One of the more fascinating—and troubling—undercurrents of the conservation movement is that it has a clear, unalterable lid: We want to conserve species and their habitats, but not at the expense of our own well-being. In other words, when it’s them v. us, the furry critters will get it every time (a phenomenon handily illustrated by just about every creature movie).

Now, as Michael Wall reports in ScienceNOW Daily News, this man-beast conflict is coming to a dramatic head in Nepal, where villagers have undergone an extensive campaign to rebuild degraded forests in an effort to restore the dwindling tiger population. The giant cats—or what remains of them—have been shoved for years into smaller and smaller spaces in between villages, fields, and roads.

To keep the species from perishing entirely, for over a decade the Nepalese government has been working to expand the tiger reserves. Local communities have also joined in, managing the recovering forests and learning to allocate now-smaller resources like firewood and livestock grounds. In fact, the program has been a near-model of conservation in action, with the tiger parks giving back portions of their revenues to the sacrificing communities.

The only party that isn’t complacent in this whole affair, unfortunately, is the tigers. With their numbers on the rise—and the number of humans surrounding them not decreasing—they’re attacking people in record numbers.

According to the latest research:

[K]illings soared once the buffer-zone forests bounced back, from an average of 1.2 people per year in the first 2 decades to 7.2 thereafter. The killing rate jumped nearly threefold inside the park and more than ninefold inside the buffer zone, the team reports in this month’s issue of Biological Conservation.

All of which leaves conservationists and academics declaring an uneasy victory—the tigers are successfully breeding in their new habitats!—while the villagers who’ve been scrimping and sacrificing to help the beasts are now worried about being mauled. There’s your kicker: No one ever said that gratitude was a prerequisite in the animal kingdom.

Meanwhile, in poetically ironic timing, the Bush administration is overturning a 25-year-old ban on carrying concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. So we can be sure to blow the head off any ungrateful bears or moose that fail to recognize our tax dollars are paying for their stomping ground.

Related:
RB: Bush Tries to Do Good for the Environment; Cheney Smacks Him Down
RB: Save the Ugly Animals!
RB: Are Conservationists Favoring Cuddly Animals?

Image: iStockPhoto

Yesterday we noted that dear old (and still around) President Bush was working overtime to pass environmental regulations—many of which would harm, not help, said environment—before he’s shown the proverbial boot. But to be fair, not every rule he’s looking to enact is bad: The Washington Post reports that one in particular may even be crucial in conserving some our most vital underwater ecosystems. The plan is to restrict or ban fishing and mineral exploitation in two huge areas of the Pacific.

No surprise, his attempts to do some good are being met with resistance, to the point where the scope of the original plan, which included the preservation of four potential “marine monuments” has already been whittled down. And leading the anti-conservation charge is none other than friend-to-corporations-everywhere Dick Cheney, who argues that the restrictions will hurt the economies of nearby regions like the Northern Mariana Islands.

The ocean areas in question, called “treasure troves” of biodiversity, are described by the Post as follows:

Kingman Reef and other islands in the central Pacific area teem with sharks and other top predators; the Mariana Trench and its nearby islands are home to several species of rare beaked whales and the Micronesian megapode — an endangered bird that uses the heat from volcanic vents to incubate its eggs — as well as to mud volcanoes, pools of boiling sulfur and the greatest microbial diversity on Earth.

Still, sayeth Cheney, if there’s mining and fishing to be done, to heck with the megapodes—though apparently he’s less worried about what will happen to fishing long-term if we don’t create preserves where fish can replenish their dwindling populations.

In a rousing (and unfortunately somewhat uncommon) display of spine-growing, the current First Lady is taking up the ocean’s cause, arguing that “preserving the region’s natural attributes would attract tourism and burnish the president’s record for history.” This may be the first/last time we’ll say this, but here it is: We couldn’t agree with Laura more.

Related:
RB: It’s Not Over Yet: Bush Sneaks In Harmful Pollution Laws
RB: Whales Battle U.S. Military…and (Probably) Lose

Remember how un-cuddly and un-fuzzy animals were getting the shaft from both the media and the public alike? Well, finally an organization is taking a stand for the rights of the slimy, the toady, and the generally awful. The Conservation Law Foundation has asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to add the Atlantic wolffish—the picture speaks for itself—to the Endangered Species List.

As with the majority of aquatic species, the fish is being royally screwed by commercial fishing and could soon be wiped off the planet. The only difference between it and all those photogenic dolphins, however, is that the wolffish is, well, freaking hideous. Which makes it all the less likely that the CLF’s push will be well-received—especially considering that New England fishermen are already eying this move as a potential source of more fishing restrictions.

So unless it’s discovered to make pearls or form the world’s greatest sushi, we’re not holding our breaths for the foundations and charities to spring forth trumpeting the species’ survival. Ah well—we’ll always have pictures.

Image: Flickr/eirikm