I'd like to introduce a somewhat broader perspective on the political struggle for conservation. The success of conservation programs depends on resources and other forms of support, and this in turn requires that there are people who see benefits. Although some of us are satisfied to know that species are thriving, there are many more who want something more concrete. Hunters and fishermen are among them. So are ecotourists - and we need to keep in mind that ecotourism also has environmental costs in terms of habitat degradation, changing the behaviour of animals, in some cases interfering with their reproduction. No one has yet mentioned the use of animals for medical experimentation, but some, including many primates, have commercial value and this motivates both conservation in the wild and domesticated breeding programs (rhesus monkeys make up a large medical resource I am told).
Although I find hunting for sport distasteful, and would much rather watch whales from the deck of a research vessel than from a whale-watching Zodiac, I think we have to be pragmatic about how to promote conservation, This means accepting the support of groups which are willing to do the right thing for what we consider the wrong reason. It is painful to be driving past a beautiful salt marsh and come to a sign crediting it to Ducks Unlimited, but there are a lot more duck hunters out there than conservation ecologists. To put the moral issue in perspective, we know that sometimes it is necessary to cull deer populations that are no longer subject to natural predation. Should we do this by selling hunting licenses and using the funds for conservation activities, or should we use what little money we have to pay game wardens to do the job? Bill Silvert
