Conservation vs Preservation – Bringing Clarity to the Confusion

In the context of the natural world ‘Conservation’ and ‘Preservation’ are the two essential arms of ‘wildlife management’.

They are not synonyms because they each have a distinct and vital purpose. It is incorrect to believe that ‘conservation’ is just another word for ‘wildlife management’ because that is not the case at all. ‘Conservation’ is, in fact, subjugate to management because it represents only one arm (or function) of the management activity.

Wild animals occur in different populations. Some populations are SAFE (numerous and breeding well) others are UNSAFE (small in number and shrinking). UNSAFE populations are on the road to local extinction.

SAFE populations can and should be harvested sustainably, in one or many different ways, every year. They can be culled and/or hunted without adversely affecting the SAFETY of the population – provided the ‘take off’ is sustainable; provided the take off does not exceed the population’s incremental rate; and provided the take off is repeatable year after year.

The wildlife management strategy that is applied to SAFE animal populations is called ‘conservation management’ and it implies sustainable ‘use’ or sustainable ‘consumptive management’ of one kind or another.

If UNSAFE populations are to be saved from extinction, they require the application of a man-conceived management strategy that ‘protects them from all harm’. It is called ‘preservation management’. The purpose of applying a preservation management strategy to an UNSAFE animal population is to make it, once again, SAFE. UNSAFE populations should not be used in any way by man.

The concepts of ‘Conservation’ and ‘Preservation’, therefore, are essential brother-sister wildlife management tools that cannot and must not be separated; yet the strategies have to be applied separately.

Wildlife management needs both strategies if it is to be complete.

We should, therefore, not call animal rightists (the anti-hunters) ‘conservationists’ OR ‘preservationists’ because BOTH those concepts are integral and vital parts of the holistic wildlife management philosophy.

Call them what they really are: abolitionists; hypocrits; fraudsters; eco-racketeers; and members of international organised crime. Why should we reduce their stature by calling them anything else!

See diagram.

 

 

2 Comments

  1. Thank you for explaining that the preservation of wildlife refers to unsafe populations that are struggling to survive. My husband and I want to be able to help some places in African since we love animals and wildlife. I think we should find a good African Wildlife Preservation company that we feel comfortable helping with a donation.

    • Ohoty Ohotytoo

      Dear Charlotte,

      I have just picked your email out of my “junk box”. How it got there I have no idea. But I am going to answer it now and right away.

      I am the CEO of an organisation called “The TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE” (TGA). We do not represent any single wildlife organisation but, rather, we support ALL GENUINE wildlife NGOs and government departments that are trying to do ‘the right thing’. And we expose all those who don’t.

      Our vision statement is:-

      To create a southern African (ultimately global) society that is properly informed about the principles and practices of wildlife management; that understands the wisdom of, and necessity for, the practice of sustainable utilisation of living resources (both wild and domestic) for the benefit of mankind; that supports animal welfare; and that rejects animal rights – the doctrine of which seeks to abolish all animal uses by man.

      We do not, therefore, support cruelty to animals; and we do not support ‘conservation’ programmes that base their so-called ‘facts’ on emotion. And we are totally opposed to the use of public referendums to determine wildlife management practices.

      In today’s world everybody – all over the planet – seems to be a self-proclaimed ‘expert’ in wildlife management affairs (especially in Africa). So the general public is being bombarded by a plethora of ‘personal preference opinions’ (based on nothing but emotion) and which have no validity in the truth. The TGA strives to impart only the truth – THE FACTS – about wildlife management to the general public. In doing so, it is our purpose to ensure that the general public will properly convince governments to put into practice wildlife management policies that are based on “The FACTS”. So we steer the public in the right direction.

      We understand that the public are important but we know that most people in society are not qualified to make wildlife management decisions – not UNTIL they learn to understand, and how to apply, the proper principles and practices of wildlife management (a.k.a ‘conservation’).

      May I now suggest that you have a look at the TGA’s website (www.mahohboh.org). The TGA is a registered Non-Profit Company; and a Public Benefit Organisation.

      This should give you a pretty good idea what the TGA is all about; and I hope that you will agree that the TGA is a deserving recipient of whatever funds you might like to donate to us. We need every penny that we can raise.

      Please read the dissertations on the attached documents – which explain what and who we are.

      If you would rather donate to a project, we are busy trying to raise funds to make a film (or series of You Tubes) in which we intent to explain the management needs of elephants in Africa – as a service to the general public.

      I would be happy to communicate with you some more – to give you more information in more detail.

      I shall look forward to your response.

      With kind regards

      Ron Thomson. CEO – TGA

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.