Most endangered species are in country of extreme poverty who, like we did in the USA, clear the land turning into agricultural land and at the same time kill the animals to eat them and/or sell them. Apparently, they have a belief that they are not willing to starve to death to save the animals. When such countries try to raise funds and maximize usage of remaining land for fertile females and their young, such countries have tried culling herds of old males - selling the right to "hunt" them for tens of thousands of dollars each, plus otherwise bringing in tourist dollars from the hunters for housing, guide services, and food. By making the land profitable and providing jobs, they can slow or stop the lose of natural land and have the best wildlife management of it. However, this culling practice, which is done on both public and private land in the USA in intolerable to American animal rights activists who want such "trophies" banned. As a result, the endangered animals are continued to be reduced in numbers by lose of land and indigenous people killing them for food and/or to sell in other markets other than the USA. TWO ALTERNATIVES: 1.) Unable to convince people in those countries to agree to starve to death, to let their children or themselves be eaten by tigers, crushed by hippos or elephants destroying their farmland (and income/food), the only remaining option is to go to war against such impoverished countries, seize their natural land that we protect thereafter with US military forces, and either kill off or permanently feed a segment of their population for an indefinite period of time. 2.) The other alternative would be for the government to spend hundred of billions of dollars to create mega million acre wildlife preserves in the USA for tigers, elephants, rinos, cheetahs etc - seizing farms and ranches to return much of the USA's agricultural lands particularly in the South and Central USA to foreign species wildlife preserves - replacing indigenous species and plants for appropriate species and plants for those endangered species. For example, to establish huge herds of wildebeests and gazelles across millions of American acres for cheetahs and tigers - and eliminating American competitors like bears, wolves, mountain lions and coyotes in those regions. So, should we go to war against other countries to protect endangered species? Should we spend the money to seize massive amounts of private land and build Africa-like massive wildlife preserves in the USA?
Another option could be to work with these countries and buy up vast tracks of land to build a natural preserve. Usually the land where these endangered species still live in these poor countries is not very expensive. One of the main areas that most needs protection is on the island of Borneo in Indonesia. They're chopping down rainforest, harvesting the wood, then setting up palm oil plantations, while the government in the overcrowded Jakarta region is trying to resettle people to Borneo.
1. How much should the US government pay for foreign land? 2. How would that land be policed? "Owning" foreign land and protecting what is on it are 2 different matters. 3. Who would pay for the lives - income and food - of overcrowded Jakarata? The money to purchase the land would go to the land owners/government, not people of Jakarata.
My employment is around wildlife management and protecting endangered and protected species. 1.) It requires land 2.) It requires managing the land and animals 3.) Tourism money is the best way to convince locals to respect the land and animals. Every "animal rights" activist I have met are people who live in urban concrete environments that are the antithesis of nature and preservation of animals. Part of managing wildlife commonly requires culling. If minor culling is needed, take out the old males. If serious culling is required, eliminate (ie kill) larger numbers including females. This may be necessary to preserve the food sources of other wildlife (the rest to cull as many wild hogs as possible, who are extremely prolific in birth rates) or may be necessary to avoid species mass starvation and disease, such as when populations of deer become too great. This, I favor supporting "big game" hunting of old males, combined with turning such reserves overall into tourist regions - for which our efforts should be to assist in assuring such tourist zones are safe for both tourists and the animals. For some species, when the species itself is a food source, the only true option to preserve the species is zoos and touristy American wildlife parks, employing artificial means to preserve the species and dna diversity. Sadly, growing populations in the most critical regions means the natural area can not be saved for the largest animals for their huge demands for food and space.
We have many endangered animals in Australia and I don't think we re such a poverty stricken nation. There is a conflict between industries which use the land and people who don't use the land for income. Farmers, miners, road builders, building developers etc, are all accused of being blind to the need to conserve our biodiversity. They are inclined to sneer at Greenies and city dwellers as being out of touch with reality. Is biodiversity necessary and do we really need to preserve every animal which exists now? Luckily we don't have many animals which would appeal to trophy hunters, apart from crocodiles. Feral animals should be culled and this would be a good thing. We have not noticed that the threat to tourism money has resulted in convincing the locals to respect land and animals. Eg The Great Barrier Reef. If the palm oil growers in Indonesia and Malaysia could be persuaded to rethink their practices, orangutans would be less endangered.
Your original premise is based on bullshit There is less of an issue with bushmeat trades than there is with artificial exploitation of third world countries
I believe it's mainly an issue of money. And buying up that wilderness land would not be as expensive as people may think. These are poorer countries, remember, and a lot of that land is kind of remote.
Number 2: Who wants to sell their land for this? How will the animals be forced to stay within the preserve? If lions, leopards and such become endangered should we bring them in as well? Why should animals be protected to the detriment of human lives? When it comes to the life of a family member or an animal the animal loses. I am not a hunter because I do not believe in killing animals I don't eat, except for protection.
Curiously, due to their religious beliefs there was success in essentially convincing poor villagers of India to basically allow one of their children now and then to be eaten by a tiger to protect the tigers. In the USA, eliminating a dangerous animal (such as a bear or alligator) is done secretly. For example, it is known if an alligator has been fed by humans or has attacked a human, its primitive brain now equates humans with food making it inherently dangerous. HOWEVER, if people are around, great effort and expensive is made to capture it. The people will see its jaw taped and legs tied - told it is going to be released in a refuge. They then drive out into a remote area and shoot it in the head. But they will NOT shoot a gator where anyone can see it done. I suspect they do the same with nuisance black bears in national parks.
Mugabe is under house arrest. Do you think Zimbabwe has the skills and resources to manage a conservation project? There are far more tourists who want to take pictures of wild life than bring home elephant tusks and elephant heads.
