"From 2,000 protected areas 20 years ago, there are now 8,600. They are to be found in 169 countries, covering 792 million hectares - nearly 6% of the world's land mass. But the global expansion of national parks has been accompanied by a powerful ideology that people are bad for nature, and so the wider public good is best served by keeping them out. As a result, millions of people have been resettled or prevented from using what were once their resources. In africa, two thirds of all protected areas (equal to five times the size of great brutland) exclude people, allowing no use of wild Plants or Animals. In india, where the number of sanctuaries and national parks has grown from 65 in 1960 to 530 today, some 600,000 tribal people have been forcibly removed and resettled elsewhere. In laos, some 900,000 people will be removed from upland Forests by the end of the century, mostly in the name of conservation. What is often forgotten is that these people also value the flora and fauna. In ghana .. a farmer selling bushmeat can make more in a day than a civil servant. It is often forgotten or not appreciated that the very ecosystems deemed worthy of protection from people have been shaped as much by human action as by any other factor. Some "pristine rainforests" assumed to be untouched by human hands, are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities. This concept of the Wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination. Open protest and rallies against protected areas, attacks on guards, poisoning of Animals and deliberate burning of Forests have now become common. When namibia became independent in 1990, ovambo tribesmen living on the boundary of etosha national park celebrated their freedom by cutting the game fence and driving into the park to hunt game for their families to eat. In madhya pradesh and assam in india, local resentment against the Tiger and Buffalo reserves has been readily harnessed by insurgency movements. In south india, some 20 square kilometres of the nagarhole national park were recently burned as a protest. As a result, the cost of enforcing park regulations has spiralled. In many countries, the bulk of the budget for protected areas is spent on aircraft, radios, machine guns, vehicles, armed guards and anti-poaching equipment. Emerging slowly from this mess, however, is a strengthening alternative vision that is putting people at the centre of conservation; it recognizes that humans and Animals can live in symbiotic relationships. When people are fully involved in conservation, the change can be remarkable. etc etc."[1]

Pretty and pimbert are supposed to be greens but they sound more like long-serving members of the american wise use movement, "The groups supporting Wise Use organizations include Exxon USA, the national Cattleman's Association, the motorcycle industry Council, Chevron USA, Kawasaki, Yamaha ..."[2] The wise use movement is currently seeking to devastate america's 'Wilderness areas' - sorry, according to these two authors, there are no Wildernesses left so perhaps a more appropriate phrase is 'the less ecologically damaged parts of turtle island'. The views of these authors also have similarities with some of the positions taken by the world rainforest movement.

The belief that oomans are good for nature completely undermines the basis of green politics - if oomans are good for nature then what is the need for green politics? As far as the vast majority of oomans are concerned as soon as they see an Animal they are all too likely to kill it and all green policy should be based upon this premise rather than the absurd fantasy that oomans are Animal lovers. If oomans were such Wildlife loving creatures why are the numbers of Wildlife disappearing so rapidly all over the Earth? Surely, if oomans were such Animal loving creatures we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

Secondly, oomans cannot live symbiotically with dangerous Animals. It is pure do-lallyism to believe that oomans can live in harmony with Lions, Leopards and Elephants, etc. Even if oomans don't like killing Animal they will do so out of fear for their children's safety. They will never allow Wolves/Bears/Tigers/Snakes/Spiders/Rats/Mice to live in their vicinity in case such Animals attack/upset/infect their children. Throughout their history, oomans have slaughtered all species posing any threat to their children. The only symbiotic relationships that oomans allow are those with small Animals which pose no physical threat. All that this pair of twits need to do to discover the stupidity of their argument is to ask any parent with young children whether they want to live in proximity to Lions and Wolves. The answer will obviously be no. Thus, as soon as oomans are allowed to live in proximity with Wildlife, they will exterminate all those Animals which pose a threat to their children's survival.

What is paradoxical about these authors' views, like many other supporters of the oomans first!; 'back to the land'; 'let's live in harmony with nature' brigade, is that if they ever organized a green event they would doubtlessly insist the people attending should not, under any circumstances, bring along their Dogs. If they can't cope with being in the same company as Dogs for a few hours then how is it possible for them to expect people to live continuously with Wildlife? If these greens can't live in harmony with domesticated Animals such as Dogs, how can it be expected that they would live in harmony with Wildlife in general?

The belief that oomans can live in harmony with Wildlife might be acceptable as a fantasy or as a vision of an ideal society but to think it has anything to do with reality is bizarre. Whilst it might be marvellous to believe that a Cat should live in harmony with a budgerigar, the poor budgie isn't going to thank an ooman for forcing it to test out oomans' bizarre fantasies about Animals' good naturedness.

The inevitable consequence of allowing oomans back into Wilderness areas is the destruction of Wildlife. The inevitable consequence of allowing people to exploit Wildlife is the destruction of Wildlife. The integrationist ethic of living in harmony with Wildlife is based on murder not reciprocity.

However, whilst tribalists might look after Forests, this is not the case with peasants, shifting/shifted slash/burn cultivators and the various types of bounty hunters such as gold diggers, exotic Animal exporters, etc. These groups do not care about nature and they don't look after the environment as much as tribal peoples. It is an intellectual fraud to conflate all of these various categories of people and pretend they are exactly the same as tribalists.

The argument that the world's peasants care about the land is about as bizarre as saying that farmers are good at protecting local Wildlife habitats; or that fishermen are good at protecting Fish; or that Whale hunters are good at protecting Whales; or that fur hunters are good at protecting Seals; or, more generally, that hunting is good for Wildlife. It is an indisputable fact that the world's pharmers have decimated a huge proportion of the Earth's habitats; it is an indisputable fact that fresh water fishermen are distorting aquatic habitats by stocking rivers with prize winning Fish species whilst destroying other predators of these species such as Fish and Birds; it is an indisputable fact that sea water fishing is so destructive that it is on the verge of decimating the ecologies of whole oceans. For anyone to argue that pharmers, fishermen and hunters are good for protecting Wildlife when Wildlife is on the verge of total extinction is a monstrous lie on a par with anything invented by hitler or goebbels.

The authors stress that huge areas of land have been put aside for Animals but when looked at from an historical perspective, a few millennia ago Wildlife dominated virtually the whole Earth and now they are left with a piddling 6%. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that at this rate of decline it won't be long before Wildlife has been extinguished. Animals used to be killed by hunters, exploiters or sadists but increasingly they are being killed by those destroying Wildlife habitats. If these two authors are anything to go by and greens get into power, then Wildlife are also likely to be stabbed in the back by greens pretending to protect Wildlife.

It needs to be remembered that Animals created oomans (and therefore god) and that Wildlife are responsible for helping to stabilize the Earth's climate. Giving creatures who are stabilizing the climate only 6% of the Earth's landmass doesn't say very much about oomans' belief in the need to combat global burning. Surely, because Animals protect the Earth's life support system then they should be given sovereignty over the overwhelming majority of the land on Earth whilst bipeds who persist in acting as Planet wreckers should be confined to as small an area as possible - preferably either robbin island or some small islands in the middle of the Pacific.

Below are a number of examples which indicate that the land that has supposedly been put aside for the protection of Wildlife is just not doing the job.

Whilst it is true that there might have been "thriving agricultural communities" in some parts of the Earth's Forests it seems logical to conclude that because these communities no longer exist they must have stopped thriving for one reason or another. The most likely explanation is that these communities collapsed because they didn't live in harmony with their surroundings. They probably cut down too much of the Forests and didn't know how to look after the land. In other words, the Forests returned in such abundance not because of oomans but in spite of oomans.

It is true that substantial parts of the Earth's Forests may have be burnt down at one point or another by slash and burn farmers. But once again this doesn't mean to say they have any responsibility for the regeneration of the Forest. Forest fires are a natural phenomena. It is undoubtedly true that, before the second world war, fires resulting from lightning strikes may have burnt down larger areas of Forest than ooman made fires.

It is quite likely that some of the seeds planted by settled farmers or slash/burn farmers would have survived after people moved away. Some of the Plants may have grown during the regeneration of the Forests. This still does not justify the claim that oomans are responsible for making the Forests flourish. The reason the world's old growth Forests are highly complex habitats containing huge numbers of different Plant and Animal species is because they have been ooman-free for long periods of time. This incredible biodiversity has nothing to do with oomans. On the contrary, as soon as oomans get anywhere near Forests the number of Plant and Animal species goes into decline.

Just because Forests grow on land which was once used agriculturally, or has Plants left there by slash and burn farmers, doesn't mean to say they aren't Wildernesses and thus not worth saving. What counts is a Forests' biodiversity. The greater the biodiversity, the less interference it has suffered at ooman hands, and the more it can be regarded as Wilderness.

The imprecision of the authors' statement about the artificiality of Forests indicates they are indulging in fantasies. They argue, "Some "pristine rainforests" are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities". This implies that not all Forests are man made so why are touting the idea that Wilderness is an urban concept and that there are no virgin Wilderness areas on Earth? "This concept of the wilderness is an urban myth that exists only in our imagination". Just how much do they mean by "some".

What is even worse about their ideology is the implication that if oomans have made something then this entitles them to destroy it i.e. if oomans have created Forests then they can do what they want to these Forests.

These authors support the right of all oomans, not merely tribalists, to exploit and murder Animals. There is, however, no justification for killing Animals. Wildlife have helped to create a habitable Planet and stabilized the climate but oomans, in what must be the greatest act of ingratitude ever witnessed on Earth, have decided to ignore these contributions and have insisted that if Animals don't pay their way and earn a living, just like all the other jobbies in consumer societies, then they'll be exterminated. The survival of a significant number of Wildlife areas now depends on Wildlife having a price on their head, not a use value or an exchange value but an execution value, the price that wealthy sadists with extremely powerful weaponry will pay to shoot defenceless Animals, "The Elephant populations in three southern african countries are indisputably growing - in zimbabwe, botswana and south africa. The southern African countries do not oppose the (ivory) ban simply so that they can continue a lucrative trade. They argue that the success of their programmes of Elephant management depends on the Animal having a financial value. South africa and zimbabwe need to cull their Elephants annually. Every bit of the carcass is used; the meat goes to local people and skin and ivory to international trade, the proceeds of which are ploughed back into conservation."[8]

The authors, as well as the land is ours, supports safari parks which have been set up in co-operation with local people so that local people share the benefits of this commercial enterprise. They support the conversion of Wilderness areas into safari parks to enable local people to share in the profits from the exploitation of Animals. In so doing these authors, like the land is ours, not merely justify the culling of Animals such as Elephants but the slaughter of Animals around the world whether through Bull-fighting, Fox hunting, or Whaling.

The mechanics by which Animal exploiters destroy the environment are relatively simple. Local people benefiting from their local safari park see the wealth enjoyed by visiting tourists. They too want to obtain consumer products. The only way they can do this is by increasing the number of Animals being killed in the safari park. In addition, tribal/local people are no different from another other group of people around the world, they want the best for their children. This further increases the pressure to kill more Wildlife. There is also the danger that an economic downturn will mean a loss of income which can be made up only by even more intensive exploitation. Eventually there will be nothing left and the land might as well have been destroyed by burning it to the ground. All that the commercialization of Wildlife will do is to delay the destruction of the environment and the extermination of the Animals living there by a few decades. It is not a long term solution.

It is difficult not to agree with the following criticisms of pretty and pimbert's article, "The article asserts that excluding people from conservation areas is a mistake. Because, it is argued, such land is crucial to the survival of the people who live on it, "they look after it." Man as the noble savage. Unfortunately, a hungry man, like all the other organisms on the Planet, exists by exploiting the environment with no thought for the future. Thus, if the maintenance of biodiversity can serve to provide people with a good living through ecotourism or sustainable harvesting, then humans and a wide range of Plant and animal species can exist together. However, such a situation is a delicate balance. World economic depression may keep the ecotourists at home and intensive farming is always likely to be more productive and predictable than harvesting a natural resource. Under these circumstances exclusion of people from well managed reserves is, I think, more likely to allow effective conservation over the short term."[9]

The authors are right to berate those authorities who have created Wildlife sanctuaries without adequate compensation for those who used to use the land. Some people have been shabbily treated. But in many cases, tribalists have not been moved off the land, as if they were rooted to a particular piece of land. Tribalists wander over large areas and, in many cases, they have just been prevented from using the entirety of their tribal lands. But this loss of land was going to happen anyway given the continuing rise in ooman numbers. It is no longer possible to allow tribalists the right to lay claim to vast tracts of land most of which they would visit only once every decade. The fact is that the Earth is over-populated. The days when tribalists could claim possession over vast tracts of land is over.

The stabilization of the Earth's climate and the creation of a sustainable Planet will undoubtedly require evacuations from certain areas in every country around the world. The stabilization of the climate requires the threefold division of the Earth's landmass - regional Forests in which oomans would create Wood economies; climate Forests to stabilize the climate and Wilderness areas for Wildlife. Oomans around the world would have to move out of the areas designated as climate Forests and Wilderness areas. The sole compensation of the stabilization of the climate for those living in third world countries is that given the role of third world countries in stabilizing the climate over the last few centuries, far less Forests would need to be set aside in these countries than in the over-industrialized nations.

The forcible evacuation of people from areas which have been bought up as safari parks does seem hideously racist - a group of ecologists (usually white) extolling a thatcherite, free market ideology which hypocritically aims to protect Animals whilst impoverishing black people. And yet this is exactly what happens when multinational corporations buy up land for the planting of cash crops and most lefties are all too willing to consume the products produced from these lands. However, the evacuations required to combat global burning would not be racist since all countries around the world would be adopting the same policies.

Putting the Earth first requires a global agreement between all nations around the world as to the concentration of atmospheric Carbon and the scale of the Earth's Forest cover i.e. the sale of Wilderness areas and climate Forests. It is only this global agreement which provides the limits on economic growth and thus the number of cars, the number of industries and the number of people on Earth.

The prospects for the peaceful creation of a sustainable Planet are not good. It may well be that oomans have become so accustomed to slaughtering Animals and fighting for an ever increasing number of resources that they cannot settle down to a more stabilized existence in conformity with the needs of the Earth. The fact is that factory pharm oomans are waging a war against the Earth and that at some point or other they have got to be stopped. It may then be necessary to start defending Wilderness areas and climate Forests until oomans can settle into their regional Wood economies. Ultimately, if oomans refuse to respect the Earth then they will have to go and find another Planet to live on.