Priyanka Shankar Speaks with Conservationist Gerard Martin

Priyanka Shankar: Gerry, you’ve been working with snakes and other reptiles in India and around the world for many years now. What are some of the main reasons for human-snake conflicts in India?

Gerard Martin: So snake bites in India for as long as we can remember, as long as it's been recorded, has been a massive issue. There have been British during the British rule, there have been a lot of records that have shown that the snake bite has always been a big issue.  Even for the British army, for British troops when they were colonizing India, definitely amongst the labor force and ever since independence, when India started focusing a lot on agriculture, it's been a huge problem since then as well. It continues to be a huge problem with agricultural communities because they work with their hands. Most of our agriculture is not mechanized, so people work in the fields. They very often are barefoot and they work with their hands and in these fields are a lot of venomous snakes. So snakebite is just very, very prolific and frequent.

Agriculture brings humans and snakes into very close proximity.  But even animals like wild boar or elephant.  Elephants come into fields to feed. And it's a big issue there. But with things like tigers and leopard, it's just that we have such a high population, human population, that there is very little space and resource left for to be able to give enough room to wildlife as well. There's a very high amount of conflict around protected areas as well because animals that are doing well inside protected areas start spilling out into the neighboring and adjoining spaces, and that's when conflict arises. So historically, India didn't have this kind of sacrosanct, protected area and everything else gets used. There was a lot of co-existence. And with coexistence comes the ability and wherewithal to live with other animals and even other communities. But when separation begins to happen, if there's a very set protected area and everything else is fair game to develop or plant up or use for whatever resource, that's when, along the edges, conflict really starts spiking.

Shankar:  That's a really interesting point. But do you think these protected zones that are popping up around the world are counterproductive when it comes to mitigating human wildlife conflict?

Martin:I believe that if you look at it historically, yesThere was some conflict, but people and communities were able to, and knew that they HAD to, live with whatever animals they were around. So there were elephants around and elephants were given fair room to move around and they were allowed to do that. There were snakes around and people knew that they had to be careful. So growing up, when I was a child, I actually have seen an old woman sweep a cobra out of her house.  But now I have a grandson, and he goes into orbit when he sees the smallest of even non-venomous snakes. So it's because we've had that separation that we're not comfortable with it anymore.

The moment we start separating things and allocating spaces or zones or time or anything, it becomes harder for both sides to live. Equally, I have a lot of friends who live amongst wildlife. A very dear friend of mine sits and has his evening coffee with elephants right outside his porch and they'll be feeding. And that's not a problem at all. They know that he is safe and he knows that and he won't travel at all. So there is no conflict there just because there are humans and wild animals in the same space. It doesn't mean there has to be conflict.

Shankar: Besides humans, there's also wildlife coming in contact with cattle or even people’s pets. For example, I remember coming to your house as a teenager to camp and learn how to handle snakes. Now your house was also near a national park and you have dogs.  In the village near your house, the people have cattle, and I wondered if  these animals had been attacked by snakes?

Martin: So cattle is a problem from two points of view. So from the human standpoint, cattle get taken by large predators. The forest department here compensates for cattle being taken, but it's sort of like a band aid from the wildlife standpoint. Cattle carry a lot of diseases that cattle are vaccinated against but they might still carry. And those diseases spread to wildlife. Things like dogs and cats, especially feral dogs and cats, are a huge issue when it comes to wildlife. For us, we have leopard around our property every now and then, but the dogs are kept close to the house.  We have lost a dog to a leopard, but that just goes with the territory, so to speak. So if we wanted them to be safe, we just need to keep them up on our porch or close it to the building at night. And, that's fine. And they are enclosed within a fence so they can’t go out and attack any wildlife either. As far as the rural folk go here, the agricultural community, human / snake conflict is by far the biggest conflict that there is.

But other wildlife like wild boar, are quite a problem if you're growing crops because they just destroy everything, even stuff that they don't eat. And it becomes difficult for a farmer who's struggling to put three square meals on the table to be able to cope with that kind of loss. So there needs to be some alternative. And one of the things that we're looking at is actually finding other ways for people to make a livelihood. This is a beautiful place. It's around the Tiger reserve. And instead of there being conflict, if having wildlife on one's property would actually benefit them, then it would immediately negate conflict. And we try trying to look at those kind of avenues. So ecotourism, growing mushrooms, for example, handicrafts, all these other things where there wouldn't be conflict is something that we're trying hard to actually bring about.
 
Shankar: You've been doing a lot of work in educating people about human-snake conflicts. Can you tell us a little bit about all the conservation projects you've been working on recently to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts?

Martin: Well, most of our initiatives actually stem from the belief that when people are comfortable with animals, conflict might even just vanish altogether. And snakes, unfortunately worldwide have a really rotten deal because there's so much myth and superstition and misconception that surrounds them that it would just be much, much easier if people knew that these snakes were just like other than any other animal. And knew that snakes really wanted to have nothing to do with us. There is not a snake, not a dangerous snake or venomous snake on the planet that would ever chase us. There are some snakes that have eaten humans, but  they're really large, maybe three or four species that none of us ever get to see. So no snake really wants to have anything to do with a human. And when we work with people, even people here, when we have a team that goes out and helps people that have snakes in their houses or in their fields. And all we do is we remove the snake from the situation. We don't move it from from the location at all. So if the snake is right in the way of someone harvesting a field, we chase it away. If it moves on its own, if it's inside a house, we let it go outside the house. And people are actually surprisingly and very wonderfully understanding of this because moving a snake away or killing a snake doesn't work for the people either. Because if you kept removing snakes by either moving the snake alive or killing it from a location, that space and those resources that snake was using will grow.  And that will become more inviting for other things to come in. So the best thing to do is to allow for a balance to set. And people are beginning to see that around here quite well. And much to their credit, despite the incredible fear that they have of snakes, the local community here has been very, very accommodating and understanding and willing to give it a shot to the extent that they allowed us to release Russell's Vipers, which which are possibly the snake responsible for the most number of deaths and and morbidity. So loss of limb and kidney failure, certainly in India, but possibly in the world. They are allowing us to let that snake go back in their fields. And we really attract the snakes. We find what they like and we’re advising the people about what best to do to avoid interaction and conflict. And people are really giving it a shot despite their fear.

Shankar: Fear is something which doesn’t go away easily. Though I came to your camps learn how to handle snakes, till date I’m still afraid of them and I know many people are afraid of snakes. Do you think these creatures have a negative image? Do you feel like the rhetoric in the media, for example, is wrong? Because we have all these wildlife channels that often portray snakes as the world's deadliest creatures. Do you think that plays a role in making people instantly kill a snake as soon as they see one?

Martin: It does. It plays a huge role in that. Unfortunately, wildlife documentary filmmaking has changed from documentary filmmaking to mere television, and it's entertainment. That's all it is. And by and large, it focuses on the presenter. So it's not about how amazing these animals are and how little they actually want to do with us. It's about the presenter and how cool he or she is for being able to handle this otherwise really dangerous snake. The truth is, the only reason any of us can handle a venomous snake is because they don't really want to bite us. If they did, if snakes wanted to bite us... If you see how incredibly fast even a spectacle cobra or a king cobra or black mamba or any of these snakes can be when they're chasing their prey, there is not a human on the planet that could get out of the way of that snake. The reason we're able to handle them is because while they're being defensive, they're not saying, I want to bite and kill this person because if they were, they would. And all they're doing is being defensive and sort of. Very often they'll do mock strikes or they'll gape and or or rattle their rattles, you know, give us a lot of warning before they actually get into strike mode. So yeah, it really is unfair to the animals and it's an exploitation of animals to do that, to say, look at me, I'm so cool, I can handle this animal. And what we're doing is really putting those animals through a lot of stress. So the whole all over the world population animal uses snakes as something sinister and terrifying. But in fact, when I work with children and we sit and we watch, say, what is in our ponds or, you know, a rat snake trying to do to capture its prey or even a cobra or a king cobra, do what it does normally, it's such a wonderful thing. And there's so much amazing there are so many amazing aspects to these animals that if we just give them a chance, we'd see them as much, much different animals than we see them today.

Shankar: On that note, within India and also globally, is there a region where people have learned to coexist with snakes?

Martin: There are a few places that are some places that are historically at peace. So there's one place in eastern India in a place called West Bengal, where the community there, the village community there, worshipped a deity called Young Lady. And they believe that she manifests herself in the form of the monocular cobra, which is a pretty venomous snake. But when I visited there, they were absolutely fine with these snakes being around, and I was able to find dozens of these snakes just around the place and people going about their work completely normally. What was incredible was that the snakes as well didn't see humans as a threat either. They saw the snakes of cobra hoods up when it feels threatened. These snakes were not even holding up when I approached them. They were just absolutely fine, moved out of the way. I saw kids playing with a cobra right next to right next to the playing field. I saw a lady pull out hay from a haystack, and there was a cobra. Not more than a couple of meters from her. And she was absolutely fine. So it was really, really interesting. There's also a place in the United States where a researcher has been working with the folks around there on rattlesnakes and and they helped him better understand the rattlesnakes. And they've become completely fine with rattlesnakes as well.

So if it's possible for them, it's possible for everyone else.

I feel that one of the big things that is missing in conflict mitigation and in conservation in general is a sense of empathy. And to be able to put oneself into, for example, the shoes of a person who's living alongside elephants or even the elephants themselves, and see that the traumas of conflict are affecting both sides. And without conflict, both sides would actually be much better. So it's in our and the opponent’s best interests to sort of just figure it out and come to terms with how we can coexist and live peacefully. As fluffy as that sounds, that's the best way forward for all of us.

Priyanka Shankar interviews Petros Chrysafis, a wildlife conservationist based in California

Priyanka Shankar: Petros, while human-wildlife conflict is common around the world what are some of the main reasons for it in Sierra Nevada where you’re based?

Petros Chrysafis: So the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada are basically in the central part of California. And in those areas, the main source of conflict is bears, black bears getting into trashcans, black bears getting into different sorts of food, and then also coyotes, mountain lions, black bears, bobcats and sometimes gray foxes getting into livestock and killing livestock or destroying apiaries. So bee hives and bee operations as well.

The primary reason for it right now is that you have more and more human activity in in those areas, either through development or through more people utilizing the land for hiking, hunting or whatever like that. And you have more people that are moving into mountain towns. You also have in terms of the Central Valley itself, you have a lot of the land, a lot of the conflict there is through development. So a lot of a lot of the land can only be used for agriculture or development. Really. There isn't much else to do in terms of like what you would do with it. And so that intersection of either using that land for agriculture or using it for development means that at some point these animals are going to clash with humans in some way. In terms of the valley itself, the kid foxes themselves are necessarily they're one of the smallest foxes you can find. They weigh upwards of like 5 pounds. So they're very small, but they're presence, you know, because they are protected. That is a source of conflict in and of itself. So a company that buys land and wants to develop something in that land, if they're a kid, foxes present. They need to either build around the dens themselves or if that's not feasible, they need to make new dens or they need to buy area a piece of land somewhere else that would mitigate the disaster that they're causing in that area. And so all of that legislation is the primary source of conflict there as opposed to the actual animal itself. Now, with if you go further up into the mountains, into the Sierra Nevada, obviously there is a lot of things that cause conflict. So primarily number one now is, you know, livestock grazing. So whether it is on public or private land, right, you have livestock that graze on these along the Sierra Nevada and. We you know, we tend to think that these animals are just going to exist in the space. But the reality is that they do interact with wildlife a lot. And so when those interactions happen, inevitably an animal is going to kill a livestock. And that's where a lot of the problems occur. And also lately, at least you see it more and more as an uptick of people moving into these rural areas. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It is just like a lot of people are not very savvy in terms of wildlife. So some of these things like leaving your trash out unprotected or not getting bear proof trash cans or stuff like that, that also leads to conflict. And then with the recent fires in California, we we lose a lot of habitat, at least temporarily. We lose a lot of habitat for these animals. And that pushes them out to areas that they didn't frequent before. And so people are seeing more and more mountain lions on their, you know, ring cameras or anything like that on their doorbell cameras or bear some more bears and stuff like that. And that's partially because the land that they used to use has burned down. So they're moving to try and find new sources of food, at least until, you know, eventually that land grows back.

Shankar: What exactly happens when a conflict takes place? If we're looking at bears going into trash cans or coyotes attacking cattle, do people instantly, kill these animals?

Chrysafis: So there is a there's a few ways in which it's dealt. There is the official route that you can go through the State Wildlife Department. Right? And then there's various ways to do it. So, for example, if we're talking about black bears, right, what we call a nuisance black bear, so black bear that's getting into trash or interacting negatively with livestock or anything like that. Sometimes the department will try and relocate them, sometimes they'll try hazing it, and then if it becomes too much of a problem, then they'll obviously kill the animal. But that's the legal process. That's the sorry, not the legal that's the state process. Right. In terms of me, which I'm independent, so I'm not associated with the state. If people call me, then usually what I do is I try various different techniques to keep the bear out of the trash. So fencing the trash or using electronic devices that emit noises and lights that scare them, buying bear proof, trash cans and that stuff. So we try and go down those nonlethal routes as much as we can, and then we kind of move on from there. We devise different scenarios and how, you know, the landowner or the whoever is the person that is in conflict with the bear can respond to the bear. And if all else doesn't work, then I direct them to the state process so they can either continue to deal with it in terms of the state, or they can have someone come over and either relocate the bear or shoot the bear, or depending on how that goes, for the image of the animals themselves. I think it kind of varies. I think like just looking on the social media aspect of things over the past few years, I don't know if there's a necessarily negative image for some animals, but there's always there's definitely a negative image for others. So for example, just noticing over the past few years, there's definitely a lot more negative talk about with mountain lions and negative talk about coyotes, right. And about how coyotes are starting to like be more bold or more brazen or starting to interact with humans in a more negative way more often. And you always hear these conversations about mountain lions and about how they're waiting to kill your children or they're waiting to like, kill your dogs and stuff like that. And especially with dogs, those interactions do happen. But I think it's definitely been one of those things where it's a lot more. Try to find a good word for it, but I guess it's a lot more blown out of proportion that it necessarily is. So a lot of the times when you have situations like with Mountain Lions, some people, for example, see Mountain Lions go through their doorbell cameras. Right. And they might see the same lion go through that a couple of times. And instantly that's like a negative, even though that's just wildlife doing its thing. Right, moving around for those people. And I think that that exposure to the outside world now more often than not has created this like idea that wildlife is like more into trying to get you and kill you or harm your animals or stuff like that, as opposed to just wildlife being, you know, wild and doing its thing.

Shankar: But by being wild and doing their thing, do they become deadly or feared creatures? Or is it media narratives which give them that tag?

Chrysafis: I think it's it's a double edged sword. So you you get some of the information that some of us might perceive to be like, oh, this is really cool. I didn't know that the bite force of this animal is so strong or that this animal hunts the same way. But on the other hand, I think if you have if you are predisposed to having a negative idea about an animal, these shows just reinforce it. Right. And I think I think those probably do do a lot of damage. And I think it's definitely in the snake world and in the shark world, it's definitely hurts more than the mammal world because as much as I hate to say it, bears are bears, mountain lions, wolves, coyotes. All of them are fairly charismatic species. So even if you do have these, like, you know, tidbit information about how they hunt and about how much damage they do, it's more likely not going to have as much negative impact as in with sharks and snakes, lizards, spiders, all that kind of stuff, because they are already less charismatic and therefore more likely people having a negative predisposition towards them. I think one of the things that definitely does not help at all is the circulation of various, like sensational videos.

Shankar: On that note, could you tell me a little bit more about how you and your team are trying to mitigate the conflict between humans and animals in the region that you're in?

Chrysafis: So right now it's just me. I do have like some seasonal people that that I work with, but it's primarily just me. So  there are a couple of ways that, you know, you tackle such a situation. So obviously if it's a livestock depredation or if it's a, you know, an animal getting into conflict with a human over a particular source of conflict. So water, food or anything like that, the first things first is to secure that that source. In terms of ranchers, I try and provide tools and education about how to protect their animals with a lot of minimal cost. And how to protect them easily. There are devices that are specialized to deter these animals. There are other ranchers that I know that you can talk to and communicate and share ideas with as well. And so that's that's step number one is trying to keep the source of conflict secure from the animals. Right? Because that immediately alleviates some of the pressure that a human might feel and some of the fear that a human might feel. And then we move on from there into like creating backup plans about how to keep them protected long term. But also, you know, I do do some education, I do do some empowerment. I let them know, like, hey, let me teach you how to monitor for these animals successfully. Right. And in a way that's not invasive and it doesn't take a lot of time or let me show you why. You know, this animal is doing what it's doing. And I think that kind of education, I call it a judgment-free education. Right. So I just kind of go like, let's talk about this animal and how we behave is according to what we know of through science. Right? And I think that kind of education is crucial for long term.  Because even if you secure livestock, and they don't get attacked by another animal again, if you still have those negative predispositions to it, then the moment there's another depredation, those feelings come back. But you want to be able to show, you know, show these animals to the people that you work with in a much more natural setting and provide context for everything they do.

Shankar: We’ve been talking about human conflict with wild animals like bears and coyotes. But in everyday life we're always dealing with conflict, with creatures like a small bug. How would we deal with that sort of conflict and find a way to coexist?

Chrysafis: I think that's tricky, right? Because that's like a relative in terms of preference. Like what do you where do you draw the line? For example, I know a lot of people are like, I'm happy to have various bugs in my house or whatever, but at the moment I see a spider. It's gone, right? Which is, I think, one of the more common ones, or in case of snakes right in your backyard and stuff like that. I think there's a lot to be said in terms of understanding that these animals are not necessarily like in any way, shape or form trying to kill you. Right. They're just you know, they exist in the space and they're trying to make best of what they can. Some things, you know, you got to be realistic with. Obviously, if you have cockroaches in your house and you don't want to have cockroaches in your house, the only way that you can deal with that situation is to remove the cockroaches. Right? But I think, like I tell people, especially, you know, in more zoomed in settings, so like with mice or rats or stuff like that, I think there is there has to be some compromise in terms of where you are - the animal existing and where you're not okay with the animal existing. So, you know, if we take rats or mice, for example, in the household, people don't want them inside the house, Right? So I tell people, okay, let's remove the sources of conflict that exist. Let's either trap or relocate the mouse or trap the mouse entirely or, you know, do different mitigation measures to make sure the animal doesn't come into the house. But you have to be okay with it being in your backyard.  Or don't be okay with it, I guess. But that's where is it going to exist, right? So understanding that you don't live in this vacuum. It's very important.

Areas that are heavily urbanized, where there's not a whole lot of green space, wildlife still exists in some way, shape or form.  In the case of like, you know, like you said, insects, birds sometimes and stuff like that. So understanding that you cannot detach yourself from the natural world to the point that your house is not going to be influenced by wildlife at all is, I think, step number one. And then there is there's absolutely, in my opinion at least, there's absolutely no shame in having some lines. I don't want people to say I'm wildlife friendly. So I have mice in my house. Right?. If you're okay with a mice kicking around here and there, that's fine. But obviously, like, you know, for lack of a better word, infestations of rodents can be a problem to human health, right? Infestations of different bugs can be a problem to human health or stuff like that. So obviously there has to be some lines, either personal or societal wise, that we draw and you should be okay with that. But also you should understand that yeah, there's animals here. They're going to exist. They're going to go around and do their thing right. An example of that is pigeons, for example, in high rise buildings and stuff like that, right? Yeah, you can if you want to try and block off your porch from access to pigeons and if you can't do it, great. But you, you've got to understand that they're there. And if there's a hole in your fence or whatever they're going to get through.  They don't understand the concept of your personal space. And so you can't or you shouldn't be annoyed at them. You should just understand that they're doing their animal thing.

For me, the end goal here isn't humans loving animals or the people that are in conflict. I don't want them to love the animals. I just want them to tolerate and understand the animals. Right? So you can, on your own free time, hate that animal as much as you want. But I want you to understand that, it doesn't really do anything that it does in any sort of malevolent way. It just exists. And it its basic biological drives are to find food, to protect its young and to mate. Right. And to exist as an animal. So tolerance is where I want to be.

Priyanka Shankar interviews Paula Pebsworth, a primatologist in Texas

Priyanka Shankar: what are some of the main causes for human wildlife conflict? Is it this fight over land? Is it another resource? Is it for food?

Pebsworth: It's a combination of things. And I will say that it's primarily driven by human behavior. It is. It's a conflict over resources. Any time when you talk about conflict, it is these shared resources that we are are using. And so oftentimes they become shared because we've cut down forests. So there's deforestation that is a cause of conflict. How we dispose of our trash is a conflict. You know, just all of those areas that you can think of, that's what draws humans and primates into the same space. And in a perfect world, I mean, I love them. And I would move to a space where I could observe them and see them in their natural habitat. But for for wildlife, it is always best if our home ranges don't overlap, that humans have their space and wildlife has their space. When our home ranges, I'll say overlap is when they often become injured. When animals are coming into human spaces, they're often hit by cars, they're shot by people, they're persecuted. All of these negative interactions occur. There's really very few positive interactions when our our home ranges overlap. I know that people do enjoy spending time with them and seeing them, and I think that we can find places where we can do that unobtrusively. But gosh, you know, for them to be in an urban setting or at the urban edge, it's very, very detrimental to them.

Shankar: Paula, from the time you've started your work as a primatologist, do you feel the human wildlife conflict has become worse ? Or we go back in time, was there one conflict that really stood out to you?

Pebsworth: If you look at the number of peer reviewed journal articles that have been published on human wildlife conflict, they have exploded within the last, I don't know, ten years, ten, 15 years. And I think that we've just become more mindful of it. I think that humans have always had conflict with wildlife. I think that there was a time when we were way more tolerant of wildlife. But as we have changed and we have expanded our home ranges, so to speak, we come into more conflict with wildlife. I can't think of a particular situation where it was like the first one. But I can say that I've just become more mindful and it may be the lens through which I'm looking at the situation. When I was first working with chimpanzees in Uganda, I do. I did know about conflict, human to human, primate conflict. Baboons are particularly difficult to work with. And they and I'll tell you that I'm very mindful of the words I use. And we need to be words matter. And so just like you were talking about, they don't know their space. Space isn't theirs. They're only they're only eating. They're only foraging. And to use words like raiding, I don't think it's helpful. So I won't say that they’re crop raiding, when they're crop foraging, they don't know that those plants don't belong to them. They just think that farmers were, wow, so neat and tidy and it's easy for us to pull the corn off very, very quickly. I did know about conflict between people and primates, and it's and it's very contentious around agricultural crops. And I also know that like with garden crops, it's always that often times it's a food resource and our food is way more palatable than theirs. And so you can't you know, they're just being opportunistic. So I saw that more in Uganda. That was in the late nineties. And then by the time I was in South Africa, you know, I lived around a lot of farmers and I heard firsthand kind of the challenges that they had with baboons. But I also knew that the area where that these farms were always historically baboon sites. The baboons had lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years. And it was you know, people had come in with this idea that, oh, gosh, no one's living here. Well, actually, somebody was living there. So, you know, as we've expanded into wild spaces, the conflict has increased. So that's absolutely the case.

Shankar: I find the aspect of language used in conflict mediation really interesting because it can play a role in firing conflicts further or mitigating them entirely. What sort of language should conservationists, researchers or even all of us use when we talk about human-wildlife conflicts, use?

Pebsworth: (It’d be good) if we could use neutral terms (to describe wildlife incursion on us), which is absolutely what it is. They're just being animals, they're foraging, they're eating.  They're not pirates, you know? (The media’s) job is to sell newspapers or (a writer) to sell their article. And so they use terms (“raiding” or “attacking”) that are eye catching or like make someone want to read that article. But I think that when I was talking before about a holistic approach where we modify human behavior, that is one aspect of human behavior that I would like to I would like to modify. How do we view wildlife behavior? What is it that they're doing then? They're just being animals. And so we sort of shift the focus about it's not about us, it's not about what they're doing to us. They're living their own lives as best they can. And so I do think that journalists have a responsibility to report things accurately and help, you know, so that that conversation is shifted and it's not about conflict anymore. What I'm trying hard to do is think about human wildlife coexistence and the resolution. I'm trying in the things I write to use neutral terms. And I really hope that the press will do the same.

Shankar: Besides using the right terms and narratives, how should policies be shaped to mitigate the conflict? Do you feel policymakers have started doing a good job or is it still being ignored with respect to finding better solutions to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts?

Pebsworth: I think that, you know, what happens is like you have conflict. It gets a little worse. It gets a little worse and it gets a little worse. And you don't do anything about it until it's a crisis. And then it's all hands on deck. And we need to face this problem. And that is, you know, that's human nature. But there are lots of countries that are doing good work around the world. And I'm just going to point out one is Hong Kong. I know that they are a small country, but what they have done in terms of like a multi-pronged approach where that they have started, they've got an overabundant population of primates and India has done the same thing where instead of culling animals that you reduce their fertility. And so it's  expensive to start doing to victims or vasectomies on primates, but that's what they're doing. There are other countries doing the same, like Thailand, so Japan. And so, you know, they look at the situation and they're thinking about these various mitigation strategies. They're also including education and awareness. It's critical and it's really critical for us to work with children. And so at an early age, you know how they learn to behave around monkeys or how they other wildlife, how they can be respectful of their space. When I was doing my post-doc in India, we went into the schools and the children were having problems because on their way to school, the monkeys were stealing their lunches. And, you know, monkeys are very smart and they see children as like, you know, I don't know, like almost a good person that they could take from because of their stature. So they are a vulnerable population. And oftentimes women also fall into that category of a vulnerable population. And so, you know, you work with them.

Shankar: This story reminds me of an incident in school where just before an exam, the monkey came and took my friend's pencil box. And eventually we just stood under the tree helplessly because we didn't know what to do. And I think staying silent just made the monkey throw the box back to us because I think it got bored and realized it's not food. So maybe such methods work?

Pebsworth: It's I find, you know, the rhesus macaques are particularly clever in Himachal Pradesh. I also did some work there. The monkeys there, now they know like they can see the value of a smartphone and so they will take a smartphone and then they're like waiting for the response that they get from people and then they barter like, you know, somebody is like, okay, I'll give you a banana for my smartphone. And they're sort of looking at you like, I don't think this is a one banana deal. And so they are taking things that are not even food, but they're holding them until you give them something in return.

Shankar: Seems like a sort of world war negotiation is at play?

Pebsworth:  Absolutely. And I think for humans, it's like you have to you know, we need we've lost our sense of humor. I know it's like a smartphone is very expensive or if they've stolen a wallet or something. I've seen these videos where the money is just flying out, you know, But when you enter a wild space, you need to be mindful. Like, I put my phone away, I put my wallet away. I don't try to take a selfie with wildlife, especially monkeys. And so you start educating people. You don't stare at monkeys staring as an act of aggression. So these small things, you know, that we learn how to communicate and how to behave in a wild space or with wildlife. So yeah, I think that that's really, really important.

Shankar: Is this something that you do as a part of your work as well? How do people respond? Do they still consider primates a nuisance because for example, with snakes I am still petrified of them and I did go to all these camps with a herpetologist who taught me how to handle them. But till date, I know that if I see a snake, I'm still going to probably scream and want it to get away from me. So I'm sure you've had instances where people still think a monkey means no harm, but is still a nuisance. So then how do you handle such cases?

Pebsworth: Well, I work. I don't really do any work in the United States. I do some volunteer work, but the work I do is in the countries where primates. They naturally occur. So the current job that I'm working on, I do work with. It's it's again, it's like taking a multi-pronged approach where we will be looking at reducing primate reproduction. We will also be altering or modifying human behavior so that they know that one of the biggest problems is provisioning. For whatever reason, we have this desire to to care for wildlife and to feed wildlife. And so many people around the world, they feed wildlife and it causes so much problems, you know, just to not provision, to not give animals food. When you give them food, they mature more quickly, they reproduce more often and they reproduce for a longer period of time. And so that's one of the reasons why their populations are exploding, but that is people will people do not want to change. You can encourage people to not feed monkeys, but they still want to. We have put up big signs, you know, don't feed monkeys and and people still do. They're very stubborn. And I don't know what it will take for people to realize, you know, the consequences of their bad behavior. That is particularly difficult. I do know, like colleagues of mine in India, they looked at a time where that during COVID people weren't moving as much and this is in southern India, and so nobody was leaving food for the monkeys and the monkeys. What happens to them? And what they observe was that the monkeys went back into the forest and they reluctantly maybe they're eating leaves and they're eating fruits that are good for them and natural. And there's doing the job of of dispersing seeds. You know, my approach is always it's not there was not just one strategy. Strategies will vary from country to country, from culture to culture. And so you absolutely need to work with people and to find out what what strategies they're willing to try. I mean, we offered up a bunch of strategies in India and I realized it's a part of their culture is is chasing and guarding and spending the night in their crops. And I just don't know that you will ever change them if there is some way that we can sort of modify that behavior a little bit to make it more effective, but to be respectful of that culture. But in terms of getting people to not feed monkeys or wildlife, it's it's really, really challenging. I think in the Middle East, one strategy that they may do is if you feed monkeys, you get fined. And so that's the consequence is some sort of financial payment. Maybe they'll stop if they have to pay a big enough fine, But so we'll see about that. I know that it's against the law in Hong Kong and they do have a huge fine. I don't know how it's enforced, but that enforcement will always be a challenge.

Shankar: Paula what makes you optimistic about humans and wildlife coexisting?

Pebsworth: The more I meet people from all over the world. I think people do have a good heart. And I see the resilience of wildlife and wild populations. Despite all of the things that we do, they do persist. And, you know, I'm hopeful that we can educate people, we can raise awareness with social media. There's so many ways to touch people and, you know, just to to teach them how to behave and how not to behave. And and I'm really encouraged by our youth to to reach children and to work with children. They don't have the idea that snakes are bad or scary. I mean, mice I have a nice picture of my son when he was about four, holding this huge hog nosed snake. We don't we're not born into the world with these ideas about, you know, that one animal is bad or one animal is good. And so if we can start working with children at a young age to be respectful of wildlife, I think we have a chance. And there are some excellent organizations. I, at one point in time worked with Roots and Shoots, which is a community service project with the Jane Goodall Institute, and there are more and more organizations coming up like that with working with youth and working with adults and teaching us to be better stewards.