The Wessex Scene Fails at: Understanding Conservation Biology

I think it's time for me to retire The Wessex Scene from my 'Morons of the Internet' segment. They've been included so many times that I would have thought they have the message by now. That doesn't mean I'm not going to stop highlighting their idiocy, especially when they release an article written by a history student that attempts to lecture me, a zoology graduate, on conservation biology. I'm surprised that an investigative article exposing a darker side to the world is only about two sentences long, but surely this can't be an early sign this writer has no idea what they're on about. Oh wait, it's the Wessex Scene we're refering to here. Enjoy this pile of manure:
_____________________________________________________________________
https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/international/2018/06/19/the-darker-side-of-conservation-mistreatment-of-indigenous-people/
_____________________________________________________________________

We can instantly tell this article is written by a historian instead of someone versed in the discipline of conservation. Telltale signs include a focus on the moralistic problems of conservation biology that need addressing, and not the loss of the world's natural biodiversity at an unprecedented rate. The bigger give away is that it appears to be written by a five year old. I can't spell this out to you any clearer but the plight of indigenous people is in no way equal to the plight of wildlife. Living organisms are being killed by human activity at rates quicker than any mass extinction in natural history, yet this article claims it's indigenous people that are the ones being oppressed based on a few case studies case. Talk about detracting from the actual issue.

I am not here to justify the treatment of pygmies in Central Africa, or for that matter the misuse of game reserves, but I am here to put this argument into context. There does appear to have been human rights abuse committed by NGO backed poaching squads, but this does not constitute a dark underbelly for conservation, and stating such is jumping on a headline. Maybe I might take you more seriously if you bothered to source your information, but apparently I'm supposed to accept this vague rubbish as fact. What evidence is there that these isolated incidents constitute a trend? You simply haven't analysed the conflict and therefore cannot make such ridiculous conclusions. Stating that tribespeople are merely trying to feed their families is such a pathetic line of argument. One could simply respond that illegal poachers are also trying to feed their families, so we shouldn't be outlawing that money making scheme either. Any money making scheme could be justified with this ridiculous point, which includes the very people you're demonising in this piece.

Hang on, if these tribes are being brutalised then how are they uncontacted? Brutalising people requires a very firm contact between the victim and the aggressor's fist. The actual point being made in these paragraphs is once again merely speculation. Who has decided that uncontacted tribes are the most vulnerable people on the planet? A fucking history student who shoehorns buzzwords into serious debates on ecology? I'm amazed a student of history has such a poor understanding of referencing. If you can't even comprehend referencing why the fuck are you being allowed to write a persuasive piece on a topic you know nothing about? No conservationist is making the argument that indigenous tribes are inferior human beings, and just a quick look into conservation programmes in remote areas will give you an idea of how local populations are often integral parts of these schemes.

What I really want to know is how indigenous people contribute to the stability of ecosystems. If these ecosystems rely on tribespeople to exist then that would make them a plagioclimax, and you have no evidence to suggest that conservationists couldn't shape the environment in the same way. How racism is a factor in the stability of ecosystems is anyone's guess. There isn't even a weak correlation between racism and environmental stability. You can fuck right off if you want to directly compare us environmentalists to imperialists. I honestly have no idea how anyone can just so brazenly make these outrageous conclusions.

Your opening point was that indigenous people are being mistreated by conservationists worldwide, yet you have still not provided sufficient evidence for this overarching comment. You can bang on about the historical treatment of different races, but you've not explained how this is relevant to conservation biology. Amazingly, despite all this you still act like the fucking expert. Do you seriously believe environmentalists have not thought to work with indigenous people? That comment reeks of ignorance, and it's clear you've never been near a conservation project in tribal lands before. Furthermore, you claim there is no risk of animal extinction in environments controlled by tribal societies, yet a quick search on the IUCN Red List around the rainforests of southern Cameroon where the Baka tribe inhabit show that 36 species are listed as threatened. This statistic only includes species that have been sufficiently assessed, with arguably a more alarming statistic being that 79 assessed species are at risk from hunting. 5 species were listed as critically endangered, which is quite the opposite of 'no risk of animal extinction'.

One point I will agree with you on is that there's no coincidence as to why tribal people are often found in the most biodiverse areas of the planet. However, this has nothing to do with their ecological skills, and is purely because they often inhabit the most remote and undisturbed areas on the planet. The tribe still have an effect on the local ecosystem, but you choose to ignore this as it's not as profound as the extent that modern humans have on the landscape. I'd still love to hear these sophisticated tactics for maintaining the environment because I have a feeling you're chatting complete shit. There seems to be this misunderstanding that native people unanimously have a positive impact on the environment, which as we've seen throughout history is complete bollocks. We've seen tribespeople overexploit natural landscapes from time immemorial, whether that be the deforestation of Dartmoor or the extinction of megafauna in New Zealand. Arrogance in modern conservationists isn't the issue here, but rather the arrogance of ill-informed journalists who judge experts on subjects they know fuck all about. You in particular are so in denial you don't believe indigenous people can cause the extinction of native wildlife.

Fuck me, you've spent the entire article laying out conflicts, and then we conclude by finding out everyone can live as one happy family. What world are you fucking living in? Apparently it's now some great revalation that two sides in an argument both think they have good intentions. The rest of this conclusion is just meaningless blanket statements that are supported with zero evidence, which actually compliments the rest of the shoddy article really well.

My main query is whether it's really elitist to value a cause that you fight for over others? I wouldn't say so myself. I think this article is just a cheap excuse to bash on some exclusive group that you're fixated on, and one that I would argue barely exists. Why do indigenous communities suddenly have priority in owning land? It would simply be ignorant to ignore how they themselves slaughtered every other indigenous tribe that tried to protect their own heritage. What's even more alarming is this belief that tribespeople are some sort of foundation for wildlife. I'm quite confident in saying that nature had been happily existing for hundreds of millions of years before humans ever walked the face of the Earth, so I don't understand why life is now dependant on these people. But sure, chuck a few vague buzzwords around in the hope that someone might fall for the idea that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Surely there's no need to actually explain any of your points.

So it turns out that's the end of this complex debate. With no actual evidence we can safely conclude that tribespeople are the best conservationists for the job. They've done such great work over the years that we're not at all going through a mass extinction of wildlife, and have been for thousands of years. I guess me and my degree are worthless now thanks to this informed article. You can now just get uneducated locals to do my job for me. Surely then tribespeople should be the ones writing articles on conservation biology instead of uneducated morons like yourself. Or maybe just shut the fuck up on topics you evidently have no knowledge in.