DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT

submitted by Kevin Peartree  Class of 2004

The destruction of animals’ habitats has always posed a great threat to the ecosystems that dwell on Earth.   Humans, especially after the industrial revolution, have been known to recklessly chop down whole forests without a care for the animals or the environment that they are affecting.  This is very apparent in North America, where a monkey could once supposedly swing from tree to tree from South America to present day New York state and never touch the ground.  When the Europeans came to the continent they cleared much of the land for farming and towns (and the monkey now had to travel to New York on foot).  Americans, however, started to realize the importance of conservation and the forests made a tremendous comeback during the 20^th century.  Even though the human understanding of nature and bio-diversity has improved, there are still many countries that recklessly destroy natural habitats.  The African countries of the Sub-Saharan region are an example.  Countries, such as Ivory Coast and Liberia, have chopped down most of their rainforests for timber, farming and mining.  Overall, 65% of the Sub-Saharan rainforest has been chopped down already (http://campus.murraystate.edu).  Nearly 80% of the rainforest in coastal regions has been destroyed (www.ourplanet.com).  Countless species of plants, such as the wild orchards,  and animals, such as the Silver-back Ape (of which there are only 650 left), the Keel-billed Toucan and the Carpet Chameleon, are threatened with extinction; they can only live in the rainforest, and if it is taken away from them, they will die off or become zoo spectacles.  Animals are not the only ones who will be threatened by the loss of the rainforest; humans will be affected too.   Besides the fact that some humans depend on the rainforest for food, humans will lose out on a chance to combat many deadly diseases if the rainforest is destroyed, since scientists have speculated that many rainforest plants may hold the cure to such diseases as cancer.  Rainforests also keep the earth’s temperature down by absorbing greenhouse gases (mostly Carbon-Dioxide) that would otherwise have trapped in heat and caused the Earth’s temperature to rise sharply.

                Yet, these African countries can’t simply be told to stop the logging, mining and farming that is ruining the forests; these third world countries depend on these activities for much-needed revenues, and for food.   The millions of Africans depend on farm products for their food and many of them also depend on logging, mining and farming for their meager incomes.  The solution to this problem thus has to have both the environment and mankind in mind.  My solution does.  I think that the African nations should de-emphasize industries that are harmful to the rainforest, such as logging and farming, and emphasize an industry that would promote rainforest conservation: tourism. 

                The countries of the Sub-Saharan region have a natural attraction right in their backyards that has the potential to draw millions of tourists every year: the rainforest and all of its denizens.  These countries should strive to make conditions more suitable to the likings of tourists; they should set up resorts, provide security to visitors and make the rainforest more accessible to tourists.  Doing this would most definitely attract more tourists and thus increase the revenue generated from the industry.  When the governments realize how profitable tourism is, they will have an economic incentive to protect the rainforest and be more prudent in how much forested land they allow companies to log.  Yes, my solution would allow logging, farming and mining, because those industries will still be needed, but the governments would learn to exercise judgement in choosing how much forest to cut down since they would need the forest for tourism.   The governments would make sure that the soil of a certain area is good for farming before clearing that area of forest; they would  mine certain areas of the forest only if the mineral output made it worthwhile;  they would be much more strict with the logging companies and probably force them to replace the trees that are cut.  In short, the governments would still allow these industries, but these activities would be much more controlled and low-scale than they are now, since tourism and the conservation of the rainforest would have just as much if not more importance to these countries. 

                The African people themselves would also have economic incentives to protect the rainforest.  Instead of cutting down trees or farming, many of them will be serving the tourism industry as guides, servers, cooks, vendors, drivers, and so forth.  They will have an incentive in seeing the rainforest protected and will be less likely to illegally cut down forested areas. 

                While the African people would benefit, the animals and plants would thrive.  The rapid encroachment upon their habitat would come to a halt because, although logging, farming and mining would still take up some of their habitat, the rate at which they did so and how much would sharply decrease.  Species, such as the Silver-back gorilla, would survive for future generations to see.  All that is needed to put this plan into action is for the African governments to realize how beneficial rainforest conservation would be to them; once they do, the rainforest’s, and thus the animals’ welfare will become one of their top priorities.