Evolution of a layman’s love for Wildlife

Most matters we think about every day, concern humans. We think of progress, development, innovation, economics, politics, justice, equality and inequality, society, pandemics, personal health, wealth, relationships, emotions and so on. When we do think of the environment, it is usually from the perspective of our wellbeing as humans, as in, the effects of climate change on our cities, and what the future is going to be like for us.

Even when we think of animals in the wild, unless we are deeply connected with the field of conservation or zoology in some way, it is normally from an anthropocentric view – what effects do wild animals have on human activities like farming, will our children, the future humans, get to see tigers in the wild, of what use are whales to us, and so forth.

While the anthropocentric view is perfectly understandable, we must appreciate that as the dominant species on the planet, with an unprecedented trajectory of evolution in intelligence and capability, we also have a huge responsibility towards all other species. There are around seven thousand species each of mammals, reptiles, fish, and more than double that number of bird species. But all that is numerically insignificant compared to the millions of species of insects, spiders and other invertebrates, as well as millions of plants. And we are just ONE species among these.

This article shall not discuss whether an overly anthropocentric view on conserving other species is justified or not – whether it is correct to view them only from a human point of view. This goes beyond petty things like economic utility, so let us just accept that we simply cannot be so arrogant, as to think that we completely understand the workings of nature, and that animals and plants in which we see no immediate use, can cease to exist, just because we decide so.

This however leads us to big questions. As an average guy with a small but growing exposure to the world of wildlife conservation, I have noticed huge gaps between the perspectives of scientists, conservationists, policy makers, wildlife workers and the general population, and therefore, I think it is extremely important to bring some of these closer, to create greater interest, empathy and understanding even in the general population, for wildlife. This shall help drive more correct policy as well as human behavior going ahead, and it this is that we discuss below. Also, this shall lead to the raising of, and the attempted answering of, important questions like, (A) should humans at all interfere in the natural interaction of species, to protect some of them? (B) Are zoos justified and desirable? (C) If they are not, what is the alternative to educate present and future generations of learners? (D) How do we resolve human animal conflict across species? …and so on. In fact, the idea for this article emerged a few weeks ago when a friend, an intelligent and compassionate person, but one who is not familiar with the world of animals and wildlife, asked me how he should go about developing a greater understanding, knowledge and connect with wildlife, and animals in general.

My thoughts in this article are largely focused on India, which has some of the richest wildlife still extant in the world:

• India is the only country in the world with four species of big cats in the wild (lion, tiger, leopard and snow leopard). In fact, the only species of big cat NOT extant in India is the South American jaguar. Of course, cats like cheetahs, pumas, clouded leopards and others do not technically qualify as “big cats”, or species of the genus Panthera, distinguished by various features, including the ability to roar.
• India still has elephants, rhinoceros, bison and bears, some of the largest non-aquatic animals on the planet, in the wild.
• The jungles and rivers of India are home to three large crocodilian species, the ubiquitous Magar (marsh crocodile), the Salt Water Crocodile in a few estuary systems, and the unique Gharial in a few specific river systems.
• Among snakes, about ten percent of the identified species in the world are present in India, including three species of pythons (Reticulated, Burmese and Indian Rock Pythons) besides the King Cobra, the largest venomous snake in the world.
• Many other prominent species from hornbills, peacocks and cranes to the Gangetic dolphins, continue to survive, though precariously, in habitats across the country.

Besides some of the charismatic (in human eyes) and visible species named above, the forests, plains, mountains, rivers, coastlines and even populated areas of India are still home to many thousands of species of animals and birds, which grow to millions, when we include invertebrates. The survival of all these species is as important as that of the large, charismatic species.

In spite of the stress on forest areas and wildlife due to population growth, in spite of problems like poaching, human-animal conflict, bending of rules, pollution, encroachment and corruption, we can say that in our country, we have been fairly successful so far in protecting our wildlife. This is due to various factors, such as strong legislation (the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, Forest Conservation Act of 1980 etc), the efforts of the Indian Forest Services, conservationists, scientists, NGOs and in no small measure, due to the culture of respecting wildlife, which has existed in India among people for thousands of years, to a large extent. The vile and despicable practice of wantonly hunting trophies was extremely limited to a few members of royalty, but scaled up tremendously when the country was under the British Raj – one of the truly horrible practices we got from our former colonial rulers. Else, Indian culture is filled with practices such as the worship of snakes (across the country and communities), of big cats (Vagobha shrines), and of a myriad of tales of people ranging from Adivasis, villagers, even urban travelers, Sanyasis and Pirs traveling through forests, while peacefully coexisting with wildlife.

Even in the modern world of zoology, I am sometimes appalled at the Western worldview on animals – a predator in a zoo is summarily executed for harming a human in a freak incident (blood for blood, a revenge killing or a punishment); knowledgeable herpetologists on YouTube discuss snakes mainly from the perspective of whether they would make good pets for children or not, how to “unbox” them and so on. It was therefore a great decision in our country, at least in thought and word, to protect wildlife completely from human handling. Of course, in reality, there is no shortage of willful brutality and stupid behavior in India also, when it comes to crimes against animals. 

So the big question is, where do we go from here, in terms of shaping the opinions of lay people, regarding wildlife? We have a sliver of hope, as much of wildlife, big and small continues to defy extinction in India and the world, for a few more years. How best can we capitalize on this limited time opportunity? I would opine that it is only possible to succeed in conservation, if we educate more and more “average” or common people, i.e. lay people like myself, on the need and methods of conservation, which would come from molding their perspectives through education and awareness building. Like any good mass communication program, it is important to first assess the landscape of mindsets of the target audience, which is the next step. In the section below, I attempt to do this by classifying lay people (NOT experts working in the field of wildlife) into different categories in a two dimensional space. This entire analysis is based on my own experience and anecdotes, and not on structured data obtained from any organized study. However, it may still be useful to get an understanding of the landscape of perceptions and the related issues.

Fig 1: Here, we plot two axes of lay people’s perceptions about wildlife, with parameters with the following definitions:

Interest in Wildlife: the level to which people may accumulate more knowledge and information about any aspect of Wildlife.

Empathy with Wildlife: the level to which people have genuinely benevolent and compassionate feelings about Wildlife, and care about the welfare of animals.

In general, the perception of lay people about Wildlife progresses along the two axes, if at all it progresses. Here are some possible cases of where different people may be, and how they may move from one point to another:

Origin: (the circle at the intersection of the two axes): no real interest or empathy in Wildlife. Many lay people, especially those who have always lived in urban areas, may be here.

(A) Generally, the way a child may progress, if having access to nature encyclopedias, picture books, wildlife TV channels, toys, and some general encouragement from adults. However, these are also great sources of education and entertainment for adults who have not learnt about wildlife, to explore and learn more, while also building greater empathy. The logic is simple: improving knowledge and understanding, can help improve empathy and emotional connection.

(B) Often, children who dabble in learning wildlife (and also extinct animals such as dinosaurs, prehistoric mammals, birds and aquatic animals), lose their interest after reaching a particular age and developing other interests. Notwithstanding this, the fact that they began this journey is still a valuable permanent learning. Some children, however, continue their interest and move to a point of greater knowledge as well as empathy, from say Pt (A) to (B) and higher levels along that diagonal. Similarly, adults developing a new interest in wildlife also can do the same.

(C) Now, we come to a point of high increase in interest, without a proportional increase in empathy. This may happen with those wildlife followers who tend to focus more on related activities like photography, wildlife outings as a social activity, etc. I do not mean at all that these are bad, but the fact is that the person at pt (C) is not necessarily more compassionate or empathetic to wildlife, although he or she has learned much more about habitat, characteristics and attributes of the animals they follow. The consequence of a large increase in the population at pt (C) could be, an increase in wildlife tourism, zoo visits and safari expeditions. This could be sometimes be a double edged sword, causing greater human traffic into forests, and disturbing native wildlife.

(D) A separate pathway for the layman could be to move towards greater involvement with wildlife to increase both knowledge out of interest, as well as empathy and emotional connect. This could come through volunteering with wildlife conservation activities, learning about wildlife rescues, and building more knowledge on conservation status and ecology chains.

(E) At this point, if a lay person has come this far, she or he has developed a much deeper understanding of wildlife, both from a perspective of knowledge as well as of emotion. And in fact, the person is possibly no longer a layman or laywoman, but growing into an advocate for, and expert on, wildlife.

There are also points under the two axes that lay persons could exist at, as explained below:

(F) This is probably the most dangerous point. People here may have a lot of interest, and also knowledge of wildlife, but their compassion and empathy levels could range from zero to negative. These could be poachers, people who trade in or consume products from wild animals, or even just pet industry people trading in wildlife. Their interest in wildlife could be in the economic aspect, or from a feeling of gratification born out of dominance, as in owning trophies of hunted animals.

(G) People who are positive on the axis of compassion and empathy, but not really interested in knowledge of wildlife are possibly those who wish for a life of peace for all beings. While this is a noble and laudable perspective to have in life, it may sometimes confuse our value judgments, because a lack of interest in wildlife may make us judge wild animals as we would, human beings. A few years ago, a video surfaced on social media in which a man in a passing car stopped a python from eating a deer it had captured, chased away the snake and let the deer escape. While some people hailed his act as being compassionate, many wildlife watchers including myself were shocked and infuriated with this unwarranted interference of a human being into a process of nature in which one animal had secured a hard earned meal which was absolutely legitimate. How are we to say that one animal should be saved, and another deprived?

(H) At points in this region, people have an active dislike for wildlife, as well as absolutely no interest in it whatsoever. We can only hope and pray that such people shall be in no position to directly or indirectly influence human actions at a scale high enough to impact wildlife conservation.

Incidentally, I moved from pt (A) to (B) and then (D), where I guess I currently am. Along the way, I have had several of my perceptions undergo change and correction. For example, while I always loved wildlife ever since childhood, earlier, my goal was to somehow see a tiger or leopard in the wild… a commonly held ambition among lay people. Later on, when I volunteered at a reptile conservation center, I wanted to get selfies with crocodiles, or holding a python around my neck. But, in the course of learning more, I was reformed. Now, I’m happy to handle an animal only if I must, like in a rescue situation. I am not at all interested in showboating, and I’d be delighted to never see an animal in the wild, after burning lots of vehicle diesel to get into the forest or the ocean, if I just know for sure that the cats in the jungle or the sharks in the ocean are thriving! They are probably much better off without us humans intruding into their environments to grab trophies (thankfully, in photographs now, and not murder, like it used to be). Anyway, that brief digression was on my personal story. Now, let’s get back to the main discussion.

So, what is the point of the above mapping, and this entire train of thought?

The point is, that we need to have a conscious, deliberate effort and direction on influencing the perceptions of the lay population, regarding wildlife conservation. With the ever increasing human population across the world as well as the pressure to earn more, produce more and consume more, there is no doubt that wildlife cannot be conserved effectively without majority opinions being favourable. Therefore, it is imperative that we know where we need to go to first win the war in the minds, and actually go there.

Fig 2: Here, we suggest a possible pathway for creation of awareness, education, building and influencing perception, among Lay people (again, not Experts), as this will become critical for every aspect of conservation, such as protection of forest areas, mitigation of human-animal conflict, funding of conservation institutions and initiatives, and just simple appreciation of wildlife. 

Essentially, I suggest that the improvement in public perception of Wildlife, would build more broad based support for conservation. This can be done best, in a strong and sustainable way, by consciously trying to improve both INTEREST and EMPATHY of lay people towards Wildlife. 

This brings us to a few important questions and humble suggestions from me, as a lay observer of the conservation world.

Are zoos ethical, permissible and desirable? I would say certainly yes, if (and only if) the zoos are first and foremost, conservation centers in their fundamental avatar. That is, they must house animals in environments as close to their natural surroundings as possible, they must care for the animals well, they must educate visitors, they must essentially promote both knowledge and empathy towards wildlife. We probably have a large enough critical mass of wildlife population across hundreds of species, to not bring in new animals to zoos, unless they are injured and unable to survive in the wild. In fact, if at all animals born or brought into captivity can be relocated to the wild, that would be a great thing to do. A poorly run zoo which exists for the primary purpose of entertainment for humans and with poor treatment of animals is much better closed down.

An important argument in favour of zoos is that without them, future generations of wildlife experts, and even sympathetic lay people like me, will not be able to progress along the necessary pathways of building interest, knowledge and empathy towards wild animals.

Further, it may make sense for expert conservationists, veterinarians, zoologists, other scientists, wildlife rescuers and related professionals, to come up with standard codes of conduct and behavior with wild animals. Recently, there was a furore created in animal rescue circles, when a highly respected expert rescuer was accused of posing for a picture with a rescued king cobra. While one-off incidents like that may happen, and this particular instance caused no harm, it would help to take away the ambiguity on what constitutes “decent behavior” or legitimate handling of an animal, and when does it cross the line. Similarly, for students of the subject, i.e. novices in wildlife interaction, a certain amount of controlled handling within such codes, may not be a bad thing, as it improves the experience of education, so long as it does not disturb an animal.

Finally, an important area for the above experts to focus on is UNITY between themselves. Since many animal rescuers come from diverse backgrounds (some are urban educated students of science, while some are from indigenous communities who have traditionally lived and worked closely with animals… plus many other types), there is often a broad range of diversity in how animals are handled. I have personally noticed quite often, a tone of disapproval from some snake rescuers, when they see the rescues of others. While some of these may be for valid reasons, it is important that we realize, that all wildlife rescuers and people working with wild animals, are in fact part of the same conservation community, so we need to stay united and respect each other. Only then can we work as a group to educate the vast majority of other people who currently have little connect with wildlife. Rescuers who work with venomous snakes, must work ethically, ensuring the safety and well being of the snake as well as humans and other animals around the rescue site. But once some standards are agreed upon, there is no reason for one rescuer to criticize another excessively. After all, electricians working on the DC side of  an HT power supply system (say, a high capacity solar PV plant) also work in an area which requires extreme care, safety, technical competence and skill. And, they should work with similar safety practices, according to the same established standards. Do two electricians criticize each other, or work as a team?

To summarize, if  you are reading this article and if you are a lay person like I am (although, I have been fortunate to get some additional knowledge in recent years), I would like to leave you with the following messages: Conservation of wildlife is critical to us, our future, our planet and our existence; In fact, beyond our future, it is our responsibility to protect and conserve wildlife;  This does not mean each one of us has to become a wildlife worker or leave our urban lives, jobs and families; On the other hand, it means that if we just develop more empathy and knowledge of wildlife, it will vastly enrich us in everything we do in our lives, and remind us that in spite of all our achievements, we are just one tiny species among millions, on this planet; the way to develop this empathy and knowledge, is to read more, see more, explore more. But even if you do go on that safari, do not get disappointed if you do not see a tiger (I’ve never seen a cat although I’ve been on a dozen plus safaris… only tiger poop and leopard pug marks)… even if you see rhinoceros beatles, southern birdwing butterflies, monitor lizards and serpent eagles… or anything else… that is a huge win!

I conclude by paraphrasing a signboard from Agara lake in Bangalore, a very short distance from my house: “In every walk in nature, a person receives immeasurably more than what she seeks”.

Acknowledgements

Here I acknowledge some people who have helped shape my interest in, and empathy for, wildlife. The opinions in this article are my own. I have not consulted these people before I wrote this article, or taken their permission for sharing their names here, and it is possible that some of they may not even know or remember me. However, I am grateful to all these people for helping in my journey in the beautiful world of wildlife.

Krishnan R: My dad and retired central government employee who had several wildlife encounters from the 1950s to the 1980s, all of them peaceful.

Ganesh Rao: Range Forest Office, Bangalore

Zai Whitaker: Managing Trustee, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust

Gowri Shankar P : Founder Director of Kalinga Center for Rainforest Ecology

Ajay Karthik: Herpetologist

Nikhil Whitaker: Curator, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust

Arul Venkateshwaran: Freelance Naturalist

Vikram V: Wildlife Veterinarian

Riya Bakde: Wildlife Veterinarian

Shuayb Ahmed: Naturalist and Wildlife Rescuer

Rohan Chakravarty: Conservationist, Cartoonist, Creator of Green Humour

Vidya Athreya: Wildlife Scientist (just saw her on one webinar, but learnt so much!)

Ishan Agarwal: Biologist (just saw one podcast, but learnt so much!)

Anjana Shrimathi: Agumbe Rainforest Research Station

Gangadurai V: Chief Reptile Keeper, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust

Sampath Anna: Chief Snake Keeper, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust