Conflicts between man, agriculture, and wildlife.
If there is a species in decline, is advantageous classify her as threatened or may be worse because of the contrary reaction of people living in rural areas in contact with this dangerous species?
If the cause of decline of a poisonous snake is man, we may avoid such situation and allow the species to be conserved by any means because all species have their role in an environment. If any species is not fitting, it will have a natural extinsion. Threartened, endangerment etc are situations when we connect a species to human environment or when man intervene with other species environment. Poisonous snakes become dangerous only when we invade their environment.
Each and every species on the planet is important for proper functioning of ecosystem to which it belong. Decline in species number leads to the fragility of ecosystem. Poisonous snakes also have pivotal role in ecosystem. Therefore the conservation of snakes is important for the maintenance of ecological stability.
All fauna on the biosphere have very intricate roles to play in the functioning of ecosystem. Irrespective of how dangerous the species they are very instrumental in maintaining an ecological balance and aid in flow of energy through the ecosystem and to sustain this conservation of the species is very vital.
Many thanks for your answers.
I think that we must protect and conserve all species, even if they are dangerous, as a fundamental component of ecosystems. But my doubt arises whether it is better for a dangerous species to appear or not as threatened by the extra persecution to which it can be submitted by people who do not agree with the decision to protect her as much as posible.
Each species has its function in our ecosystem and each species has a right to exist, I know. But mostly this opinion is difficult to communicate with people who suffer from disadvantages.
I think, the fact that a species is endagered or not does not change the attitude of the people who do not agree with the protection. All the same it will make no difference if the species is poisonous or not.
There must be an advantage for the people who should protect the snake and if it is only that they could be proud of having such an animal in their environment. Much better would be an award.
As far as I know, the eagle owl (Bubo bubo) was nearly endagered in Austria. When the hunters got an award for having an eagle owl in their territory, the numbers of specimens rised quickly.
Alfonso, I think I understand the point you are making. Yes, of course we should protect every species that needs human intervention to persist in healthy populations in the environment. However, if we advertise a species considered harmful/dangerous to humans as being threatened or in danger of extinction, will that encourage people to try and eradicate it completely (and, thus, intensify the persecution)? The difficulty is that without a listing as Endangered/Threatened, then it is extremely difficult to attract funding for conservation efforts (especially from Government sources). And without funding, it is practically impossible to protect a species. Of course, any conservation efforts should include public awareness campaigns that reinforce that all species (dangerous or otherwise) play roles in the ecosystem that might be crucial for other biological/natural processes and that we shouldn't view species solely at the human-wildlife interface (i.e. is it good for me or is it bad for me?). Thus, omitting a species from Endangered listings because of public perceptions would be unhelpful: firstly, because it will limit legal obligations to protect it; secondly, because it will make securing funding for conservation measures difficult; and thirdly, because it reinforces the public's perception that the species should not be protected because it is dangerous (our challenge is to change these perceptions).
Dear Dr Alfonso
May I clear my thoughts with a specific case
You all know 'King Cobra', the most venomous snake on land. The snake is a top species in ecological pyramid and one pair of snake needs about 3-4 sq. km area as territory for normal living. They mainly feeds on other snakes, including poisonous ones like Cobras and Vipers. .
In Western Ghats and Kerala region people live very near to forest areas and there are very many reports of King Cobra coming to human habitats. We have an expert conservationist Mr. Vava Suresh, specialized in catching the King Cobra from human dwellings and rescuing it back to the deep forest area. So far he has handled more than 100 such cases. One of such cases was from our Garden in 2013. Among these 100 cases, there were not a single incidence of human death reported.
Only because it is most poisonous and it come to human, if we kill all king cobras or not conserve them what will happen. Population of other smaller poisonous snakes in the environment will go up and they will become more dangerous to man living near forest area.
See the attached photo
Of, course, even dangerous snakes, if they have decrease of number according to IUCN criteria must be announced as threatened.
I believe that it should be conserved the species. However,there is conflict between human and wildlife in many cases. In such cases, mitigation measures can be adopted. Very poisonous snakes also be managed in proper places, If some places are over-lapping, awareness programme can be organized to avoid the conflicts.
Every species has a role and a place of living in the biosphere. These two are called its 'niche'. We only have a superficial knowledge of the niche of even, a familiar species such as the tiger or the bee.
If we let a top carnivore (even if we know it is 'dangerous'), that will lead to the proliferation of other species fed upon by it. Such other species can be more harmful to humans or other animals.
The article cited below suggests how effective community outreach and education can be in promoting tolerance of even potentially dangerous animals (in this case, Vipera aspis). To echo previous sentiments, listing dangerous animals is important, but should be done in tandem with more public education than what is perhaps usual. A daunting task with your venomous reptile example, but not impossible!
Bonnet, et al. (2016). Forest management bolsters native snake populations in urban parks. Biological Conservation
Legal protection is necessary to the enforcement agencies to persecute offenders. If a species is not legally protected and disliked by humans, it will be hunted to its demise. E.g. the Italian wolf
Foremost, it should be considered who is the invader before taking any action?
Legal protection does not help or help only in developed countries. In the rest of the world nobody of local populations cares and even knows about the protection status of wildlife.
The only thing (for my mind) legal protection can help is the fundrising for species conservation. And use the funds for education purpose.
I want to thank all those who have participated in this discussion because your answers have been very useful to me.
With best regards!
Alfonso Balmori
I completely agree with Mr. Telnov. For such kind of animals the only future is establishing a conservation (mostly captive) programs, but the only thing is that working with such animals, like highly venomous snakes is quite risky for human. Even very experienced people make mistakes... which used to finalized fatally for them...
But it is the only way for most animals indeed.
The Massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) is protected in Illinois, Michigan (USA) and in Ontario, Canada. Although it is venomous it has claimed relatively few lives. Other venomous species such as the Gila Monster (venomous lizard--Heloderma suspectum) is protected in the States where it is found (beginning with Arizona), plus other rattlers like the Timber (Crotalus horridus) is protected in some states in the East while Arizona, New Mexico and Federal Government list the small Willard Rattlesnake (Crotalus willardi and others) as protected. Crocodiles are protected globally beginning with the Federal regulations (treaty, etc.). So, yes there are several instances (and strategies) where venomous and other life-threatening species are protected. I would suggest checking with the various governmental entities for copies of their endangered and threatened species lists. In my background I served 17+ years as one of several Governor-appointed members on the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. Ray Pawley
Each animal has a right to exist In addition, each type has a role in the ecosystem
Your question clearly centers on human nature apart from simply listing a species as endangered. It is absolutely true that if people in an area are not encouraged to support such a law, then the species may be doomed. What country are we talking about and are the endangered snakes found only in one area or are there other disjunct populations elsewhere? What do the people in the area value or cherish? Fundamentally, if a dangerous snake is found in a dwelling it must be killed or removed in any case. Ray
Being venomous is an adaptation of that particular species for its own survival. However, it may be vulnerable to various environmental changes may they be natural or human induced. For example if the species is restricted to particular habitat and it is declining (although its venomous) then it means some thing serious is going on in that habitat and then that species and ultimately its habitat become worth to conserve.
My earlier question: What do the people, who live in the area where the rare venomous snake is found, value? That's not a rhetorical question: What do the people like or cherish? Each community is different and what makes the community in question different from other communities? From there, perhaps some answers can be ferreted out.
If I have properly understood the animal and species protection, then a species is considered threatened if your stock is threatened regardless of whether it is dangerous or not. Dangerous animals can be exterminated in order to avert public danger If this species is endangered, it must be protected.
An example is the wolf in Germany.
Possibly the dangerous animals would have to being held in reserves. But there is no absolute protection.
In Germany, in old, densely populated cultural landscapes, this is impossible. But the wolf is not realy dangerous.
Have a good and safe time
Michael Lersow
Without the locals supporting it, the protection/recovery project will very likelyl fail. See info re: Mexican Wolf in NM and AZ.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology