Another approach is conserving an umbrella species; one that requires a large range and therefore protecting that, shields a large area where other animals live. Many feel it is vital for conservationists to promote these types of conservation as they are the most beneficial to an entire ecosystem.

 Conserving a flagship species can often be very expensive, which in impoverished areas can be a big problem. The actual identification of an animal whose existence benefits other organisms can also be difficult to determine. Any actions which are taken concerning an ecosystem are going to have an affect.

 The choice of these flagship species can often be an animal which strikes an emotional chord with the general public. It is much easier to raise money through charity by using a mammal such as the gorilla as its poster animal. This may explain why much of the world’s amphibians are in danger of extinction. Would, an emotionless approach prove fairer and less biased to a species that gather little emotional sentiment?

Primates were chosen above others as test subjects for space exploration, as their close genetics and morphological similarities made them a perfect choice. The first primate in space was a Rhesus monkey called Albert II. This links closely to modern day usage of animal within scientific and cosmetic research. It is openly accepted by a large numbers of people that usage within cosmetics is totally wrong. A recent poll claimed that only 10% of Briton’s who took part thought animal testing for cosmetics was acceptable.

[http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/changing-british-attitudes-animal-testing.html].

The testing performed within scientific and medical research is less clean cut. Could it be justified if the drugs tested on animals could save millions of human lives? Cancer or HIV treatments are known to be tested on animals and if this practice could lead to real development of the drugs and possible cures, is it ok? Or should all medical testing only be performed upon fellow humans? An article published in the British newspaper the telegraph in 2009, stated that MP’s in the UK were putting forward plans to investigate human alternatives to animal testing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4339504/Human-alternatives-to-animal-testing-should-be-investigated-MPs-say.html.

It puts forward the question, what give Humans the right to use animals in situations which cause immense suffering and possible death. Can the progression of medicine justify this practice?

 http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/southport.htm

 Another issue which has caused major controversy is the location of many of these places. Should animals which aren’t native to a country or even a continent, be found in sanctuaries and zoos? Although there are major differences between zoo’s and sanctuaries, the most obvious one being a sanctuary is home for animal where may have no where else to go.  

 Arguments for include a lack of finance or safe environment, due to situations such as deforestation, bush meat or war, within their native countries.

Many people who advocate the presence of these animals within non-native countries, say it is important for the long-term survival of these species, especially ones that are currently endangered.

 Arguments against this issue include claims it is important that the animal’s stay within the home range. It is  believed there is no hope for conservation of these species if the people who they share the land with, don’t come into contact with them. The issue remains that sometimes it is just impossible for this to occur. Improvements in infrastructure, political stability or attitudes may see the chance of the animals returning to these areas significantly increased.

Whether an animal can truly live naturally without being in its habitat is also an issue that is important to this topic. How can an Elephant or Tiger really live happily within captivity? Such animals are thousands of miles from natural habitats, and the areas they find themselves in, bare little or no resemblance to where they should be found. In the case of zoos, could it be classed as cruelty to put an organisms like such in a habitat it doesn’t understand and probably finds uncomfortable to live in. Large animals like the Elephants mentioned are the organisms which suffer the most from living in such establishments. These animals naturally migrate and have large home ranges, so to put them in an enclosure is unnatural. It could be said that animals bred in captivity will lack some of these natural instincts and therefore be more suited to this limited lifestyle? Sanctuaries could be classed as a different matter as most the animal housed in these collections, have no where else to go.  

Animals especially from Africa and Asia do not have the security or the financial backing to prosper in their natural habitats. Whilst this continues the amounts of animals being found in zoos and sanctuaries will stay constant. This then points to the importance of improving the countries in which they animal should be found.

 Most of the world biodiversity hotspots are found within the third world. Poverty is usually rife in these areas and this breeds corruption. This is also a major problem populations have to face. The extreme poverty encourages people to take the rules into their own hands and sometimes these misguided people find themselves in positions of power.

 In countries with dictatorships such as Zimbabwe and Somalia, conservation efforts and animal rights issues are totally neglected. During times of war in central Africa, when corruption was everywhere, Gorillas were slaughtered in massive numbers. Civil war in Rwanda and the Congo encouraged the bush meat trade and logging, which in turn decimated Gorilla populations throughout these lands. In countries with more stable political situations, there tends to be much healthier conservation and animal right policies. In countries with non existent governments, law and order is usually in tatters. This lack of policing means that an anything goes attitude develops and sometime this leads to destruction of habitats and persecution of certain species.

The most successful conservation efforts are performed in countries with stable governments who act for the good of the people and land. Although post election violence marred the recent political history of Kenya, their mostly health political situation over the last 30 years has resulted in a competent conservation attitude. Especially when compared to other African countries. South Africa is the role model for most of Africa when it comes to conservation. Much of the country’s revenue is produced through this industry. Has the stable situation since the end of apartheid has encouraged this growth?

At first glance, eco-tourism initiatives that allow people to get close to endangered species seem like a brilliant way of dealing with several of conservation’s significant problems; raising awareness and increasing people’s passion for conservation, boosting local economies, and bringing money in to help pay to conserve not only the species in question, but others in the same ecosystem. Bwindi, Uganda is one area which has particularly benefited from a gorilla tourism program, with the need for trackers and rangers creating employment, and a market for gift shops and cultural experiences enabling local communities to gain from tourist presence.

However, recent research is beginning to reveal that there are actually some serious detrimental effects on the animals involved in some of eco-tourism’s most successful projects. In May 2010, The Guardian reported that researchers in the Central African Republic had found that gorillas undergo dangerous levels of stress when exposed to tourists at close quarters.

Observing a group of gorillas as tourists, scientists and local trackers got close to them, the researchers noticed that the gorillas’ feeding behaviour changed as more humans joined the group; they were less able to focus on the task at hand, instead being disturbed by the human activity and spending time watching them. The silverback male in the group also issued some warning barks when he felt that people were getting too close to him and his group – a very clear sign that he was uncomfortable with this intrusion.

As well as the pyschological effects of eco-tourism on gorillas, the potential for disease transmission is a serious concern for conservationists. Take the mountain gorilla as an example: there are only around 720 left in the world, and something as seemingly harmless as a common cold, transmitted by a tourist sneezing near a group, could easily wipe out an entire family or more. Currently, humans must only remain seven metres away from the gorillas they’re watching, but it is now being proposed that this is increased to 18 metres, though this would be hard to maintain and enforce in dense rainforest.

It is not only gorillas that are at risk from eco-tourism. It was announced in May this year that India is to ban tiger tourism in an attempt to save its estimated 800 remaining Bengal tigers from exctinction in the wild. It is thought that the constant stream of tourists through India’s relatively small reserves scares away tigers’ prey, prevents them from following their usual migratory routes, and destroys the habitat in which they would normally hunt, as lodges and hotels appear in huge numbers to cater for the tourist market. Another concern is that the focus on tigers distracts from the desperate situation of much of India’s other wildlife, which is left to languish as tourists, hellbent on getting that impressive tiger photo, drive right past it. On the other hand , some argue that an obvious tourist presence acts as a deterrent to poachers and that individual tourists or tour guides have sometimes acted as a valuable warning system, noticing corruption within reserve systems, or blowing the whistle on signs of poaching. In addition to this, tiger tourism gives forest habitats an economic value to local populations; take this away and the replacement could be something incredibly destructive, like logging or agriculture.

Forgetting about individual species for a moment, it is believed by some that the entire wildlife tourism industry is actually doing more harm than good. Rosaleen Duffy, an expert in international politics and wildlife conservation management, has, over 15 years of research, found that tourist “paradise” resorts are often made by destroying natural features, and that local residents are forced to give up age-old ways of life in order to gain employment through tourism.

What do you think? Would you feel comfortable going on a gorilla or tiger safari, knowing that the effects of this may not be entirely positive? Do you feel that the benefits still outweigh the costs? As tourists, do we have a responsibility to unofficially regulate the industry by asking difficult questions and demanding the highest level of integrity from tour operators, or is it all someone else’s responsibility? We look forward to hearing your views on this delicate issue.

Many people within these countries are often offended when people such as our selves come to their land and criticise things that are normal practice. It is believed in the west, that educating these people so they can be prosperous and allow the organisms to live happily around them is the way forward. But it has to be a fine balance between pointing these people in the right direction and lecturing them. The latter can often have an adverse effect and make natives ignore the advice and then gain hatred to what they deem the meddling west.

There seems to be a correlation between areas with both poor human and animal rights. Many countries which are deemed to have practices which are cruel to animals also have a poor record with human rights. Although this isn’t always the case, as there are hundreds of thousands of cases of cruelty towards animals in the western world, countries where human rights are thought to be good. Fox hunting is an issue within England which is deemed by a large amount of the population to be cruel, although a small minority believe it acceptable. A recent poll by RSPCA, International fund for animal welfare and league against cruel sport showed that one in six people who participated was in favour of this hunting.

Poverty is another aspect which people feel may encourage the attitudes which cause animal cruelty. In areas where poverty is rife and people are starving to death, the welfare of animal is the last thing on people’s minds. Often in these poverty stricken places have unstable governments which do little to enforce any types of laws on animal rights. This encourages their population to then treat animal badly as they feel they aren’t breaking any laws and it’s therefore ok. If there were stronger rules within these countries which were enforced, would animal rights improve?

In areas of poverty, resources like food are very valuable. This is one of the reason welfare of certain species can be bad. If a primate steal precious food, it’s likely a bad feeling will develop towards that species. Improved education would hopefully try to alleviate that problem. But would this education be enough to change feelings towards these persecuted species?

Primate conservation is a prominent aspect of conservation. They share much of our ancestry and for this reason some people feel obliged to try increase their numbers. Are other species overlooked due to their inhuman like characteristics or behaviour? It is understood by scientists that reptiles and amphibians have much less brain function. Dr Paul MacLean has performed extensive research which pointed towards reptile having an instinctive pattern of thought. Meaning they have less ability to experience suffering compared to mammals, due to this lack of complex thought.

Does this mean that we should focus upon animals that are more likely to be psychologically affected by the destruction of their species, or should all animals no matter of their awareness, be saved too?

Over half of the worlds Amphibians are endangered due to habitat destruction and pollution. These animals breathe and through their skin so any pollution in water can have a deadly effect upon them. Their conservation is extremely important due to the roles they play within the complex jungle ecosystems that many of them inhabit. The article below underlines further the threats towards amphibians and how their decline can be an indicator for changes in biodiversity.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/10-08Turnover.asp

How funding is distributed between species is seen by some as being feeling attached to them is reduced. Could a more even system for distribution of funding extremely biased and the amount of money given to animals with less human be devised, or should we continue in the current trend?

 All major areas of biodiversity are full of westerners that have made the choice to move to find employment within conservation. Although this is good for conservation, it takes away jobs from locals. Many communities are unsympathetic towards conservation as they feel they are excluded. By employing more natives within important projects, this would probably improve attitudes within these biodiversity hotspots. These locals could then speak to the communities which wouldn’t trust the words of a foreigner. This would have a much greater impact and improve conservation effort within these areas.

 A problem faced when employing people from the local areas can sometimes be a lack of education at every level. University grade education is a much rarer within these countries. There are only around 30 universities in the entirety of Kenya, compared to western countries like the UK, this is a small number. There is currently a drive within many African countries to employ their fellow country men instead of foreigners. In certain aspects, people from the country in question are better suited to this vocation. They have a greater understanding of both the land and people. But at an education level, westerners are better due to the education systems in Europe and North America. A belief of many is that conservation should be a mix of both natives and westerners. Combining the natives understanding of the country and the westerners understanding of academic subjects would create the ultimate partnership to tackle the problems these habitats face.

When we arrived at the Center, we went first into the interactive Learning room.  This room was especially impressive with brightly colored wall paintings and materials used for visiting school children. Weekly, the Trust works with visiting school children to educate them on local conservation issues. Pupils get to see the animals that are being rehabilitated, walk the nature trails, and even visit the beach and learn about ocean ecology and conservation. For schools that cannot afford to visit the Center, the Trust goes out on Thursdays and Friday and brings the education to the children.

In the educational outreach, children learn about how all things in nature are connected and what negative impact human development can have on the primates of Diani Beach. They learn that by cutting down trees, primates like the colobus have nowhere to live and can more easily get hit by cars and electrocuted by power lines.  The primates that are being rehabilitated at the Trust are mainly orphans that have lost their parents to such accidents.

Besides environmental education, the Trust makes it a point to talk to the children about the illegal keeping of wildlife as pets. This has proven to be a very productive act as it has opened up communication with children who know neighbors who have pet primates. Not only is the Trust then able to rescue and rehabilitate more primates, but children can feel like they had a part in making a difference. Another bonus benefit of outreach education!

After the Interactive Learning Center, we took a walk in a Coral Rag Forest. We learned how the strength of a tree is highly dependent on the other trees surrounding it creating a strong web of root systems to hold it strong, and how the trees provide more than just homes for primates, but also sources of water, and safer travel above and away from ground predators.  We were amazed at how cool it felt under the shaded canopy of the forest. Diani Beach is a hot and humid place but it felt tolerable and even comfortable under the trees.  Our guide reminded us that if Diani Beach continues to develop and cut down trees, life with out shade will not only be very miserable but we will eventually change the region into a desert environment; no longer a thriving environment for wildlife OR people.

Our guide named Peter, who has been with the Colobus Trust for 5 years now, explained some of the other community projects the organization has initiated. Bridges above roads have been built to act as safe cross walks for primates in an attempt to decrease road accidents.  PVC piping has been cut to cover electrical lines to lessen electrocution. Weekly, volunteers find and remove snare traps from the forest.  A current project of growing a “tree corridor” for arboreal animals to safely travel above busy shopping areas is also in the works; nine hundred trees have already been planted and two thousand more are being prepared for the next rainy season.

The Colobus Trust works strictly off support from volunteers, donations and guided eco-tours.  So, if you ever find your self in Diani Beach, or looking for a place to donate your time while enjoying white sandy ocean beaches and friendly passionate people, the Colobus Trust is a perfect choice. Check it out at www.colobustrust.org

Jeremiah Muramba

Jeremiah Muramba is a resident of Bore, making his living from small-scale farming and devoting his spare time to helping with efforts to reforest the area.  As he puts it, his role is to make sure the existing forest and newly-planted saplings cannot be destroyed, either wilfully or accidentally.  One of the main ways in which this is achieved is the creation of firebreaks around the perimeter of the forested area.  In other words, shrubs and bushes in this area are completely removed, leaving a section of bare earth which is less likely to catch fire than dry vegetation; this means that even if a fire takes hold near the forest, there is a barrier to help keep it from spreading quickly into the forest itself.

The other major way in which Jeremiah and other community members concerned for the future of the forest help to safeguard its future is through education.  Conservation of the forest is an important part of the syllabus in the local primary school, and Jeremiah feels it is important for this to remain the standard, as it seems that the younger the people, the more accepting they are of being told how to manage and care for their environment.  However, adult education is also something that is taken seriously by everyone involved in the reforestation effort, with Jeremiah and his friends taking every opportunity to remind people of the importance of the forest for their livelihoods and survival.

Some 400 residents of Bore rely on the water from one river for all their water needs – drinking, cooking, washing, and watering crops.  The river is only usually full in May and November, and water levels fall quickly during the dry season. This year, there has been less rainfall than usual, so the river didn’t even fill in May, and the community is struggling for water. The forest acts as water catchment, so the bigger the area covered by trees, the longer the water would last each year before people had to start making the six kilometre journey to the next nearest source of water.  Whereas before the reforestation project started, people would cut down trees to make charcoal or for firewood, they now have an understanding of the consequences of doing so; namely, loss of the water so desperately needed to keep their crops alive and their families and animals watered and cleaned. They also have an incentive to nurture the saplings planted in the area, as they can sell the fruits of trees such as cashews and mangoes.

The community's water source.

Though it is clear that the community itself is having a strong influence on the fortunes of Bore’s forest, Jeremiah was also keen to emphasise the benefits of having support from Treeflights , the carbon-offsetting company used by the Handshake to offset the carbon from volunteer and staff flights and emissions from the truck and generator.  As well as providing seedlings of indigenous trees and putting up funds for the purchase of land on which to plant them, the organisation enabled the local school to have solar power, allowing lessons to continue even when it is dark, and giving the teachers better communication with the world outside Bore, as they are now able to keep their mobile phones charged.

With continued support from members of the community and from Treeflights, Jeremiah hopes that the reforestation project will continue to benefit Bore as a whole; not just the people, but the ecosystem and animals within it as well.