Help requested—verifiable stories where low-tech solutions beats out high-tech

Hi all,

I know this forum is focused on using technology to aid in conservation, but I also know that technology isn't a silver bullet and in some cases low-tech solutions can be more effective, and even cheaper. One that comes to mind is painting eyes on the rumps of cattle to trick predators into thinking the animal is looking at them. I can't find any follow up on the effectiveness of this strategy, so if you have an update, definitely please share!

Another (potentially apocryphal) story I'd love to have specific data to back up: to combat poaching a group sets up a high tech array of cameras and sensors to detect poachers and deploy response teams to catch them. But the high tech gear just ends up getting stolen by the locals and sold for cash. So they pivot from the tech solution; they take the money they would otherwise have used on surveillance tech and use it to establish a bounty program which pays locals rewards for information that leads to arrests and convictions of poachers. And this turns out to be a more effective strategy.

Does anyone know if this happened and if so where and ideally links to articles about it?

Also, if you can think of any other "low-tech more effective than high-tech" stores, please do share those as well.

Thanks!

StephODonnell's picture