It's in the equation, stupid

Everyone has their own particular take on what's happening to our planet. On the one hand some will have good, solid scientific evidence to back up their viewpoint, and on the other people will just 'think what they think'. But how big is the gulf between the two?

Take bushmeat as an example, and in particular the hunting of primates. The bloke down the pub - assuming he has an interest in this kind of thing - may argue that it should simply 'stop', that it's wrong, that these things are endangered and they should be better protected, better respected, and it's awful that such wonderful creatures are being killed at all, and then for good measure throw in something about Dian Fossey. If you're lucky you may hear arguments about providing local people with alternatives, or better engaging local communities in conservation efforts, or the lack of economic opportunity for some of the poorest people in the world. The fact is that very few of us really understand what's going on, and even fewer of us have any answers.

Alarmingly, in 96% of protected areas with primates the populations are in decline. That's very nearly all of them, without stating the obvious. And a lot of money is being spent. But what on? Again, ask most people what they think - if you think their viewpoint matters - and you'd probably get park rangers, education programmes, rehabilitation centres, lobbying and so on.


Sure, a lot of money is being spent on these things. But it's also being spent on stuff like this. This little beauty apparently helps us calculate the impact of infrastructure development (such as roads) on primate populations. Believe me, I would explain it, but I don't understand it.

The point is, this is the kind of work going on out there. Some very clever person will no doubt shoot my argument down in a matter of seconds, but I struggle with stuff like this. I'm sure the equation has some use, but has knowing this actually helped protect any primate populations? The latest population stats don't look good, to be fair. Could the money have been better spent on more 'direct' conservation - the kind of stuff that our mate down the pub talks about? Maybe, but what does he know about primate conservation, eh?

I wonder...