In this essay I will be discussing the negative and positive effects of humans interacting with wild animals and the effects it has on the environment. I will also discuss how the media plays a role in this issue and will use local and global examples to support my argument that on a large scale it is not a definite negative or positive action but that each case is determined by the motives behind the interaction and the end result from these actions.
The human-wildlife conflict is defined as the negative impact on either animals, humans or on either ones environment due to shared habitat and/or resources. This conflict occurs when habitats start over-lapping and interaction becomes inevitable. Throughout history there has been much evidence of the negative impact humans have had on wildlife all across the world. Over hunting and habitat encroachment have caused many animal extinctions such as the Tasmanian Tiger, Quagga, Passenger Pigeon, Caribbean Monk Seal, Bubal Hartebeest and the Baiji River Dolphin. Overpopulation ensures than human-animal interaction is unavoidable. This is a serious problem as the solution to this problem is almost always in favor to the people, often causing the death of many animals. The case of the Champawat Tiger is a perfect example of how humans interacting with wildlife can be extremely detrimental to both sides. In India, 1907, a female Bengal tiger was killed after she reportedly killed 436 people. It was later found that some of her teeth were broken due to an old gunshot, therefore indicating that had people not interfered and tried hunting her from the start she would have been healthy enough no to turn to hunting humans. Wild animals, for the most part, stay away from humans as it an instinctual trait for survival.
Domesticating wild animals is a longer process to negatively impacting animal species than hunting for example, but it may have just as much of a negative impact. A perfect example of this is seen in the aquatic animal world, where dolphins and killer whales have become a popular attraction at aquariums because of movies like Flipper and Free Willy. Mans obsession with taming the ‘untamable’ is a common theme that is seen in the film industry, it is even visible in children movies like Rio, How to Train Your Pet Dragon, Spirit and Avatar. Normalizing a situation such as this can and has had devastating repercussions on the animal world as it has started the global trend of owning a ‘piece of the wild’. Owning exotic pets has been a growing problem that have had terrible repercussions on both animals and people.
In a documentary, The Cove this notion is clearly illustrated when the dolphin trainer at the time, Ric O’Barry, for the Flipper TV series in 1964 explains how he feels responsible for instigating the dolphin craze by aiding in the production of the Flipper series. The movie sparked the world’s insatiable demand to see and interact with dolphins, which turned into a profitable venture for aquariums to undergo. The demand meant that dolphins were now needed for entertainment purposes, which led to hundreds of dolphins being taken from their natural environment and placed in small tanks/pools for our viewing pleasure. O’Barry even stated that ‘Flipper committed suicide’ from being kept in captivity. After this incident he decided to dedicate his life to saving whales and porpoises. As bad as it is allowing animals to be used in show business, there is a silver lining on every cloud. If Flipper had not made the world fall in love with dolphins, where could they have possibly been today? The Cove documentary would not have had as much of an impact as it has had, and therefore the wrongs being committed against them might have gone on unnoticed. Often we are oblivious to the impact we have on the natural environment despite all the signs that prove the influence.
Nature documentary television has become a multi-million dollar industry and the motives behind them are usually pure and meant with the best intentions – to educate the society on the wonders of the world. The outcome is not however, always to the best advantage of the animals, often they are directly or indirectly influenced and can have very bleak outcomes due to human negligence. In February 2012, a rhino died near Pretoria, during an anti-poaching demonstration due to a negative reaction to the anesthesia. The intentions were noble, attempting to protect the rhino from poachers, but the end result remains the same. Perhaps different methods should be explored in trying to conserve the wildlife. People, especially the undereducated, need to be taught about conservation and peaceful co-existence between humans and animals. Early education in places like Africa need to be established so that wildlife is not hunted or treated cruelly due to lack of basic knowledge. Wildlife conservation parks generate income which can become incentives to local people, which will in turn slow the rate at which animals are being exploited or killed. The benefits of such a system can only aid the conflict between animals and humans.
Recently there has been an explosion of media campaigns and protests against the rhino-horn poaching. The WWF and Woolworths collaboration is a good example of how the intentions of a campaign are obviously good, but biased. The two brands collaborated to make a bag that had imagery on about saving the rhinos. Firstly, there is no information on the bags about the rhino poaching only jarring statements intended to scare the consumers into buying the bags. Then there is a copy line that claims that “by buying this bag you’re helping to ensure that there will be rhinos in our future’. For every bag sold they say that R10 will be donated towards aiding the rhino-poaching dilemma. Personally this seems like more of a scheme to fuel consumerism through guilt than to actually help stop the rhino problem. Woolworths is a South African brand and prides itself on being enviro-friendly, so why are they not doing more for a cause so close to home? Although the making of the bags have created jobs within the South African market which helps to boost the economy. The message has been constructed in a clear and simple way for the meaning of the message to be understood easily by the public so that it can be effective and so that positive change can be made to the situation.
The media plays a huge role in popularizing the notion of taming wild animals. As mentioned previously, this idea is even illustrated in children movies, which allows the youth worldwide to be brought up with a belief system that says it’s ok to own wild animals for our own selfish reasons. Nowadays, even music videos, such as the singer Beyonce’s new video ‘Run the World’, uses wild animals to bump up the popularity factor to sell music. A buffalo, lion and two hyenas (which referenced Pieter Hugo’s photography – The Hyena and Other Men) were used in the Beyonce music video, not in any notable way necessary to aid the concept of the video. The video has been view 132,209,916 times on YouTube, which subliminally sends a message to millions of people, mainly the youth, worldwide that it is ok to place wild animals in unnatural environments and potentially place the people at risk, all for the sake of bumping up the ‘cool’ factor to make it sell. Wild animals have been used time and time again for entertainment purposes, something for people to make money off of. An example everyone can relate to is the use of animals in circuses. In this instance there is absolutely no good reason that a wild animal should be subjected to hours of daily training, be made to perform in a stressful environment, have crammed living condition and constantly travel all across the country. This is done purely for human gain and serves animals in absolutely no positive way. The movie ‘Water for Elephants’ is a good depiction of how circus animals used to be treated and almost certainly are still in some cases. There is a degree of cruelty towards the animals, especially the exotic, as circus animals need to be trained and to do so one need to dominate the animals. One of the most famous wild animal shows in history, the Siegfried and Roy Las Vegas show used many big cats and a number of other exotic animals in their show. This was the most profitable show in Las Vegas history, making 57 million dollars a year, beating shows by legends like Frank Sinatra and even Elvis. This goes to show just how profitable the exotic animal trade can be and why in is an endless cycle of exploitation in the entertainment industry. After more than a decade of performing, the show was however cancelled after a male tiger attacked Roy Horn on 3 October 2003, but a farewell show was done as a remarkable show of recovery on Horns journey back to health and as a tribute to the legendary act.
Wildlife parks seem to exhibit one of the only human-to-wild animal interactions where the cons do not outweigh the pros. For the most part, conservation parks keep interaction between people and animals to a minimum by only doing so when it is completely necessary e.g. relocation for safety or overpopulation, health checks and to collect information on animals for educational purposes. Other added benefits from having wildlife parks are the income it creates which go into helping to conserve endangered species, habitats and increasing the quality of the environment the animals in captivity live in. For developing countries this is a huge tourist attraction and is therefore a great income and asset for nations with abundant wildlife. This teaches underprivileged people the value in conserving wildlife as opposed to the alternative that could be eradicating the animals and wildlife to make space for crops or mining purposes. In Africa especially this is resource that has been well tapped into, yet it does not come without its downfalls. Legal and illegal hunting are both performed in parks, which has sparked many debates and campaigns to attempt to deter mainly poaching which has become an alarming issue, particularly with regards to rhino poaching for medicinal purposes. Zoos are another form of conserving wildlife through breeding programs and for educational purposes, yet they come with many flaws. One of the main purposes is to educate the public about wildlife and to properly care for the animals to ensure normal behavior for our learning purposes. Yet living in a zoo enclosure is often one of the worst fates an animal can receive. Most often, enclosures are too small or do not imitate the animals natural environment well. The enclosures also usually do not provide enough stimulation for animals, which causes boredom and therefore unnatural behavior. As humans there are definite necessities we need to live happily, a positive emotional state being one of the most important. So why is it that many animals are not given proper stimulation or attention when they so obviously need it? It has been seen that animals, like humans, have very distinctive personalities and would therefore need companionship and some form of metal stimulation to live a full life. These things are provided in the wild from the environments they live in and from the other animals they interact with, so why is this not simulated when animals are forced into captivity? Surely breeding rates and life expectancy would increase if animals were properly taken care of? There have been many cases worldwide where animals have had to be removed from zoos and relocated to another zoo, as they were not being treated or housed in a sufficient enclosure. An example of zoo animal negligence was seen in Ukraine at the Kiev Zoo, where in 2008, 51 animals died due to negligence and poor living conditions. In February 2010, Dawn Brancheau was drowned by a Killer Whale in SeaWorld, Florida. Scientists speculate that Orca attacks on trainers could be due to increases stress levels because they are being kept in captivity. This is another reminder that animal exploitation should not be used for profit or any other reason. Where human and animals interact on a physical level, there will always be problems as they are WILD animals. Domestic animals such as cats, dogs and horses have been bred for domestic situations, there are certain wild genes that are no longer present within them. But even our house pets can and have turned on people because they first came from the wild. There is a logic that seems to be missing from society – people cannot ever tame a wild animal, this has been proven time and time again. On the other hand there is evidence of how successful animal captivity can be, as seen in the Pretoria Zoo, which is ranked one of the top zoos in the world, where nearly all the animals kept there have been born and raised inside the zoo. This would not have been as successful had the animals not been properly cared for on every level. Animal handling can also be beneficial in small ways when it comes to treating animals for sickness or when it is necessary to do health checks. If an animal has been handled from a young age and is comfortable with human interaction, these things are made much easier and are less stressful on the animals as they do not need to be sedated in order to be checked and treated. An animal that sees a caretaker as a source of comfort instead of an irritation may also be useful in other stressful situations where the animal may seek a form of comfort, e.g. evacuation situations.
Exponential human population growth has caused a massive encroachment on animal habitat. Many habitats are very unique and the wildlife that lives in such areas cannot easily be relocated to other environments, as their habitat requirements are very specific. Often natural animal habits are disturbed by humans from just being in the vicinity, e.g. birds prefer breeding in larger trees and larger trees grow near water sources such as rivers and dams – which are popular tourist game lodge/drive spots as this is where most animals are seen. The amount of traffic or noise alone can cause a disruption in the birds breeding behavior, which can in turn impact bird population numbers. Another example of how we are directly influencing species population growth is evident in the large worldwide decline in honeybee species. The honeybee population has been consistent for thousands of years but has rapidly been declining for the last 20 years for unknown reasons. There is however no doubt that human influence is to blame. This decrease may be due to the fact that previously, all year round, there have always been flowers for bees to collect nectar and pollen from which they need to survive, even in winter Aloes provide the necessities bees need. Because of our interference in their natural habitats, certain essential plants have been removed from their environment, which leaves very little (if anything) to sustain them for periods of time during the year. We depend hugely on bees to pollinate as much of what we eat depends on being pollinated to reproduce. If an ecosystem such as this is tampered with, it could have devastating effects not only on other living organisms but also on humans. Even seemingly small changes that we make, such as transforming the landscape, removes essentials that other organisms need to survive, can have an extremely negative ripple effect. Overpopulation is pushing animals out, in our search for basic resources such as wood and maize, which we need merely to survive, is having more of a negative impact than we realize – which we always seem to realize too late. There are a number of different negative effects that can result from interaction between wildlife and people and habitat encroachment – crop and property damage, injury and death of human or animal (often both). But there are also solutions to these problems, some more common ones being electric fencing, land use planning and more innovative and natural solutions such as using chili peppers to ward off elephants from crops and villages. This solution is used in places such as Mozambique and Botswana, by planting chili bushes or burning rags and hanging rags that have been dipped in a chili pepper mix, elephants are deterred from crops, which allows animal and man to peacefully co-exist.
On Thursday 19 April 2012, David Lilienfeld, a 20-year-old boy was attacked and killed by a great white shark in Kogel Baai, near Cape Town. There had been reports of a few shark sightings and warnings about going into the water, due to a National Geographic team that had been chumming around the False Bay area. The team had been given permission to chum up to five tons of fish over a three-week period to attract sharks for a documentary they were filming. It is very likely that the attack occurred due to the chumming, as no sharks had been sighted in that specific spot since 1999. After the attack there were two or more sharks spotted patrolling the area, reinforcing the idea that the sharks had been attracted to the spot because of chumming. The chumming permit was cancelled minutes after the attack occurred. News of the attack raced across the country and spread to the rest of the world, sparking a strong public outcry towards the chumming being allowed. Aside from the fact that it increases chances of attacks on people, attracting sharks through chumming for observational purposes defeats the point of the act – to observe the sharks’ NATURAL behavior. Attracting that many sharks means that the sharks are interacting with many more shark species than would normally occur, also throwing in that much shark bait sends the sharks into a ‘feeding frenzy’. Often the sharks are also captured and injected with a tranquillizer so that information can be gathered and the animals tagged, even though the tranquilizer can disorientate the shark for a few days. How can scientists objectively study ‘natural’ shark behavior when they are effectively changing their normal patterns? Chumming is used not only for research purposes but also for shark cage diving, which is a tourist attraction in the Western Cape. This, in essence, teaches the sharks to associate food with people. Incidents such as this shine a negative light on shark research methods and sully the chances of other researchers doing possible behavior-changing free research. When shark attacks occur, it is usually a lose-lose situation for both parties as the sharks are normally hunted down and killed. This is an unnecessary evil as the fault lies with us, we enter THEIR territory, not the other way around. As it is, there is already a risk for surfers etc. in entering the sharks’ environment, but this is a well-known risk and one they willingly take part in. The chumming can do nothing but increase the chances of an attack, as the entire point of it is to attract sharks to the area. The fact that the chumming hadn’t occurred in that exact spot proves little, as the slick from the chummed fish could possibly have moved to the Koeel Bay area with the tides or winds. Also sharks have the ability to smell a few drops of blood from kilometers away, which means that it is very possible that they could have been making their way to the spots where the chum was. As a possible solution to shark attack problems nets are often used as a preventative measure, but this has caused many sharks to get caught in the nets and eventually drown. A better solution must be found to put an end to the dangerous shark-human interaction so that we can peacefully co-exist without any more tragic accidents. Below is an extract from an email sent in about the shark attack, which further illustrates the flaws of allowing the National Geographic team into our waters.
“…in all honesty this is nothing more then another opportunity for them to film another TV series. I have yet to see a single piece of research released on their discoveries following their TV series at Gaudalupe and The Farralon Island… the natural inquisitive nature of these fish makes them sitting targets to these fishermen and issuing them a license to catch the sharks will disrupt their natural predation’s and could possibly lead to the sharks leaving the area and disrupting the whole ecological system of seal island… huge concern regarding the tags used by the researchers. It is evident from the TV show that they use bolts to hold the tag onto the dorsal fin. These bolts are sealed by melting a plastic/rubber compound over them but references are continually made to the fact that the bolts will corrode over time and the tags will fall off…I would imagine this would put stress on the fish over time…There will, over time, be a build up of barnacles etc. on the tags which will further inhibit the animal… By issuing the license for such an operation, I would imagine that should there be an incident in the bay due to this chum slick, that the issuers of the license would also be open to prosecution for issuing the license without public consultation. This topic should be reopened and public opinion obtained before these foreigners come in and destroy our sacred oceans. “ (Prouds, 20 April 2012, response to online ZigZag article).
It is one of humankind’s greatest flaws to take more than to give, and the environment is usually on the losing side of this battle. There needs to be a global conscious shift in the way we interact with wild animals, this underlying notion that is being seen in the media of using animals as objects to make a profit off of needs to be dealt with. The messages being sent to the youth and uneducated society needs to be considered when it comes to dealing with not only wildlife but with regards to all living organisms. I level of consideration needs to be reached, an understanding of the magnitude of our actions and the ripple effect it has worldwide. Media has the power to change the world, as seen in the global shift to a more environmentally conscious society after ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ spread across the world. Re-evaluations need to be made as to what we are allowing to happen when things like dolphin slaughter, poaching and exotic animal trade continue because of human demands. We need to change the label we have given ourselves as the most destructive force on earth and start giving back to mother nature after we have taken so much from her. We cannot change what has been done, but we can try to make them right. We do not want to one day look back and see all the missed opportunities that caused yet another extinction or more fatalities caused from the human-wildlife conflict. The human-wildlife interaction has always been (and probably always will be) an issue of much debate, from the minor inconveniences it places on people to the life threatening situations we most often place ourselves in. It is our responsibility to take a page out of animal activists books and start treating wild animals with the care and respect that we show towards each other.
human - wildlife conflict 