Africa through European livestock, ravaged ungulates at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Vaccinations for livestock took place in the 1960s allowing wildebeest populations to recover.

The perception of low wildebeest densities being natural was, in fact, incorrect.

The same can be said for Botswana’s pristine woodlands currently being damaged by elephants. Many claim the elephants need to be culled to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

But their view of pristine wilderness is skewed and elephant populations are in no position to be culled. Elephants aren’t exceeding the carrying capacity just as wildebeest weren’t outgrowing the Serengeti.

Rinderpest swept through the country in 1986 and hunting decimated species like elephants and rhinos. Elephant numbers didn’t begin recovering until hunting regulations were put in place during the 1930s.

The landscape in the area today was a direct result of wildlife being almost completely eliminated. There is no ecological reason to cull elephants. This is because the perceived damage caused by the species isn’t actually damaging the ecosystem.

Those calling for elephant culls are remembering a time when elephants were less abundant. The time they are remembering was not a time when Botswana was in a natural state.

SBS is certainly alive today for many species. It’s important to acknowledge our own bias when working to conserve nature and wildlife.

We cannot allow our perceived baseline of nature prevent species recovering and thriving once more. Its time to shift our perspective of what constitutes natural for wildlife populations.

[Richprins]

Very interesting indeed, JKuku, and welcome!

[Flutterby]

Welcome Jkuku.

An interesting article...thank you.

[JKuku]

Thanks guys! I'm excited to contribute to the forum and learn more about what's going on with African wildlife!

[Flutterby]

And we're excited to get to know you and look forward to your contributions!!

[Lisbeth]

Welcome, Jkuku and thanks a lot for you first contribution

In the article has not been mentioned an important factor that changes radically the general view of what is right and what is too much... the human population has been growing and still is and is occupying the space that earlier was all for the wildlife.

[JKuku]

I think that's a really good point. Our own population definitely affects what we think are appropriate populations for other animals.

[Lisbeth]

There are human/wildlife problems in the whole of Southern Africa