People need to look at wildlife conservation in its totality. As soon as you lose the apex predator, it has harmful consequences right down the food chain.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you take away the predators in the prairies and the national parks, you suddenly have an explosion of elk, and then you have a lack of the food source for the elk, so they strip all the ground bare and that takes away the cover, on and on and on and on. The whole food chain is disrupted.
So, my tactic with conservation of apex predators is to get people excited and take them to where they live.
Predators make it much more difficult to find consensus. It's a lot easier to agree about birds and plants than about animals that endanger people and livestock.
All over the world the wildlife that I write about is in grave danger. It is being exterminated by what we call the progress of civilization.
People are not going to care about animal conservation unless they think that animals are worthwhile.
A lot of money could be saved if we ate urban wildlife.
Wild fish are under threat of extinction because they're hunted to feed us. Yet land animals that we farm are under no threat of extinction. Shifting from hunting fish to farming fish - where the farmers have the incentive to keep their stocks healthy - could do a tremendous amount of good for wild fish.
Our food is safer and our diets are more diverse than ever before; production methods are becoming increasingly sustainable, clean and efficient; and we are constantly becoming better at protecting biodiversity.
The tragedy is that there is so much more incentive - money - to destroy the ecology than there is to preserve it.
I believe sustainable use is the greatest propaganda in wildlife conservation at the moment.
No opposing quotes found.