And now, orientation to Modisa itself

     Now that I've told you about the Grasslands, I need to introduce Modisa itself.  It appears to me that it is becoming a common practice for the holders of these huge tracts of land in Africa to increase the number of ways they can produce income.  Whereas at one time, they may have been able to devote their lives to raising cattle, for example, they found they could also do well with offering safaris and luxurious housing to tourists, beginning with big game hunters and eventually transitioning to what I'll call "camera hunters."  And now they seem to be finding a new kind of tourist, one that is not looking so much for luxury as education, wildlife viewing, and service. 
     What happened at the Grasslands is that Val, who always loved lions and wanted to conduct research on them, heard about Wille DeGraaff and showed up literally barefoot on his doorstep one day to discuss an idea with him.  Val would undertake the considerable task of caring for Willi's 25 or so captive lions and some of the other time-consuming jobs at Grasslands if Willi would permit him to locate his volunteer project there and to undertake research there on the relationship between predator poplulations and the quality of vegetation growth in the Kalahari.  They were able, fortunately, to come to an agreement.  Hence, Modisa.  
     Significantly, the word "Modisa" means "guardian" in Setswana.   Here is Modisa's website.  I think if you take the time to look at it, you will see why I chose to go there.  http://modisa.org/
     So.  Back to my story.  Val gave us newcomers a lecture after lunch telling us primarily about his vision for future research at Modisa.  The primary thing that caught my attention in his lecture was his philosophy of human/wildlife interaction.
     I had observed that there seems to be two competing theories of dealing with wildlife in Africa.  One is the "hands-off" "let nature take its course" theory, which clearly values above all else the continuation of the natural environment as untouched by human activity as possible.  Subscribers to this theory feel that if, for example, baby animals are found to have been either abandoned or orphaned, they should be left to die rather than captured and cared for by well-meaning but ill-guided do-gooders.
    When I was at Moholoholo in South Africa, I was aware that many wildlife experts disapproved of their taking in abandoned, sick, and orphaned animals, when it may have been preferrable for them to simply die than to live the rest of their lives in captivity.  Brian Jones, the manager of Moholoholo, disagreed with that position, saying that Africa was no longer wilderness anyway.  All animals ARE affected by human habitation anyway, he reasoned, so why not try to affect them in a positive way rather than a negative?  The natural world is gone!
     In contrast, Val took the position that wild animals should not be domesticated and that wild animals were indeed better off dead than in captivity.  

     
 He made his point by talking to us about Girt, a young ostrich who for some reason had taken to hanging out at the Modisa campsite.  Val told us that if he caught any of us attempting to feed Girt, or trying to pet him or otherwise trying to domesticate him, he (Val) would KILL Girt right in front of us!  This is Girt!  

Need it be said that none of us tried to feed or pet Girt?