The Dilemma: Compassion to people ... compassion to animals

So the past couple of years I have been working as a Park Ranger for the National Park Service, then as a GIS intern at the Metro Parks around Akron, now the land planner at the one in Cleveland. I help conserve natural areas, for the enjoyment of people and to help save species of animals. Ohio, may not be a Sundarbans, or great barrier reef, it is a makeshift home to many migratory species. It's waters drain into the Great lakes which eventually drain into the Atlantic Ocean. The environment and the quality of the environment is a shared responsibility. Some of us work more actively in the field than others.

However what is the COST of conservation? In Northeast Ohio people are concerned we are taking away their land. The land which they rightfully own, for some dumb birdies. In India Medha Patkar and Baba Amte stood up for the tribal/village people who would be affected by the dam which was to be built across the Narmada River. Did those people really matter? Did that whole environment really matter? Is not renewable energy for the overpopulated cities of India more important than some people in a village, who farm, they could farm or do whatever they do elsewhere right? Do these peoples' sentiments really matter?

I have been reading this book called "The Hungry Tide" by Amitav Ghosh. I highly recommend it if you have any interest in Indian culture, environment, tigers, culture in Asia, philosophy or just really good piece of fiction. The story is set in the Indian section of the Sundarbans. This is a real area, and all the facts that follow are true. The Sundarbans are the largest mangrove forest in the world. A Mangrove forest is a special habitat created where the river meets the sea, the depositing silt creates temporary and changing landforms, this process gives birth to semi-aquatic flora and specialized fauna. This area is also the humble abode of the Royal Bengal Tiger. WWF, and other such organizations have listed the Tiger as a threatened and endangered species. This animal is subject to loss of habitat, and poaching.

The Sundarbans is also home to a very popular species that inhabits the earth: Humans. So two great predators occupy this dense jungle, or whatever is left of it. As the humans make way for more homes, the tigers fight for survival... the people who live here are mostly refugees, living in abject poverty, poor, fishing in the little streams and rivers that form this vast delta. Who has rights to this land? WWF and people from our class are all for SAVE THE TIGER. The tiger is dying. However, where will these people go? Do they matter?

Then again there are people like me who work hard but for no great compensation, to protect these areas, quoting the book (at this point two characters are discussing the difference between conserving habitats for animals and keeping animals in captivity): "the difference (...) is that is what it was intended, not by you or me, but by nature, by the earth, by the planet that keeps us all alive. Just suppose we cross that imaginary line that prevents us from deciding that no other species matters except ourselves. What will be left then? Aren't we alone enough in the Universe? And do you think it will stop at that? Once we decide we can kill off other species, it will be people next. Just the kind of people you were speaking of, people who are poor and unnoticed."

This made me think that perhaps preservation does draw the line from us killing off the earth and then killing each other for more of it. When we create preservations, reservations, conservation areas... It is because we acknowledge the fact that this is a place that must be shared not only with humans but reserved for animals who would otherwise have no home. WE as a species are selfish and greedy, taking the best and leaving the rest to the lowest. Some might call it survival of the fittest, but most of us are more than fit. So since we are the dominant species and class why not help the "less fit" more often.

However there is still the line between helping poverty stricken people and helping the environment. When the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Medha Patkar and Baba Amte's non-government organization) began a movement against the dam, it aimed at preserving habitat (trees etc) and people. Then there is an area like the Smoky Mountain National Park, which preserves a small portion of the smoky mountains and is home to the Cherokee Indians. So how do we find a balance in countries countries in Africa, South America, and South Asia to strike a balance between helping the poor, but helping the animals too. Maybe even separating the two. We can not afford to lose the earth's second greatest predator (being the Big Cats). However can not ignore poor people and cast them aside. However conserving the nature is my job at the moment. There are both sides of the coin, which can go hand in hand. Which side of the coin are you? and what have you done so far?