Not sure why the downvotes for this; maybe it was the way it was said? Ultimately, I feel that conservation that balance some of the local interests in mind wil

Not sure why the downvotes for this; maybe it was the way it was said? Ultimately, I feel that conservation that balance some of the local interests in mind will run into much fewer problems than those that don't. I also feel that you need some of the natural habitat to remain humanly accessible, in part so that people can experience nature and thus get behind preservation efforts. Creating walled off territory where no one but a few Specially Approved Scientists and deep backpackers can enter does not seem to be the best way to build public support. For portions of land, it may be necessary (hence the wilderness preserve designation in many places) but for much of the land, there is a fine balance between preservation and accessibility. Safari parks are imperfect but in my opinion fall into this category. Even in the US, the politics of parks can be contentious. (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/why-it-so-hard-create-national-park http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/storie...) I can only imagine what a developing country would be like. That said regarding an earlier comment, I don't view all zoos as 100% horrible these days. A lot are making genuine efforts to try and improve animal welfare as much as possible.