Unbirded localities of the world (2 Viewers)

[greer3]

Another obvious place is just in general the high seas, especially in tropical regions. There are various seabirds that are at best poorly known and which almost certainly represent new species. There are also a lot of known species where we have only a vague idea at most where they breed, or there normal range at certain times of year.

True. When I go on my holidays I only go on cruises these days; the thought of flying and airport these days is beyond the pale. I've recorded many reports of what I've seen at sea, yet, more often than not, I'm the only birdwatcher on the ship. Also I've seen few if any birdwatching reports from fellow cruisers.
It's only anecdotal, but from my experience of sailing through Biscay, around the Canaries, the North Sea, the English Channel, Norway, the Irish Sea, the Spanish and Portuguese coastlines, the Mediterranean, and around Iceland and the Azores, the number of sea birds is declining markedly. I think more detailed scientific evidence will bear me out.

 

[opisska]

Without an economic benefit from the existence of wildlife in the modern world, there is no realistic prospect that any of it will exist in 50 years unless the world weans itself off its current aspirations. There is no realistic prospect of the latter. (We have broken the systems where we could as a species co-exist with wildlife.)

Too long and complex for a Birdforum thread especially as a tangent. I understand the frustration but I am a pragmatist really and take some comfort from ecotourism schemes (or rackets)....

I'll continue to feed them and can only apologise to those with different principles for the encouragement and price rises that my behaviour produces in the modern world of compulsory guides & tracking certificates.... 😒

I am jealous of the likes of Ficedula (& other friends) who experienced true wilderness & remote places.

All the best

Paul

Since this started as a reply to my post, I am gonna repeat what I said before: this is a false dichotomy "no guides no benefit".

Any village has a council or other local governance - they can collect a fee upon which exploration in the area is permitted. Boom! Economic incentive and freedom are compatible. There are already places where this works. The problem really is that a lot of people want the guides and thus there is much more incentive to monetize that way.

 

[THE_FERN]

Since this started as a reply to my post, I am gonna repeat what I said before: this is a false dichotomy "no guides no benefit".

Any village has a council or other local governance - they can collect a fee upon which exploration in the area is permitted. Boom! Economic incentive and freedom are compatible. There are already places where this works. The problem really is that a lot of people want the guides and thus there is much more incentive to monetize that way.

Nah. You pay the fee, they continue to destroy the habitat (e.g. flor de cafe, Peru).

Never heard of a case where long term economic development leads to protection. At best, you get the local area protected but overall destruction increases through imported destruction (hardwoods, ivory, herbal medicines etc). Nature conservation, ecotourism doesn't pay enough long-term. If it pays enough to kick start the economy it leads to more destructive activities (mass tourism, new roads etc)

 

[opisska]

Well that's a really distorted view. Take big safari destinations in Africa - Kenya, Botswana, these places charge big buck, but the money is going to armed warfare against poachers. And there are smaller examples - Amedzofe in Ghana charges entry fee and keeps a section of the forest in an area otherwise completely turned over to plantations .

 

[THE_FERN]

Well that's a really distorted view.

Not really. Economic development everywhere = increase in activity which destroys nature. Even in Africa, recent signs of this in reductions in raptor numbers. In the most developed country in the world there have been (iirc) >300 extinctions, many of them recent.

This isn't surprising because our species' great trait is an ability to manipulate/change the environment to suit our needs. It's extremely rare that that change benefits other than a narrow range of species (rat, house sparrow etc). Give people money to preserve something and that will translate into destruction---either at the location or elsewhere through increased consumption.

There are a very few ecosystems which have enough appeal to the wider population that they are willing to pay to support them (megafauna in Africa etc). Most don't and so won't be protected. The alternatives here are unpalatable: a) exclude people or b) keep people poor. The second is undesirable and won't prevent hunting. The first is also undesirable as +/- all these places have been settled for a long time. The best we can hope for is that reduction in population (as people get richer they have fewer kids) and education mean that a) happens naturally

 

[Mysticete]

Nah. You pay the fee, they continue to destroy the habitat (e.g. flor de cafe, Peru).

Never heard of a case where long term economic development leads to protection. At best, you get the local area protected but overall destruction increases through imported destruction (hardwoods, ivory, herbal medicines etc). Nature conservation, ecotourism doesn't pay enough long-term. If it pays enough to kick start the economy it leads to more destructive activities (mass tourism, new roads etc)

I mean we have empirical evidence that ecotourism leads to increased protection. During COVID, when safari dollars weren't going into the local economies, poaching and illegal grazing activity all went up, because folks had their sources of income dry up.

That isn't necessarily the case everywhere mind you, but its certainly true enough that a blank statement like this is false.

 

[THE_FERN]

I mean we have empirical evidence that ecotourism leads to increased protection. During COVID, when safari dollars weren't going into the local economies, poaching and illegal grazing activity all went up, because folks had their sources of income dry up.

That isn't necessarily the case everywhere mind you, but its certainly true enough that a blank statement like this is false.

Well I agree that in the short-term at restricted scale ecotourism can reduce rate of decline. (And the particular reference is a personal experience.) You'll note I was careful to talk about the long term in the next sentence. Please reflect also on the increased damage increased flights, road traffic, accommodation etc associated with ecotourism brings. So enhanced local protection leads to displaced destruction somewhere else through increased economic activity

 

[Paul Chapman]

Well I agree that in the short-term at restricted scale ecotourism can reduce rate of decline. (And the particular reference is a personal experience.) You'll note I was careful to talk about the long term in the next sentence. Please reflect also on the increased damage increased flights, road traffic, accommodation etc associated with ecotourism brings. So enhanced local protection leads to displaced destruction somewhere else through increased economic activity

So money spent with a short term positive benefit for wildlife & conservation is still bad because of long term economic activity whereas that same money could have been spent without that short term positive benefit & therefore it could have had a more negative effect.......?

Remarkable.

Personally, I think that it would be better to concentrate on the relative impact and the relative speed of biodiversity decline (for now).

All the best

Paul

 

[THE_FERN]

So money spent with a short term positive benefit for wildlife & conservation is still bad because of long term economic activity whereas that same money could have been spent without that short term positive benefit & therefore it could have had a more negative effect.......?

Remarkable.

Personally, I think that it would be better to concentrate on the relative impact and the relative speed of biodiversity decline (for now).

All the best

Paul

Yes essentially.

Spending money on conservation is likely to be a short-term (on multi-generational scale) fix. But if there's no spending habitat destruction and hunting eliminates things faster. Ultimately, conservation is on losing wicket because survival of habitat has to be seen to be the most important thing every day, but a downturn in the economy or transient lack of interest need only happen once.

(This ignores regeneration but pressure is such in many places that it's essentially true)

They said to me the best thing for conservation in Bolivia was when TV arrived so people had something other than hunting to do. Of course, the TVs came with hidden environmental costs, not least fossil fuel burning to make and power them

 

[THE_FERN]

Well that's a really distorted view. Take big safari destinations in Africa - Kenya, Botswana, these places charge big buck, but the money is going to armed warfare against poachers. And there are smaller examples - Amedzofe in Ghana charges entry fee and keeps a section of the forest in an area otherwise completely turned over to plantations .

Haha. Meanwhile elephant and lion numbers are skyrocketing in Kenya (oh wait they're not). Botswana's better but overall in Africa, home of the last great herds, the picture is very far from rosy

Some will think I'm against conservation. I'm not and I contribute a fair bit to it. I'm just generally pessimistic about the future of biodiversity. And unfortunately all the numbers align with my view

Edit: should have said there's that evaluation paper recently that shows that conservation does make a positive difference. That's good and welcome. But the pressures are inexorable and grow as people get richer (can afford rarities but even more pressure on habitat)

 

[temmie]

Trying to get this great topic back on the rails:

The Foja mountains anyone? I've been looking for ways to get there, but it doesn't seem like a walk in the park.

As I'm preparing a trip next year to W-Papua, I am getting more and more inspired to set up an expedition. A friend of mine did so on Yapen.
But I am realistic... chances are very low I will commit myself to something like this, and I can only applaud and encourage those that have time on hand, money and are willing to endure the hardships of such endeavours (and the potential outcome that nothing will have been discovered and not many birds are seen!).

Even when I'm not looking at the mainland of Papua, Most of the interior of Waigeo, Batanta and Salawati seem virtually 100% untouched.

 

[WalterRayle]

With tongue very firmly in cheek. I'll say Needs Ore!