Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
asking citizens who live near wildlife to make sacrifices for the benefit of those living
in faraway cities. It provides no preferential treatment at all for those who must pay the
daily costs of biodiversity conservation.
IS THE LAW PART OF AN EVOLVING UNDERSTANDING
OF CONSERVATION?
One way to view the 1988 Law is as part of an inevitable evolution of Chinese thinking
about wildlife conservation, in which elementary steps must precede more complex and
subtle ones. In his seminal textbook on wildlife management, Aldo Leopold proposed a
sequence that appeared to characterize the historical development of wildlife conserva-
tion. First, Leopold asserted, came restrictions on hunting (by which he meant instituting
bag limits and season lengths, not prohibiting hunting altogether), followed by predator
control, reservation of game lands (as parks, forests, refuges, or other types of protected
areas), artificial replenishment (via restocking and game farming), and finally, what he
termed “environmental controls.”
41
If the 1988 Law goes little beyond the first phase
in Leopold's proposed sequence, perhaps that simply reflects the historical reality that
wildlife conservation in China remains young. If Leopold's sequence reflects something
organic in human behavior that is invariant with culture and history, perhaps we need
only be patient until a more integrated approach takes hold.
Alas, the premises underlying Leopold's sequence differ dramatically in the Chinese
case from what Leopold was imagining. In asserting that restriction of hunting was typi-
cally the first step taken, Leopold could not have imagined making such a large array of
species potentially considered “game” completely off limits. Rather, the hunting restric-
tions envisioned by Leopold as a logical first step were intended to maintain access to
those very game animals for a broad public by ensuring that offtake would not exceed
reproductive potential. Although Leopold recognized the value of having areas completely
off limits to hunting, he was clearly talking primarily about limitations on habitat altera-
tion when speaking of “reservation of game lands.” And while it is true that he defined
wildlife “refuges” as areas closed to hunting, the purpose of these areas was to provide
for breeding stock that could be hunted elsewhere. Finally, when it came to the role of
captive propagation, there can be no doubt that Leopold had an entirely different concept
in mind from what occurs in the current Chinese system. He viewed artificial rearing as
useful for scientific study, and in some cases for restoring depleted populations to the
wild, but saw the production of captive animals as an end itself as anathema to the very
purpose of managing “game.” Invoking Leopold to justify the argument that Chinese
wildlife conservation is simply part of an organic, evolutionary process is simply not
credible.
If an inevitable, Leopoldian sequence cannot be invoked, perhaps it was simply neces-
sary to take a very strong stand, to make almost everything off limits, in order to allow
wildlife populations to recover. Perhaps draconian restrictions were necessary for some
period of time, after which the sustainable use that is ubiquitous in Chinese writing and
thinking about wildlife could gradually emerge.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search