Home

10%

Wild Things

Part 1: The struggle for survival

By Mark Smith

August 7^th, 2025

The question came to me in a half-asleep dream:

"WHY, exactly, should we save the elephants?"

Working on this article, elephants have been on my mind, even at 4am. And after learning that my daughter Emily would be having a baby girl early in 2026, I've thought more about the future, near- and long-term, and what their world will be like.

Which brings me back to elephants. And lions, dolphins, and chimpanzees. Now more than ever, our planet's wild animals - including some of the largest and best-loved on land and at sea - are at risk. And they need our help.

You may well ask: OK, but jeez, Mark - Don't we have enough serious issues to worry about that are affecting HUMANS, here and abroad???

My answer is Yes, we have a lot right now. However:

1 - In the midst of all the dark policy coming out of Washington, our wildlife problem hasn't gone away. It's gotten worse.

2 - If I waited until the political chaos stopped to post this article, it would be 2029 - at the earliest. For some animals (or entire species), that could be too late.

3 - How we manage wild animals, and the natural world in general, affects humans in profound ways.

4 - All the wildlife news isn't bad: There are many good organizations world-wide that are evolving and pushing back.

5 - Besides: As I saw on a T-shirt the other day: We Can Handle More Than We Think.

A work in progress

The topic of wild animal conservation is complex, with many shades and tangents. It's not something you can tie up with a nice bow and say, "OK, I covered that subject."

And so, this article is a work in progress, coming in two or three parts. Part 1 will offer perspective on some of wild animals' biggest challenges, from the Congo to Washington D.C.

Part 2 tackles the question I dreamed about: WHY should we save rhinos and dolphins? I'll also talk about some of the organizations that are fighting back and what they're doing. And, present some thoughts on the future of zoos (the good ones...).

At least, that's the plan. Hang with me.

Silverback

The seeds for this article were planted by a fascinating PBS Nature documentary called "Silverback" (air date Fall 2024).

Its filmmaker is Vianet Djenguet, an engaging cinematographer from Africa's Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and whom Nancy and I recognized from a previous PBS Nature special.

In "Silverback," Vianet is deep in a jungle within a DRC national park, filming a months-long process by a team of park officials: The "habituating" of a 500-pound, alpha-male silverback and his family of 22 lowland gorillas.

Early on, we're told the goal behind this process - during which heavily armed guards are always present: It's so the gorillas will accept the presence of humans in their habitat. This would enable tourists and their guides to safely enter the gorillas' territory - while enabling the gorillas to avoid extinction.

I was skeptical but I accepted that statement - for the moment.

The price of survival

In a scene near the show's end, Vianet is speaking with John Kahekwa (see screen shot), who is overseeing the habituation process.

During this conversation, Kehekwa makes an extraordinary statement about these gorillas and their future: "They must pay for their own survival."

Had I heard that right? To survive, they must give up their wild privacy, share their habitat, and play nice with humans. Wow. Such a deal.

A tipping point?

I've watched a lot of documentaries on wild animals; for decades they've been losing the battle with humans, in many ways. That's not new.

But I've never seen anyone say that for our truly wild animals, having to radically sacrifice their way of life was a "strategy" for their survival. Especially when one of the goals was enabling tourists to pose for vanity shots along with a "wild" gorilla.

Had it really come to this? Was this a tipping point in wild animals' long-term survival?

And as cinematographer Vianet admits later in the show, he grew conflicted about this habituation process and his role in documenting it.

However, the picture filled in as I learned more. Kahekwa has headed up many community-led projects to enable human-gorilla coexistence in the DRC. 30 years ago, he founded the Pole Pole Foundation for just this purpose.

And, this particular habituation was one that would try to strike a balance between the needs of gorillas and humans, requiring both to make sacrifices in return for something they need.

The goals:

-Reduce the poaching (the capturing or killing) of these gorillas, by enabling the locals to have a closer and more informed relationship with these animals, and recognize their value to the community

-Teach the local communities how to lessen their reliance on their natural resources: for example, using alternative cooking and heating methods, which would reduce the number of trees they cut down for firewood - a practice that has been shrinking the gorillas' natural habitat

-Bring much-needed tourism income into a poverty-stricken area that has often experienced political instability and armed conflict

-And, create new jobs for locals

Kahekwa goes on to state unequivocally: "Without this program, this silverback and his family will not survive."

This particular family of lowland gorillas may well survive, and adapt to their "new normal." But look what they had to give up.

And in this habituation process, they will be one more step removed from their natural state of wildness - not just for this generation but most likely for their offspring - and theirs. There is probably no going back.

10.2 BILLION Humans

Meanwhile: Human population growth is a major factor behind the planet's diminishing wild habitats. According to recent (winter 2024) UN estimates, there are now about 8.1 billion of us on Earth; this number is estimated to increase to 9.6 billion by 2050 - nearly 20% in just 25 years, meaning a net average increase of around 60 million people per year. And then reach a peak total of 10.2 billion later in this century.

As our population grows, we occupy more land to live on and use for agriculture and livestock. This is causing wildlife habitat loss at an alarmingly higher rate.

It's especially true on the African continent, whose countries have among the highest rates of growth.

Close proximity of humans and wild animals can be challenging in many ways, and dangerous - as we saw in the Silverback story above.

Mammals: Us and Them

Recently I stumbled upon this amazing / disturbing statistic about our world: It's estimated that only about 4% of our planet's mammals are wild (meaning they live in their natural habitat and are not domesticated).

Just 4%.

The other 96% of our planet's mammals fall into two groups: Us (34%), and the mammals we eat, such as cows, sheep, and pigs (62%).

(Again, this refers just to mammals, not all animals.)

Further: That wild 4% is split about evenly between animals on land and those in our waters (e.g. whales, dolphins, sharks).

So, wild land mammals actually represent just 2% of all mammals, by biomass (essentially, their weight).

Meaning that...(try to read each line in the list below - they're all important...)

-all of the wild elephants

-wild rhinos

-hippos

-giraffes

-moose

-cape buffaloes

-bison

-grizzlies and black bears

-pandas

-horses and mules

-lions, cheetahs, leopards, and tigers

-hyenas and wild dogs

-mountain lions and bobcats

-gorillas and chimpanzees

-wildebeest, gazelle, and antelope

-oryx and kudu

-deer and elk

-wolverines, raccoons, skunks, and possums

-all the rabbits, rats, and mice (!)

-and all the other wild mammals...

...account for only about 2% of the planet's mammals. Phew.

Increasingly, the math is saying that our planet has fewer places left for some of the most important and high-profile members of the animal kingdom.

We're deciding which mammals have real "value" to us - such as cows and pigs - and which do not.

Wildlife crime

The illegal wildlife trade is one of the world's top ten illegal trades (yes, on that same list as human trafficking, among others). It is estimated to be a 10-to-20 billion-dollar business annually, world-wide.

How has wildlife crime affected one of our most-loved animals, the elephant? According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), more than 100,000 African elephants were killed during 2006-2015 for their valuable ivory.

As a result of global conservation efforts, poaching rates have been slightly declining over the past few years across Africa. But we are still losing elephants faster than they can reproduce - making their survival uncertain.

Which raises the uncomfortable question: Do poachers actually value elephants more than the rest of us?

The list of animals captured live or killed for their parts is long and discouraging. I'll spare you the details.

And let's remember: It's not just the poachers who are to blame; it's also the people who buy their illegal goods. This includes consumers buying powder made from rhino horn, for dubious medicinal purposes. According to the articles I've seen, the populations (and governments) of China and Vietnam are especially guilty of allowing this illegal trade.

According to NPR, rhino horn goes for $3,000 per pound in South Africa; after it changes hands several times and reaches Asia, one pound can fetch over $30,000. It is sold by the gram like cocaine.

Animals are also captured and sold to the rich, to be paraded around for their friends.

If the market for these goods dried up, poaching would effectively end. But it will not stop on its own; this is where governments have to put on their big-boy pants and force the issue.

Will our government step up?

Speaking of crime: At this critical time, will our present administration support wild animals and the ecosystems they depend upon?

The answer: Absolutely not. King Donald couldn't care less about HUMAN BEINGS, unless they can offer him money or power. How can we expect him to care about wild animals?

It's clear now: His administration will completely eliminate U.S. funding for all public organizations that support wildlife conservation or our environment, both here and abroad.

As I write this, they've gotten off to a sickening start. For example:

-Our king is doing his best to dismantle USAID, which has done important conservation work for humans and animals around the world for decades.

-He is cutting funding and staffing for the National Park Service, which already was struggling. Besides diminishing the experience of visiting these great American places, the cuts will greatly impact the animals who live in those parks.

-And in an act of pure personal vengeance, he ordered his sycophants in Congress to take back $1.1 billion in already-budgeted funding for our country's public media organizations - including NPR, and also PBS, which offers some of the best nature programming - because the reporting was "biased."

PBS and NPR are among America's most unbiased news organizations. I trust their reporting. But, I suppose when you're a convicted felon, in fact and in law, it must be difficult to see your crimes and constant dishonesty reported as news by public media. Hence the revocation of budget.

Climate Change

“Climate change” is real. So is “global warming.”

Of course they are; the Earth has often gone through extended periods of abnormal heat and cold, as dictated by nature. But what we've been experiencing in recent years is NOT the result of a periodic natural phenomenon.

Like any reasonable person, I believe the established global scientific community when it says "It's different this time." We are experiencing a vastly faster rate of warming than in any period in history – and this acceleration comes as a direct result of human activities.

So let's dispense with these lame terms “climate change” and “global warming” – where no blame is assigned, as if it's just random bad luck or a "phase" - and call this what it is: "A man-made environmental crisis,” caused by the world's willful neglect regarding greenhouse gases and other toxins.

Aside from the dangerous effects this crisis is having on humans, it is wreaking havoc with wildlife and their habitats – from melting sea ice displacing polar bears and their cubs, to warming seas killing off coral reefs that are home to thousands of marine species.

Our king's response is to not only stop support for nature conservation, but to set it back decades.

Some examples, as I write this:

- His new mega-bill (July 2025) includes funding for new oil drilling on public lands, while ending support for wind and solar. Big Oil wins, alternative energy loses, and most Americans lose.

- In the first few days in office he signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord (effective January, 2026) because he felt that "other countries weren't paying their fair share." This, coming from the richest nation on Earth - and one of its biggest polluters.

- And, the king's new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced plans to revoke a landmark 2009 decision that stated "greenhouse gases endanger the public health of current and future generations." That important decision has enabled 16 years of lower tailpipe emissions, better gas mileage for US autos and trucks, and less smog.

The EPA's 7/29/25 announcement that it was doing a complete 180 on greenhouse gases (get this: the event was held at an Indiana truck dealership!) is part of the king's dangerous attempt to deny the science behind climate change, and let carmakers and Big Oil decide the environmental future of animals and humans.

Asking WHY

There are still other challenges to wild animals' existence. But you get the picture: The deck is stacked against them.

However, before we talk about HOW to preserve wildness and save animals from extinction, let’s ask this question - one that I don't see addressed enough, at least in public discussion:

WHY should we save them - especially when humans need saving, too?

- Is it because we feel sorry for them, because their problems are of our making, not theirs?

- Or that they're beautiful and mysterious and exciting, and they look, think, and act so differently than we do?

- Is it because our planet was their habitat for many millions of years before we arrived, and now that we've taken it over, we feel we owe them?

- Do we see them as larger-than-life versions of our own beloved pets - the cats, lizards, dogs, and birds we share our homes with?

- Or is it because they are living things with whom we share up to 99% of our DNA?

To me, these and others are ALL good reasons to protect the future of our wild animals.

But they've been good reasons for decades, and obviously not one of them - and not all of them COMBINED - has been enough for the world to fully commit to wildlife conservation and survival.

Here's the thing: If we can't properly answer this Why question in a new way that speaks to governments, to investors, to climate scientists, to all the good people who send in their $10 contributions for animal conservation - and of course to the rural communities, such as those in the Congo, that are struggling to live alongside wild animals - then it will be increasingly difficult, and eventually impossible, to get funding and scientific support for the cause.

We need to create an evolved story about wild animals - one that encourages the world to look at these creatures in a new and bigger way.

In other words: Wild animals need to be re-branded.

The good news: This story already exists. But you must actively dig to find it, and even then the messaging is inconsistent. I've visited dozens of nature-based websites and each one tells the story differently, or not at all. Many of them ask for your donations right up front without giving you a new and better reason to do so.

Plus, the voices of even the well-known organizations like World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy are being drowned out by media noise - including much of the content we're fed on our phones every day.

A vision statement

Be that as it may: Based on the research I did for this article, here's my working vision statement for wild animals' new and rightful place in this world:

Wild animals play specific, critical roles in our planet's ecosystems. By telling their stories, perhaps we can save them - and save ourselves.

What's next in Part 2

With that statement as the north star, Part 2 of "Wild Things" will answer the "Why Save Them?" question, offering examples of the real value that wild animals bring to the Earth and to us.

It will look at the various roles that animals play - as predators, pollinators, grazers, engineers, seed dispersers and more, from salmon to bees to bison - that enable our natural world to thrive.

These individual stories serve to teach us - or remind us - that as we humans continue to adversely impact our planet, the animal kingdom is going about the business of saving it.

There's a lot to talk about, and there is hope.

Thank you for listening.

Sources

The links below are some of the sources of content and inspiration for this article, in alpha order. You'll be hearing about many of these in Part 2 as well.