30 years ago, the purist in me would have been outraged by this idea. After living in Africa for 15+ years, I believe we need all the new ecosystems we can muster for wildlife. Generally, these animals are not truly valued in their place of origin, and despite official protections, enforcement is often non-existent.
They're seen as dangerous, as pests, as problem animals... but mostly as grazing competition for cattle, sheep and goats. And just as cattle, sheep and goats exist all over the planet, perhaps these wild 'non-monetised' species (except for hunting and wildlife tourism) should be spread out across the globe as well to ensure their survival. There are proposals to establish Black Rhino populations in Australia. Why not? And quickly, before they are poached into extinction here in Africa. We also really need to find alternative habitats for elephants, the ultimate African 'problem animal'.
I have visited Hacienda Napoles and even petted and fed Vanessa, Escobar's pet pigmi Hippo. The place is truly worth a visit, it pretends to be a zoo and the erasure of Escobar ever having anything excplicitly to do with th eplace is ongoing.. the house is being torn down, the air strip where the planes came and went and so on. Yet - everything that is there - from zebra's, ostriches, rhinos and hippos and a bull ring and a helipad and a collection of historic cars (including Bonnie & Clyde's car) only because of Escobar.
Thanks Ben, I wasn't aware of the similar effect of wild horses and burrows. As you may know, there's a concerted effort in Wyoming by private landowners to cull the wild horses on public land because they feel putting up fences around private property is too expensive. The federal act that you referenced is the only thing stopping the cull, so far.
Yeah, fascinating story. 99.9% of all rewilding efforts are rigorously planned by people who are experts in their fields. But, just as in nature, there are exceptions to the rule. Sometimes a rewilding experiment just happens. Yes, those hippos are an invasive species. But as Jens-Christian Svenning also suggested in this 2020 National Geographic article 👉 https://lnkd.in/dVs8pUFj they might contribute ecosystem services once provided by large herbivores long gone extinct.
Naturally I love to think creatively about how we can best recover wildlife at scale globally. We need to!
But I am not so sure that this is the right way to go, (I share your awe and desire for a world brimming with life but there are perhaps better ways to do this for the good of all species including hippos).
Take the rights of nature paradigm, its not only the hippos to think about, it's also the entire ecosystem and all those species that evolved to find a natural equilibrium. The hippos non native presence will likely have unforeseen impacts, they have no natural predators for a start suggesting they will quickly become more and more invasive.
More hippos would mean more human wildlife conflict. Already an agenda item for the government and the costs of either sterilisation or euthanasia are between $0.5m - $10m+ (depending on how soon its implemented). Costs would increase in line with a rise in the population, so is it ethical to bring in more animals for this outcome?
Costs associated with improving the genetic risk are estimated at $3.5m, which in light of existing conflict, would add to the likely cost of a management plan. Is this a good use of funds which could be directed into all the other crisis points where native species need support?
As you highlighted, animals are facing conflict in their own native lands and this is the issue that really needs redressing. Nature is being pushed into increasingly small, isolated and degraded habitats. Human intolerance for the 'wild' in what we see as 'our land' is the problem. Our real focus should be on rewilding landscapes where the native assemblage of incredible species are given more space and where we enable better connectivity so that they can move, evolve and keep their health in check (including a healthy genetic flow). Learning how to give back land in its fully intact state for this purpose might not sound so exciting but the results would be even greater.
So I am all in for thinking out of the box and reimagining a better world for sure! But with the caveat of applying the vert best ecological principles, taking the right advice and taken heed of the 'precautionary principle'...
Fascinating and thought provoking
Very interesting Ben x
30 years ago, the purist in me would have been outraged by this idea. After living in Africa for 15+ years, I believe we need all the new ecosystems we can muster for wildlife. Generally, these animals are not truly valued in their place of origin, and despite official protections, enforcement is often non-existent.
They're seen as dangerous, as pests, as problem animals... but mostly as grazing competition for cattle, sheep and goats. And just as cattle, sheep and goats exist all over the planet, perhaps these wild 'non-monetised' species (except for hunting and wildlife tourism) should be spread out across the globe as well to ensure their survival. There are proposals to establish Black Rhino populations in Australia. Why not? And quickly, before they are poached into extinction here in Africa. We also really need to find alternative habitats for elephants, the ultimate African 'problem animal'.
I have visited Hacienda Napoles and even petted and fed Vanessa, Escobar's pet pigmi Hippo. The place is truly worth a visit, it pretends to be a zoo and the erasure of Escobar ever having anything excplicitly to do with th eplace is ongoing.. the house is being torn down, the air strip where the planes came and went and so on. Yet - everything that is there - from zebra's, ostriches, rhinos and hippos and a bull ring and a helipad and a collection of historic cars (including Bonnie & Clyde's car) only because of Escobar.
Thanks Ben, I wasn't aware of the similar effect of wild horses and burrows. As you may know, there's a concerted effort in Wyoming by private landowners to cull the wild horses on public land because they feel putting up fences around private property is too expensive. The federal act that you referenced is the only thing stopping the cull, so far.
appreciate very much a divergent view with solid scientific arguments
What a story! Love it.
Ben, thank you for a lovely, fascinating story. Pablo Escobar, hippos in Columbia, genetic diversity, and re-wilding all connected! Amazing.
Yeah, fascinating story. 99.9% of all rewilding efforts are rigorously planned by people who are experts in their fields. But, just as in nature, there are exceptions to the rule. Sometimes a rewilding experiment just happens. Yes, those hippos are an invasive species. But as Jens-Christian Svenning also suggested in this 2020 National Geographic article 👉 https://lnkd.in/dVs8pUFj they might contribute ecosystem services once provided by large herbivores long gone extinct.
Love it ! thanks for sharing
Fascinating, and a pragmatic solution to an interesting dilemma. I am in support and lived the article too Ben
Very good!!
In Somerset it’s your cockadillo which is shifting the earth. Wonderful article. Thanks Ben.
What i find so remarkable is that from just 4 hippo and only 1 male there are now 200. Are they healthy? Or very inbred?
Naturally I love to think creatively about how we can best recover wildlife at scale globally. We need to!
But I am not so sure that this is the right way to go, (I share your awe and desire for a world brimming with life but there are perhaps better ways to do this for the good of all species including hippos).
Take the rights of nature paradigm, its not only the hippos to think about, it's also the entire ecosystem and all those species that evolved to find a natural equilibrium. The hippos non native presence will likely have unforeseen impacts, they have no natural predators for a start suggesting they will quickly become more and more invasive.
More hippos would mean more human wildlife conflict. Already an agenda item for the government and the costs of either sterilisation or euthanasia are between $0.5m - $10m+ (depending on how soon its implemented). Costs would increase in line with a rise in the population, so is it ethical to bring in more animals for this outcome?
Costs associated with improving the genetic risk are estimated at $3.5m, which in light of existing conflict, would add to the likely cost of a management plan. Is this a good use of funds which could be directed into all the other crisis points where native species need support?
As you highlighted, animals are facing conflict in their own native lands and this is the issue that really needs redressing. Nature is being pushed into increasingly small, isolated and degraded habitats. Human intolerance for the 'wild' in what we see as 'our land' is the problem. Our real focus should be on rewilding landscapes where the native assemblage of incredible species are given more space and where we enable better connectivity so that they can move, evolve and keep their health in check (including a healthy genetic flow). Learning how to give back land in its fully intact state for this purpose might not sound so exciting but the results would be even greater.
So I am all in for thinking out of the box and reimagining a better world for sure! But with the caveat of applying the vert best ecological principles, taking the right advice and taken heed of the 'precautionary principle'...
Happy to discuss any time and with an open mind.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0370-39082024000200413
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-33028-y