cse_web.gif (1420 bytes) cse_logo.gif downtoearth.gif gobar.gif water.gif equity_watch.gif cse_store.gif

gobar_banner.gif (5252 bytes)

 

gt_contest.gif (781 bytes)

home.gif
gt_editorial.gif
letters.gif

cowpats.gif

gt_coverfeature.gif

gt_poster.gif
gt_things.gif
gt_comic.gif
gt_askme.gif
gt_links.gif
contest1.gif

gt_edition.gif (734 bytes)
autoexpo.gif

jaipur.gif

gt_edition1.gif (166 bytes)


line.gif (57 bytes)


environment.gif


line.gif (57 bytes)


reader's.gif

line.gif (57 bytes)


Whose rights? p71.jpg
First there was the blanket ban on sixty marine species. Protests from fishermen had the government of India do a rethink, and restrict the ban to only nine species. Why? Isn’t protecting a wildlife species a good thing ?? What about the livelihoods of thousands of fisherfolk? Humans or wildlife? Complicated? Here are two selected responses, to our call in the last issue for readers to comment.

dot.jpg (1193 bytes)Involve Locals in Conservation dot.jpg (1193 bytes)

For a considerable period of time, excessive exploitation of animals for food and other products has caused the extinction of many species. The uncontrolled killing of whales for meat and oil has brought them to the brink of extinction. The African Rhinoceros killed ruthlessly for its horn is also endangered. The Great Auk (a sea diving bird with a heavy body, short wings and black and white plumage) became extinct in the 19th century because of over hunting and the Carolina Parakeet perished because of habitat destruction.

From the above cases it is evident that protection of wild species is necessary but to a certain extent. Excessive protection of prarie dogs, for example, has almost eliminated one of their natural predators, the black-footed farret.

Another issue to be considered is the people of the rural areas of the world, fishermen and tribal people, depend on animals for food. The recent ban on about 60 species of marine life caused a great agitation among the public. Banning, I think, is not the solution. Banning does not work because public involvement is completely absent every time a ban is induced. It becomes difficult to validate to the people whose livelihood depends on the protected species, and ultimately ends up alienating the people from playing an active role in wildlife conservation. What we should do is make the locals responsible for protection and sustenance of species seen as valuable and endangered.

Sowmya Balachandran
Sanjaynagar, Bangalore

p71_1.jpg

dot1.jpg (1300 bytes)Strict Laws are Needed

dot1.jpg (1300 bytes)

Fishing is probably the oldest occupation. poaching and whale hunting developed as a sport in Europe and North America in the 19th century. Whales, sharks, rays, sea horses, sea turtles, sea cucumbers are in the list of conservationists. Indians in general and fisherfolk in particular, know little about the ocean and its ecosystem.

The fisherfolk are to be provided with other profitable activities like oyster culture, shrimp culture and fish seed production. This gives a break in regular fishing and helps in quick regeneration of fish in seas. Though difficult to accept, strict laws are to be enforced against fishing to save endangered species. Fishermen should be asked to use such nets from which sea turtles can escape. If they catch sea horses, they can leave them again in the sea. They should be asked to conserve sea life for their own children. The government should consult conservationist, marine biologists and ecologists to devise laws in such a way that it keeps the economic interests of the fisherfolk as well as conservation. It cannot implement total ban by simply attacking the livelihood of the fisherfolk.

S M Sandeep
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh