From Claire Soares: "Conservation"?

Hello all,

There are certain truths that may be news to "wilderness" fans. Many would-be conservation activists don't know them either. If everyone already knows these, sorry but that was not evident from last week's discussion. So here goes.

The wilderness is not resistant to human disease and the contamination non-wilderness pros (people who are not game wardens, on research assignment in a specific jungle or forest) can track into pristine areas, could wipe out entire species. So tourists and other non-wilderness pros are increasingly allowed only into carefully tailored game parks that are monitored by wardens and vets. Researchers apply for permits months, sometimes years ahead. The exceptions may be a well financed media project, such as for instance, the filmmakers from a crew such as Planet Earth's. But even with the money already budgeted, the lead time to get permits for certain areas was a major production hurdle. The number of DPs on that series numbered just under 50 and the series took 5 years to make. Certain sequences took months to capture on camera. The actual cameras required to capture all of this are not within the budget of most film schools in the world.

For these reasons and more, MOST of the wilderness films and TV programs made today are made in some form of game park. Great care is taken to construct these to keep human clod hoppers, however well meaning, out of wilderness where they can wreak havoc. If there are "brave" humans who are in jungles or savanna or forests, they are, more often than not, poachers. Or clucks who came without a permit.

The other reason game parks serve the public is their cross breeding programs, carefully constructed to breed endangered species, using inter-zoo transport routes, to prevent inbreeding. Often the healthy babies that result are reintroduced to the wild to supplement dwindling numbers of wildlife. The Chinese panda and the Orinoco crocodile are two such species programs. Restoring the wilderness balance in this way helps keep wilderness human tribes healthy.

Any genuine conservationist knows the visual difference between wilderness reserves and real jungles instantly. And if someone's just a wildlife-loving member of the public, they don't care about anything other than seeing a beautiful animal. I've been fortunate enough to be on (legitimate) trecks through wilderness in many countries. However, the best footage I (and most professional "wildlife wilderness filmmakers"today) get is generally in controlled environments, where we don't cut down trees to get that "different angle on that bird," and relax knowing there's a vet at hand if we give a saki monkey the flu. Besides, on hikes through real rain forest, one could never carry everything needed without a large crew of porters. And then, we'd still need months in-situ to capture animal friends on camera, at least one or two makans and a rope hoist and traverse system through the canopy. Until I get that Planet Earth budget, I'll do things the normal, safe way.