INTRODUCTION - Wildlife Conservation in China: Preserving the Habitat of China's Wild West - page 16

ultimately satisfy the demand for a specific tonic or animal part, but, in the context of the
other two pillars of Chinese policy, does nothing to ensure that wildness itself, the ultimate
source of the products many Chinese continue to consume, will have a future.
Thus, my fundamental premise is that, to the degree that China can be said to have a
wildlife conservation system at all, its pillars are curiously out of step with the realities
of both the practical and conceptual aspects of Chinese life. Further, in its arid west,
where wildlife still has the potential for a vigorous future, this system appears oriented
toward removing the wild from the faunal landscape, substituting the untamed with the
civilized. It does this, to boot, by denying legitimate parts of some traditional cultures
that might yet be adapted to the modern world. While many species are declining and in
trouble—the usual focus of wildlife conservation efforts in developing countries—there
are some wild species in China's west that are thriving, some even becoming nuisances
for local people. Dealing with wildlife that causes harm to life or property on a local level
is also part and parcel of a successful wildlife management system, but Chinese policy
lacks both the institutions and the flexibility needed to usefully intervene.
In suggesting better approaches, I will take refuge in two premises that I believe are
fundamental and that characterize any successful system, regardless of other differences
that may exist: (1) Direct mortality from people must be controlled but need not necessar-
ily be eliminated completely; and, (2) land use, over broad expanses, must take account
of wildlife's needs. Usually, this will require that some opportunities to provide benefits
only to humans be forgone, lest energy and material flows be entirely appropriated by
people to the exclusion of the native flora and fauna.
Both of these, obviously, require sacrifices from people, and conflict with the short-
term economic interests of at least some citizens. The way these conflicts are usually
resolved involves some kind of “Devil's bargain”: some individual animals are killed in
exchange for broad acceptance of limitations on killing others; consumptive use helps
pay the opportunity cost of forgone development on wildlife habitat; minor degrada-
tion of wildlife habitat or alterations of wildlife behavior is acceptable in order to allow
the public access to viewing or using wildlife (and thus supporting protection of both
the animals and their habitats in natural settings against other human desires to convert
either into products used directly for human welfare). I contend that the current system
in western China has this exactly reversed. None of the elements of such a “Devil's bar-
gain” has been institutionalized. Instead, China's wildlife conservation is premised on
controlling human-caused mortality, but not controlling human-caused degradation and
destruction of habitat.
Humans generally harbor conflicts of interest regarding wildlife: we love it, but we
must constrain it in order to live ourselves. It is not possible to provide unlimited con-
servation for wildlife without deciding to remove ourselves entirely. In fact, a plausible
argument can be made that the single greatest enemy of wildlife worldwide is agriculture,
without which, of course, modern civilization would be impossible. Yet by appropriating
so much of the earth's available resources for ourselves, we limit the available space for
wildlife daily in ways both direct and indirect. In the eyes of wildlife, we are all sinners.
As individuals, we can, of course, elect to sin with greater or lesser effect. But because