Ancient wisdom tells us to “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provides her meat in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest.” (Proverbs 6:6-8)
Conventional wisdom tells us that two heads are better than one. Yet, on an individual level two heads will often butt — and we are told that when resources are scarce, competition is better than collaboration.
Imagine a world where snakes are respected and appreciated instead of feared and hated.
I recently became aware of an organization that I am so excited about that I want to immediately share my find with you. Advocates for Snake Preservation, ASP, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to changing the way people view and treat snakes.
Every year, ANIMALS 24-7 conducts a national dog-breed survey. The results of the 2018 survey were just released. As interesting as the data collected by the survey are, I was particularly struck by a rather provocative proposition posed by Merritt Clifton, the editor/reporter of ANIMALS 24-7 and this survey.
Before exploring the thought provoking proposal, let’s set the stage:
The article details how the blood-thirst for coyotes originated with “the arrival of European-American settlers in the early 1800s. Coyotes and wolves took the opportunity to expand their diet to livestock. And for decades, the federal government actively encouraged the extermination of predators. That policy pushed wolves to the brink of extinction, but the wily coyote managed to thrive and spread pretty much everywhere. To this day, the government hires hunters to manage coyote populations and protect livestock in many states. And around 70 years ago, ranchers started to host coyote-hunting competitions.” Continue reading “Why killing coyotes never works by Ed Boks”
I’ve been devoting a considerable amount of time to understanding a rapidly growing international and cross-disciplinary movement called Compassionate Conservation.
This movement promotes the protection of wild animals as individuals within conservation practice and policy – using four guiding principles: 1) First, Do No Harm; 2) Individuals Matter; 3) Value All Wildlife (which I took the liberty of expanding to Value All Life; and 4) Peaceful Coexistence.
In a recent blog I asked if traditional conservation science is a pathological disorder. I provided some anecdotal evidence that seems to suggest this discipline is driven by an obsessive belief that the environment can be, indeed must be, restored to an idyllic, Eden-like state at any cost – including, and perhaps even preferring, the killing of anything that gets in its way.
Is traditional conservation science a pathological disorder driven by an obsessive, distorted belief that the environment can be, indeed must be, restored to some idyllic, imaginary state of being at any cost including, and perhaps preferring, killing anything that gets in the way?