WILDLIFE CONSERVATION V. LIVELIHOOD PRESERVATION

Abstract

Preservation of wildlife and other scarce natural recourses has always been a controversial issue faced by developing India. The advancement of civilization has brought with it, the problem of over-exploitation of forests and its recourses to meet the selfish and insatiable needs of human kind. To combat this crisis a number of laws, policies and Acts were passed both at the national as well as international level. There exists conflicting opinions regarding the value of wildlife preservation. This has increased the level of environmental awareness and has caused a growing concern for the diminished stocks of certain wildlife species. There are strong opinions suggesting that the intrinsic value of all animal species is infinite, and that all native animals have a ‘right to live’ that should be preserved regardless of the cost of current generation. Nevertheless it can be asserted that the future of wildlife is the future of humankind. The question of whether animals have moral status or values is examined. This part deals with the modern philosophical debate on the issue of use of animals in bio-medical and cosmetic researches. In this paper, a simple model is developed that incorporates individual preferences and animal rights and attempts to strike a balance between ‘Right to Life’ of humans as well as animals. Wildlife preservation may be an important contribution to animal lives, but what happens if these animal’s lives gets in the way of our economy gaining money? Why do we have to risk the lives of these innocent animals? This paper also discusses the herculean task of the Indian courts to balance the competing interests of Conversationalist and the traditional forest dwellers. The provisions to eliminate human interventions within preserved areas operate harshly against the forest communities.