WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

  

 ‘Man can rebuild a pyramid, but he can’t rebuild a giraffe.” ~ Joy Adamson

Global warming, the pandemic and new research on wild animal behaviors have stimulated an examination of humans coexisting with animals in the wild. Behavioral scientists, wildlife advocates and even philosophers have weighed in on how wild animals should be treated as humans continue to erase what is left of “the wild.”

The human-wildlife conflict precedes recorded history.  Early humans competed with wildlife for food and resources.  Large animals used for food were hunted to extinction. Certain species were domesticated for food or for labor. Later in history, carnivores were eradicated. Before the twentieth century, there were few efforts to study wildlife conservation or coexistence. However, over the past twenty years, this interdisciplinary field of study has grown rapidly.

Research on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence has centered on several elements:  (1) The identification of actions by humans or wildlife that have an adverse effect on the other, (2) Focusing on threats posed by wildlife to humans, economic security, or recreation, (3) Developing management tools to diminish the negative consequences associated with wildlife while enhancing the positive aspects of rewilding.

In recent years, wildlife advocates have emphasized the plight of large carnivores. Humans have persecuted and caused severe range reduction to wolves worldwide, jaguars in the Americas, lions and wild dogs in Africa and tigers in Asia. Today, there are significant rewilding efforts.  It is unclear whether these efforts can reverse the high risk of extinction. Habitat fragmentation has isolated remaining carnivore populations, thereby reducing genetic diversity.

While large carnivores have captured the attention of the public and wildlife organizations, we must not lose sight of wildlife extinction on a much broader scale. A recent 1,500-page report commissioned by the United Nations was an exhaustive study of the decline of biodiversity across the globe.  The conclusions were troubling. On our major land habitats, populations of wild animals have declined by more than two-thirds since 1970, while the human population has more than doubled. Human activity including farming, logging, poaching, fishing and mining have altered the natural world at a rate “unprecedented in human history.”

In addition, the study found that global warming has added to wildlife decline.  Warmer weather has shifted and shrunk the local climates of many mammals, birds, insects, fish and plants, pushing many closer to extinction. It is well-documented that polar bears are vanishing as ice sheets melt in the Arctic.  Many other species will also be lost unless countries step up conservation efforts

The honeybee is a great example of the need to maximize survival efforts. These indispensable insects pollinate more than 75% of all fruits, vegetables and nuts cultivated worldwide. Bee colonies have been dying off at a rapid rate due to human stressors including pesticides, disease and climate change. Bees must be restored to an environment where they can survive, or we risk losing the most efficient pollinator on the planet.

In our own back yards, the increase in wild animals coexisting in cities and suburbia has become a hot topic. During the pandemic lock-down, I watched a red fox calmly trotting down the middle of the W&J campus.  Mountain lions who cross the Golden Gate Bridge are observed on the streets of San Francisco. In many locations, coyotes and bears are spotted in backyards with increasing frequency. In Florida, alligators are often found in garages and swimming pools.

Managing this wildlife invasion comes with conflicting opinions. Some residents applaud being surrounded by nature. Others are indignant that deer are eating the flowers and that coyotes are eating their small dogs. A new theory is that many wild animals excel at adapting to urban areas in ways that humans never anticipated. Perhaps we need to consider that wildlife needs to be “observed” as partners in their own conservation rather than “controlled” like herds of cattle.

Recently, the New York Review of Books featured a thought-provoking essay by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum. (A Peopled Wilderness, December 6, 2022 issue.) Her premise is that “We need to find new ways to act toward animals in a world dominated everywhere by human power and activity.” She admits that her proposals are controversial and provocative.

First, she agrees that conservationism has done good things in preserving wild places. However, she believes that our efforts are about making humans feel good and have little to do with the wild animals themselves.  Second, she believes that modern ecological thinking has refuted the idea of the “balance of nature.” She states that humans can improve the lives of wild animals by intervening on their behalf. Third, she believes that intervention should include prevention of starvation or disease and even suppression of predatory behavior in the wild. She concludes that it is not an ethically defensible choice to permit nature to indiscriminately kill wild animals.

The argument against her philosophy is full-throated. Many conservationists believe that wild animals should live their lives as nature intended. They point out that without predation, the prey of carnivores would multiply out-of-control and destroy vegetation, leaving them to starve. They believe the natural order should be left alone to carry on as determined by evolution and the complex relationships between species.

Research on humans and wild animals will continue to evolve. The solutions will determine what it means to be “human” on the one hand and “wild” on the other.