Conservation: Two Management Strategies In Africa.

 

 

Remember this: Interference can be a beneficial or negative occurrence. Depends on how you approach things. Pack your bags….we are going in the AOFH time machine.

 
"Apart from the hostile influence of man, the organic and the inorganic world are...bound together by such mutual relations and adaptations as secure, if not the absolute permanence and equilibrium of both, a long continuance of the established conditions of each at any given time and place, or at least, a very slow and gradual succession of changes in those conditions. But man is everywhere a disturbing agent. Wherever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords. The proportions and accommodations which insure the stability of existing arrangements are overthrown." (Marsh 1874:34)~George Perkins Marsh~

 I was thinking about the world if homo sapiens did not exist, refrained from participation, and now that people were present in the reality of Nature, what effect could humans illicit. These are easily asked questions with complicated answers based on all the available information since Homo sapiens could chisel or paint on a rock. Much of this information lays dormant on book shelves in Academia. Its sits there yet we do not revisit or learn from its intelligence. Why? If you think of the world in reoccurring cycles then why can the same event but not a perfect recreation happen again or to a different extreme?

The main concept I mulled over was Nature in the absence of human intervention exists in a state of balance which changes very little over long periods of time. My personal opinion is the wobbly effect of the Earth where it is constantly trying to right itself when negative forces oppose it. Because of this Nature is constantly in flux due to the actions of organisms on the environment and each other.

 If one reviewed natural resource management, balance or equilibrium is the state where there is no net change in a system. If a natural state is self-regulating and is truly at equilibrium but then deviates away from the balance then the system would compensate a change and move back to a steady state.

I wondered where I could find an example of human intervention or lack thereof in regards to resource management on wildlife landscapes that were contrary to expected outcomes. These outcomes depending on the influence of potential factors thought to kick Nature out of balance (such as human intervention) or what seemed to be back to a balanced state (leave Nature alone) only to find the ecosystem became more out of control.

Management strategies of National Parks have always been of interest. Management strategies have consisted of: leaving the natural area alone and preserve the landscape and animals, manipulate the ecosystem through a utilitarian approach, and the watch theory; you appreciate the existing ecosystem or tear the ecosystem apart mechanism by mechanism.

The example exists in history between Kenya's Tsavo National Park and Krueger National Park if you compare management styles of its resources. Let us jump in the time machine and take a closer inspection.

 Let us consider Krueger National Park.

At the time of this inspection Krueger was a fenced area. The following is in regard to the time in question and not the present day. Present days affords a much greater area.

 "The Krueger National Park is a 22,000 km square north to south, oblong-shaped area along a south (800 mm) to north (400 mm) summer rainfall gradient in the northeast of South Africa. It is underlain by basaltic and granitic basement rocks, which influence the vegetation. The eastern basalt areas are open to woodland savannas with a dense shrub and grass layer with mopane (Colophospermum mopane) dominant in the north and marula (Scleocarya birrea) and knobthorn (Acacia nigerscens) in the south. (Gertenback 1983) the entire park is fenced, and numerous boreholes and dams provide additional drinking water for wildlife." (Ray 209-10)

 At one point in Krueger National Park, managers pursued preservation management using the hands-on approach. To control the balance of Nature workers intervened by culling herds, groups, or individuals. Deep wells and dams were constructed to provide a water source; water being an essential requirement for life. There was also the practice of burning vegetation to propagate new growth, soil nourishment, seed germination, and browse facilitation or control. Management of wildlife and the landscape also controlled disease.

Let us consider Tsavo National Park.

Tsavo National Park consists of designated East and West locations. The surface is flat and covered with low dry vegetation on the east. In the west park there are height, dry plains and ancient lava fields. Lava fields are usually good sources of soil enriching nutrients. There is natural occurring springs.

We have arrived in 1948 and travel back and forth between the late 1960s. Tsavo was deemed a national park. In 1963 hunting was banned. In Tsavo there was vegetation, rhinoceros, elephants and other animals. Local people were evicted and the area was used solely for wildlife viewing for safari. Now I might add here that this ritual of evicting locals from the land to turn the property into a reserve, animal corridor, or national park seems to be a habit of African governance. We see this today in the Masaai or you could swing a read to Loliondo problem of leasing an area for hunting to foreign entities. There is also the issue of monitoring or ending hunting for eco-tourism (which I wonder if you revisit Tsavo in 1963). Of course there is always the impending issue of human habitation.

 Managers of the Park’s resources took the hands-off approach of letting nature take its course. Eventually wildlife consumed all of the food. With this lack of sustenance mortality rates increased on the part of the species dwelling in the park. Managers of that period argued Die-off was a natural occurrence of Nature’s progress. Managers continued minimal intervention. An ensuing drought made conditions worse. Animals associated with trees died and land became grass. This grass caused grazing species to increase. Managers realized eliminating people and letting nature take its course led to dramatic alterations of landscape and wildlife instead of propagating a stable ecosystem as hoped for.

Of course these two differing styles of reserve management at the time was a very good indicator of how varied the approach of caring for a natural area could pose in the way of methodology, action, and function once plans are applied. These two different modes of approach were designed with the idea of maintaining habitats and species in a particular area but the forethought of thinking in turns of immediate or long term outcomes depending on the different approaches did not seem to be a consideration except on the part of the Krueger National Park. The approach of getting involved with the ecosystem and nurturing the landscape, water sources, and animals in an appropriate way in regards to the long term function of a whole was the better plan. Nature has seen a competition of sorts for bacteria, animals, and plants where too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. In this case whoever is the mightiest can tromp all over other players in a much bigger game without realizing how important the minute species are…namely decomposers.

 The overall goal of managing a resource is to maximize production of featured species through a utilitarian approach in regard to conservation. Conservational biology makes decisions on use, management, or protection in order to prevent depletion and insure the complete ingredients in ecosystems, refuges, reserves or any habitat with inhabitants will continue. High rates of use, waste, and lack of regard for restoration should not be considered if it is overexploited to an irreversible end.

When I reflect on the two different reserve management style while excluding the present day situation it is interesting to see how letting Nature take over and tend her business versus human intervention could widely vary.

I thought about George Perkins Marsh’s comment but thought this may be true if man has no care one way or the other for ecosystems or ecosystem inhabitants. Given the expertise of managing a reserve for the betterment of the landscape humans can be very beneficial if not encouraging of life itself. Of course there are times when through trial and error such as the above Krueger-Tsavo case that you have to do a little indirect experimentation without knowing it to see what options are available. A good example is Edison and his light bulb. Man is a disturbing agent in the negative sense but in the positive sense that in his ability to disturb humans can recognize impunity if they wish, correct, and regulate an ecosystem for the benefit of self and other forms of life. Nature on the other hand can take care of a lot of things if you wish to view Nature as an organic omnipotent being with powers but then when upon inspection you view individuals in a system that become for lack of a term “lawless”; Nature has a harder time regulating the individual. On the other hand the best laid plans and efforts do not always give the predicted results. We can see this in terms of the effect poaching has had on rhinoceros. Even with the advent of patrols, laws, and conservation efforts animals are still being removed for local and international gain even at the expense of extinction. That would take replacing illegal money-making schemes with a legal lawful enterprise that would relegate the need to exploit jeopardized animals through alternative jobs for people that are poachers. Find them another way to support their family or themselves but then people can be callous. or just like to live on the edge of death. 

I did think after reviewing this that it will be interesting to watch the issues going on in Africa such as leasing property to foreign entities for hunting, evicting people to make way for corridors and national park areas, national park management in the face of poaching and changing land areas. Also what effect this will have on the ecosystems that exist around these issues. Granted there are plenty of issues not stated here but as a work in progress to see what will work and what will not might either end in headache or and adventure. Either way……I hope nothing is lost and I’ll be watching.

Written by : W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Literature Cited:
Weddell, Bertie Josephson. Conserving Living Natural Resources In the Context of a Changing World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.

Jusina C. Ray, Redford, Kent H., Steneck, Robert S., Berger, Joel. Large Carnivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Washington, DC. Island Press, Inc. 2005. Print. pgs. 209-210.