Read the article and answer the following questions.
1. Can the West justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, or is it unfair to impoverished people to prioritize the environment? Or, conversely, do you think that better regulation of natural resources (specifically game) could help alleviate poverty?
2. What areas of development in these countries do you think are most likely to help reduce poaching? (For example: education, utilities, industry, law enforcement, etc.)
1. I think that they can partially justify holding developing countries responsible only because they have the means to execute the protection, but I think that it would be more fair and agreed upon if all the countries that were interested in the project to pitch in a certain percent, so that if they did not have as much money or resources as more developed countries, they wouldn't have to contribute as much but they would still be able to help with the protection and would not be able to be blamed for not helping demolish the illegal trade. I think that, depending on the measures used to regulate the natural resources, it could help alleviate poverty. For example, if people had to pay a fine when they were caught poaching, and that money was put toward public services, then it could definitely help the situation.
ReplyDelete2. I think that law enforcement would be very likely to reduce the poaching because if people were severely punished for poaching, they would be less likely to do it again, and they would also be an example to other poachers, who would probably not want the same thing to happen to them. I also think that education might slightly help because if more people knew how much damage they were doing to the animal population as well as the environment, they would not encourage poaching, and they might even campaign against it. However, people that are already big into the illegal wildlife trade would most likely not be affected because they probably already know that the animals are rare, which is why they get so much money for their products, and they would probably not want to stop something that makes them so much money. Therefore, I think that a combination of both law enforcement and education could help to reduce poaching and therefore, slow down or stop the decreasing animal populations.
1. Can the West justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, or is it unfair to impoverished people to prioritize the environment? Or, conversely, do you think that better regulation of natural resources (specifically game) could help alleviate poverty?
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no right answer to this question! In developing countries where these animals are killed, it is often a choice between killing an animal and watching your kids starve. If the West is concerned though (as we should be) we ought to stop pointing fingers and saying "HEY STOP LETTING PEOPLE KILL RHINOS DUHH" and ask ourselves why this is occurring and then offer aid or counsel to the countries in question.
2. What areas of development in these countries do you think are most likely to help reduce poaching? (For example: education, utilities, industry, law enforcement, etc.)
I think investment in industries and agriculture will reduce the need for illegal supplementation of salaries. Law enforcement will just become bloody because no matter how determined the countries are to enforce anti-poaching laws, their citizens are going to be just as determined to feed their families. Education does not seem like a short-term solution, all though it could be a long-term solution.
But wouldn't there still be a market for the illegal wildlife? Even with more jobs? Also, my guess is that it not the poorest of the poor who participate in these crimes, but people with capital to invest in the equipment and logistics necessary to execute the plans.
Delete1. I don't think the West should really hold developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species because in the West we have so many more resources at our disposal and to expect developing countries to give away what little they have when the West has such a higher standard of living is unfair and somewhat selfish. However, it could be possible for better regulation of natural resources to also benefit the people in developing countries because in the food chain, every time a species goes extinct, it messes with the balance between all the links, and so the more species go extinct, the harder life will eventually get for those people, so although they may not have the resources to help much, it would probably be in their best interest, if they could.
ReplyDelete2.I think the main two areas of development to help reduce poaching would be education and law enforcement. A lot of the people who are poaching these endangered animals probably don't realize the huge repercussions their actions will have on society, and so just education them on what driving species into extinction really means for the world would stop a lot of the poaching. However, some people are sure to continue poaching even if they know exactly what consequences it will have. And so for these people law enforcement would be very important to develop because if they are punished harshly for poaching, they will be unlikely to continue doing it, as will others who see the punishment they received.
1. We cannot hold developing countries responsible for enforcing anti-poaching laws. while the environment is an essential part of the world, nations that cannot yet keep a stable government or economy cannot be expected to set aside resources for the environment that they don't even have for themselves. If the west is to hold these nations responsible for sustaining their wildlife, the least we can do is assist them. this could be done monetarily, or through volunteer aid.
ReplyDelete2. In order to reduce poaching, these countries need to improve all aspects of their society. Poaching is the result of desperation for an income, which it provides. if a society were to lower their unemployment rate, fewer people would feel the need to poach. A better law enforcement organization would provide jobs, as well as making poaching harder. Cracking down on black market trade of poached goods would also make poaching less profitable, and thus fewer people would do it.
1. I don't think that better regulation of natural resources will help alleviate poverty because that is how many people make money, they hunt the game and then sell it to foreign nations so they receive some income. The west cannot hold developing countries responsible for environmental regulations, we cannot except countries without stable governments and stable economies to set aside monetary resources and expect them to oblige by our goals, when they have their own.
ReplyDelete2. In order to reduce poaching these countries need to change all aspects. They need to create a stable government where people aren't looking for ways to find money, this can start with educating citizens for good jobs. As well as a better law enforcement would help institute jobs as well as prosecuting those who poach.
Hold up. Should their possibly be "global environmental regulations?" Surely all humans live by some type of moral code, and the killing of endangered animals may be something that all governments could agree with. I am questioning the existence of "their own" rules.
DeleteIvestigate at CITES.org
1. I believe that the west has no right to justify what other countries are thinking of doing, unless it comes to be something of a global matter. and i also don't think that it is unfair for impoverished people to make use of their environment, because it's their land and their life, and they can choose what they want to do with it. the poaching could only alleviate poverty for a short time until the population becomes extinct, then they will need to search for a new poverty alleviating way to make money.
ReplyDelete2.Definitely law enforcement would be a great way to go, but it wouldn't stop the root of the problem, because after all there are all sorts smugglers and poachers that do their dirty work under the radar. another way to possibly remove some of the problem would have to be a wildlife refuge for those endangered animals to live in peace away from the dirty work of poachers.
Sustainability? Using resources in a way to maintain lifestyle but allowing the environment to naturally regenerate.
Delete1. I think it would cause greater stress on impoverished nations to prevent their hunting of wildlife. I think the best option to protect these endangered species is to combat the issue from the consumer side, trying to prevent the demand. This still may hurt the natives, by reducing their buyers, however, many of the people hunting these animals are not natives trying to support their lifestyle (food, pelt etc), they are foreigners coming in to poach these animals.
ReplyDelete2. The largest issue that would need to be combated is the smugglers who are working with the black market, therefore strengthening law enforcement. It would also reduce the impact on the native culture by educating them and helping the government to help the people maintain their lifestyle or improve it. This could encourage them to find their livelihood in other "fields" as opposed to poaching, or hunt for different (not endangered) animals.
1. I believe that the West cannot hold developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species because in order for an ecosystem to continue being stable enough to live disruptions such as poaching need to stop or diminish. If it continues rising as it has now the environment will begin deterioating and will not support the people living there causing those impoverished people more hardships because they now need to move to a liveable area. So although the money that comes from poaching gives them a little bit of help, the poaching that leads to less animals or their extinction would eventually hurt them too.
ReplyDelete2. I think development in education and technology would most likely help reduce poaching in developing countries because the development in education would help educate the people on the harms and consequences of constantly disturbing the environment and its system causing them to at least diminish hunting. And the development of technology would help reduce poaching because there would be other means of income for them rather than just the money they receive from poaching.
1. I don't think the West can hold developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species. Although the environment is important, an impoverished country cannot set aside resource it can't afford. If the West wants the countries to protect their species, it should assist them.
ReplyDelete2. I think utilities and industry would help reduce poaching, because if there is less demand for the resources, poaching will decrease and other industries will increase. Law enforcement also plays a large role in anti-poaching efforts. If there was no punishment for poaching, it would never stop.
1. I honestly believe that the West can and should hold these developing countries accountable. It is irrelevant that they are impoverished, there are better ways to develop. If we do not begin to hold these countries accountable, then some day soon these animals will become extinct. Then these countries will be back to square one, another species of animals will be dead and gone, and the world will have slightly reduced their natural resources. Though one or two extinct species seems like no big deal but it will begin to add up(it already has) and then the world will truly be in trouble. Better regulation of game would definitely help these impoverished countries and this would actually be a lasting solution. Africa in general is full of some much wildlife that if they learn how to make the most of it while still keeping the environment healthy.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that education as well as law enforcement would help reduce poaching. If these people are educated about how important their wildlife is they will hopefully understand that poaching is not the way to go. Also in educating them they may also pursue more careers that are more beneficiary to the world as whole. Law enforcement is also important because that way people that continue to poach will be caught and punished, otherwise poaching will continue because there is no enforcement of the anti-poaching laws.
1. From reading this article about poaching animals, I believe that the West cannot justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species because if people diminish poaching animals, than it would stop the way in which humans survive by trade. I'm not saying that animals aren't important to keep them from going extinct but in order to diminish poaching, people need to recognize that what they do is wrong and figure out a way to survive without killing animals.
ReplyDelete2. I think that education and law enforcement would help reduce poaching because the more people are educated about poaching the more likely it would be stopped because people care for animals more nowadays. Then from this recognition, law enforcement would be a result from the education about poaching because from the poaching is one of the most "Illegal wildlife trade is one of the most lucrative international organized crimes."
But just because somebody makes a living off an illegal activity doesn't mean that it's ok. Do we say drug trafficking is OK because poor people don't have another choice?
Delete1) I think that the West can't hold developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, because how are they supposed to put this money aside when the government doesn't even have enough money to feed its people, I think in order for these countries to be able to do that the West should aid these governments in order to protect these species of animals.
ReplyDelete2)I think law enforcement and education are the two main factors that would help solve these problems. With education the people would learn how endangered these species are and maybe find a way they could earn money while protecting them, second without any law enforcement the people will do as they please which will only make them more ignorant and will keep on killing animals.
1. Can the West justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, or is it unfair to impoverished people to prioritize the environment? Or, conversely, do you think that better regulation of natural resources (specifically game) could help alleviate poverty?
ReplyDeleteI think that holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species and the environment is not entirely fair because it would be difficult for them to worry about their people and the environment, but I also think that they should be held responsible nonetheless because preserving these wonderful natural resources will ultimately be worthwhile and will enrich the lives of their citizens and the world.
2. What areas of development in these countries do you think are most likely to help reduce poaching? (For example: education, utilities, industry, law enforcement, etc.)
First and foremost I think the development of education would most likely reduce poaching because education can improve many other aspects of life. Education provides students with the tools to pursue a better life. Therefore, when the standard of living is raised more people have the time and ability to worry about more than how they are going to put food on the table and will actively and purposefully pursue ways to protect their environment.
1. Can the West justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, or is it unfair to impoverished people to prioritize the environment? Or, conversely, do you think that better regulation of natural resources (specifically game) could help alleviate poverty?
ReplyDelete-Yes, The West can justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species. Many developing countries( namely in Africa) Hold animals found no where else in the world, most of them being endangered. It is there responsibility as much as it is ours to help protect the environment. On a Second note however, I think that Many people in developing countries rely on poaching as an income, so they will have to find some of the many other ways to make a living.
2. What areas of development in these countries do you think are most likely to help reduce poaching? (For example: education, utilities, industry, law enforcement, etc.)
- I believe that an increased development in education and law enforcement will help to reduce poaching. Many people poaching now are unaware of the consequences that they are creating simply because they have never been taught. Obviously, an increased law enforcement will help to reduce crime.
1) yes the West can justifying holding less developed countries simply because this is what makes the country unique. In africa for example, there are magnificent animals that people come from all over the world to see. if they want these people there, they need to protect the animals.
ReplyDelete2) Education and making it unreasonable. if the country takes time to show people that the long run outweighs the short run and make it almost impossible to get away with it.
1. While the west cannot realistically expect governments to allocate resources they do not have, it isn't unreasonable for foreign aid to be directed to wilderness preservation. As we saw with fishery management, many developing nations are being exploited by foreign interests. Large game in Africa is no exception. Through tourism and the potential for regulated tourism, these resources could be an integral part of the economies of these countries in the future, but only if they survive the present.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that education is one of the greatest tools in preventing poaching, because it empowers locals to become stakeholders rather than exploiters by fostering interest, opening other opportunities, and helping those who care be able to rally resources and support. Most often, crime comes about because of a lack of other opportunity.
1. The West cannot hold developing countries responsible. Such developing counrites do not have the means to put so much focus on setting aside resources that they may or may not have. It is not necessarily unfair to people to prioritize the environment as that would serve to be beneficial for all, but the countries should most likely be putting their focus on the people and helping them as well as the environment.
ReplyDelete2. Law enforcement would be a worthwhile area to pursue in order to reduce poaching. This would help to reduce the numbers from poaching. Also, if education about poaching is provided that could serve to be helpful as well. People would be better educated and know the consquences of their actions.
1. Can the West justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species, or is it unfair to impoverished people to prioritize the environment? Or, conversely, do you think that better regulation of natural resources (specifically game) could help alleviate poverty?
ReplyDeleteThe West cannot justify holding developing countries responsible because the aid that comes from the developing countries can be given to the endangered animals, which could eventually be beneficial to all. If gaming were to be regulated, then the animals would be able to flourish and breed, causing not only an abundance of food but also an increase in aid that can be given to the impoverished people. But if gaming cannot be regulated, then in the long run, the impoverished countries will only become more effected because they will lose food and trade quicker.
2. What areas of development in these countries do you think are most likely to help reduce poaching? (For example: education, utilities, industry, law enforcement, etc.)
I believe that a combined effort of education and law enforcement will most likely reduce the poaching because the hunters that are killing the endangered species aren't understanding the long term effects of there actions, so knowing what will happen in the future with education of the problem will hopefully reduce the amount of poaching. Then with a strong law enforcement, the poachers can be caught, which will reduce the number of poachers that are making a dent in the endangered species population.
1. I believe the West can realistically justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources to protect endangered species the same way parents can expect certain responsibilities from a child. Until the child is old enough to actually do its duties, the parents do the child's responsibilities, and once they are old enough the parent can guide and help the child.The same can be done with thee West and developing countries. Until the countries have the resources to take care of endangered species and wild life, they ought to be helped. However, thats if the West wants to be able to hold the countries responsible. If the Government could come up with a way to make money from the resources, then regulation could help alleviate poverty. But, saving the animals for the animals sake will not do much for the people. Also, if the government got in on the deals that makes poaching so attractive, by domesticating and raising animals elephants/rhinos/tigers specifically for their resources, the natural wild ones could be saved.
ReplyDelete2. An increase in law enforcement could help reduce poaching, but if education, utilities and industry increased enough, Then the people would be able to have better jobs, make more money, and with all those increases there would be more resources available to the government to crack down on poaching. And that would make a much better long term solution to poaching than just putting more people on the watch, as more technologies AND people could be used if the country became more advanced technologically.
1. I think it would be unfair to impoverished nations to prevent their hunting of wildlife. I think the best option to protect these endangered species is to combat the issue from the consumer side, trying to prevent the demand.This could be done by developed nations presenting alternatives to have the market adapt. This still may hurt the natives, but since most of the poachers are foreigners we could provide cheap food for those who need it while solving the problem
ReplyDelete2. The largest issue that would need to be combated is the smugglers who are working with the black markets which can be done by having an alternative market. For the natives we could help by giving cheap food to them for survival instead of poaching. We could also try to build an education system in order for them to have other markets to work in.
1. I think it would be very unfair to stop them from being allowed to hunt the animals that roam free in their country to protect what the West wants. It would also cause a great deal of stress on impoverished nations if we did not let them hunt the animals in their country because they would have to find other and much harder ways to find food. It would be as if Europe made sure that America was not allowed to drive cars, it would be possible for people to ride bikes or use public transportation but it would be a huge hassle and inconvenience. What the WWF and Africa need is federal regulation such as only a certain amount of a certain type of animal can be killed each year by each person and a license to kill that animal would not only be expensive, but some of the money received from the license would go to restoring and helping maintain the population of a certain animal.
ReplyDelete2. The easiest way to help end the struggle of endangered animals would be to create restriction zones which are heavily enforced by patrol officers and what not, and then have areas that are free game. This way, agents would be concentrated in a certain area where the population and maintenance of a certain species of animal is curtail to the area because of dense populations, where as the open areas are open game to anyone with a certain license. Another way to help eliminate the problem would be to make the cost outweigh the benefit. As of now, the poaching penalty is a severe fine and possible jail time, which does not seems like a horrible consequence considering the price of ivory in South Africa is valued at $50,000 per kg and that an elephant tusk can weigh up to 90kg per tusk. The African government needs to find a way to either flood the black market with ivory making it worthless or make the punishment much worse than the possible reward so people do not even want to attempt to take ivory.
1. I honestly believe that the West can and should hold these developing countries accountable. It is irrelevant that they are impoverished, there are better ways to develop. If we do not begin to hold these countries accountable, then some day soon these animals will become extinct. Then these countries will be back to square one, another species of animals will be dead and gone, and the world will have slightly reduced their natural resources. Though one or two extinct species seems like no big deal but it will begin to add up(it already has) and then the world will truly be in trouble. Better regulation of game would definitely help these impoverished countries and this would actually be a lasting solution. Africa in general is full of some much wildlife that if they learn how to make the most of it while still keeping the environment healthy.
ReplyDelete2. First and foremost I think the development of education would most likely reduce poaching because education can improve many other aspects of life. Education provides students with the tools to pursue a better life. Therefore, when the standard of living is raised more people have the time and ability to worry about more than how they are going to put food on the table and will actively and purposefully pursue ways to protect their environment.
I believe that the West can hold developing countries accountable. This is because it's the East that caused they problem and they need to pay the price for it. Everybody knows that if the East doesn't try and repair what they did, these animals will go extinct, and the East is going to be the ones that get the most detrimental effects to it.
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that the development of education will increase poaching, however people will just find more advanced ways of doing it. Instead of using more simple tools, they can use and create more sophisticated tools that also end up becoming more efficient.
1. The West cannot justify holding developing countries responsible for setting aside resources dedicated to preservation of these species, because they don't have the means necessary, therefore it is unfair for them to prioritize their environment, because they are underdeveloped and therefore need to dedicate those resources to other problems they have.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the development of law enforcement and education in the West will lead to a decrease in poaching of these animals, because the more people know and the less consequences there are, the less likely it is to happen again.