The difficulty here is that human benefits of environmental degradation are often immediate whereas the negative impacts take time to be seen. (one of the major difficulties with combating climate change)

I feel like this is still the case. A lot of people seem to care, but very few actually act on those feelings.

This seems like its a combination of a biocentric and antrhopocentric view point. I may be misinterpreting the statement, but to me it sounds like they're saying management and protection of the environment only if it benefits humans.

Dan Janzen was the leading scientist of the Guanacaste project I mentioned earlier.

Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Culling and other such means of neutralization have proven in many cases to be the most effective and cost efficient means of population control within many parks. They often result in public outcry though which causes parks to switch to less harmful and effective means, in turn this often leads to damaging of the ecosystem ironically.

I read "The Green Pheonix" last semester in Ecological Restoration which is an amazing story about the restoration of Guanacaste National Park in Costa Rica. It was the first large scale restoration effort and very much relates to what the author is saying here. It was lead by highly knowledgeable scientists, but it was the first time this sort of thing was ever tried and so there was a lot they had to do and plan without complete certainty of the outcomes.