I've recently come across an article on National Geographic about designer Elle Barbeito, who is transforming Burmese python skins from Florida’s Everglades into what the media calls "luxury fashion" items. I have to admit, I was taken aback. You can read the article here: What do you do with thousands of dead Everglades phytons? Wear them. The problem with Burmese pythons in Florida is serious and well-documented. These snakes are an invasive species, reproducing rapidly with few natural predators, and their presence has devastated local wildlife, from birds and mammals to endangered species. The ecological consequences are significant, and it’s easy to understand why culling them seems like the most straightforward solution. But here’s where I find myself conflicted: the idea of taking these animals and turning them into "fashion items" - and actually profiting from them! Bear in mind that humans caused this problem in the first place: now the snakes are the ones facing death, yet humans are the ones benefiting financially from the situation. The process is marketed as a form of circular economy or sustainable fashion, framed as a creative way to turn a problem into something of value. I can’t help but wonder - should this even be allowed? I understand that rescuing thousands of phytons isn't feasible but doesn't turning them into products still feel morally unsettling? I suppose letting the bodies decompose naturally, as most snake hunters do, is probably the “best” possible solution. At least decomposition returns nutrients to the soil.  This raises a broader ethical dilemma that goes far beyond this specific case. How do we balance urgent conservation needs with respect for the lives of the animals involved? When facing an invasive species problem, is it enough to focus purely on ecological outcomes, or do we also have an ethical responsibility towards the animals at stake? Can we find solutions that are both effective and ethically sound, or are we always going to face uncomfortable compromises? I’m curious to hear your perspective: Have you encountered similar situations where conservation and ethics seem at odds? Specifically, have you heard of other cases around the world where large-scale removal of invasive species has raised similar ethical and logistical dilemmas? Do you think animal-based "fashion" marketed as circular economy can ever be reconciled with ethical conservation practices? Ultimately, this story made me realise how complex conservation solutions can be. What may seem innovative or practical can also feel uncomfortable or even morally troubling. It’s a delicate balance, and one that likely doesn’t have a single “right” answer but that’s exactly why the conversation matters. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Where do we draw the line between ethical responsibility and practical conservation? Can ethics and conservation truly coexist, or do we have to pick one over the other?

Have you ever taken a close look at a beaver dam? Logs and branches are woven into a lattice extending from streambank to bank. Able to withstand the pressure of all the water they hold back, these dams are remarkably sturdy. But while we all know beavers are skilled builders, their relationship with fish is often misunderstood. This lack of understanding by humans can result in harm to both species.  Can beavers and salmonids coexist, and even thrive together?  We will be discussing this and more on Wednesday during our WildHub Special 👉 https://wildhub.community/events/wildhub-special-balancing-the-scales-film-screening-expert-q-a  with Elliot McCandless, Communications Manager at Beaver Trust Andy Thomas, Conservation Officer at Wild Trout Trust Angelika Von Heimendahl, Beaver Reintroduction Manager at The Wildlife Trusts.  Do you have any questions you'd like us to ask our speakers? 

Conservation efforts in Africa have typically been led by "parachute conservationists", outsiders who drop in thinking they have all the answers, hire locals to implement them and then disappear. But conservationist Resson Kantai Duff has a better way to save wildlife in Africa: let locals lead these efforts themselves. She calls for a major shift in how conservation in Africa works, showing why the people closest to the land are the ones best fit to care for it. https://www.ted.com/talks/resson_kantai_duff_why_africa_needs_community_led_conservation/transcript?subtitle=en  "In Africa, the approach to conserving wildlife has almost always involved a separation of people from nature, the involvement, but never leadership, from local people. [...] The story of conservation [in Africa] has almost always then involved only a foreign scientist with a clipboard or a guy in green with a gun, there to protect that wildlife from everyone else. The rest of us have never existed in this story. And those who came to save species came from the outside. And when they came, they were labeled heroes. They had to teach local people how to live alongside wildlife on the fringes of wild lands that they once owned. [...] Conservation is about people. I have learned that the people keeping lions roaming in Kenya today are warriors, women, children and elders. They are people educated by their culture; they are urbanites with respect for that culture. And as more Africans allow co-existence to happen in our spaces, we will turn back the clock on wildlife declines and really make life better for all of us. It is time for conservation to be broad. Broad enough not just to include a species in trouble, but our land and our cultures, our innovation, our story, us. Who we were, who we are and who we want to be." - Resson Kantai Duff _________________________________________________________________ What has your experience been with community-led conservation in Africa?  I would love to hear your stories.