You’re currently involved in the creation of a peace park, a wildlife reserve where Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, and Tajikistan meet. How does that work?
Well, you have the Pamirs, which are broad valleys flanked by mountains extending southward from Russia to Pakistan’s borders. You’ve got Kirghiz nomads, who are very colorful, you’ve got Marco Polo sheep, you’ve got snow leopards. The main problem is that you’ve also got four countries, each with its own political system, its own language, its own history of strife. We managed to get officials from all four countries together in September 2006 in China, and they agreed to work together. But you can’t necessarily get definite boundaries and say, “This is a peace park right now.” I don’t care what it ends up being designated, as long as wildlife is protected. We use the Marco Polo sheep as a symbol because it’s a spectacular animal, all countries relate to it, and it’s economically valuable. An American hunter will pay $20,000 to $25,000 to shoot one in Tajikistan or China. So the first question is, where does that money go? At least three-quarters of it ought to go to the local communities so they will see the value of protecting the sheep.
Will poor regions always be disadvantaged in protecting what is theirs?
If a poor country spends most of its money on arms, it doesn’t have money for anything else. And it’s obvious that the developed countries with quite a bit of money don’t spend it on the environment. Right now, when the World Bank makes a large loan to a country, that country must repay it. But how? They ship their food overseas, and the local people don’t have that food anymore. Even when grants are provided, the figures can be misleading. You have the United Nations Development Programme and the European Union all giving environmental grants. Yet probably two-thirds of that money goes to foreign consultants. Then the countries have to buy American or European equipment as part of the project. Only a small amount actually goes to help the local people. Until developed countries genuinely care about the rest of the world, things are going to be very difficult.
Is that why you have said that wildlife conservation may ultimately depend on spiritual values?
Can you put a value on a river? On the cry of an animal? Unless you can convince people of the spiritual value of the environment, the cause is lost. Take the Tibetans, who recently began trimming their cloaks with tiger and leopard skins from India because of their new wealth. The Dalai Lama got up and said, “This is against your religion,” and the Tibetans stopped wearing skins. So among the Tibetans at least, there’s a strong spiritual responsiveness to the environment.
You express that idea in A Naturalist and Other Beasts: “To preserve a remnant of beauty becomes an ideal, and this ideal possesses one until it is transformed into a faith.”
Yes, the faith can be almost religious. I have worked very long for this faith. It’s difficult, though, because wherever you go, you see the wounds in the environment. You can’t ever just relax about it.
Some people say that if we can’t conserve a species in the wild, we should let it go extinct instead of keeping it captive in a zoo, because its time has passed.
To let a species decline to the brink of extinction is usually based on laziness, negligence, and lack of will. Some zoos have saved species from extinction and later returned them to the wild. Other zoos have supplemented the last of a species in the wild—the California condor, for example—with captives.
Is it ever right to let a species become extinct?
It is estimated that species extinction rates are a hundred to a thousand times greater now than in the past because of human actions. Obviously humans are evolution’s greatest mistake. To atone in a small way, we need to help maintain all the diversity we can. Who are we to judge what is expendable?
Some scientists are trying to bring back extinct species through reproductive technology. Do you support this?
We had best fight hard to maintain existing species so that their future is not dependent on technology.
You recently tracked a new species, the saola, in Laos. How is it possible to discover an unknown species today?
Roughly 1.7 million species have been given scientific names, but perhaps 30 to 50 million or more species exist, not including bacteria. So there is ample opportunity to describe new species, especially small and insignificant-looking ones, such as insects. No doubt I could go into my backyard and find new species. But to find new large mammals such as the saola is unusual these days and usually occurs in places that are remote or have been inaccessible due to political unrest.
You’ve said that there are no final victories in conservation.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a good example. It’s been a continual battle since the 1970s to keep the oil companies out. We claim to be the richest, most educated country in the world, and we can’t keep one little fraction undamaged? You think you have something, and the minute you look away, somebody is trying to destroy it. Look at what has happened recently with tigers, which were safe in a number of reserves. Almost overnight, they were completely wiped out of several places, because, suddenly, there was a demand for skins. When something is so beautiful and valuable, you can never turn your back.
