Climate Change Influences Behavior of Polar Bears

Polar bears feasting on a whale carcass on Russia's Wrangel Island in the Arctic Circle.  

Bears are generally solitary animals and normally keep a safe distance from one another, except during the mating season. However, when they are seen congregating in large numbers in a particular area, it might imply that they are social animals when in fact they are not. This example is best seen in the case of grizzly bears and Alaskan brown bears, which are known to congregate in large numbers during the annual spawning of salmon in North America. Although it initially appears that these bears are socializing over salmon, many keep their distance to avoid conflict with one another. But even with millions of fish to choose from, there is always a chance of conflict when the bears compete with one another for food to satisfy their immense appetites. The only social interaction that occurs during such events is between mother bears and their young. That is, the mothers teach their cubs how to fish for their food and most importantly, avoid contact with the highly competitive and dangerous male bears.

Some 200 bears gathered on the island, which scientists see as a sign of Arctic changing.

But two months ago, in the far eastern side of the Russian Arctic, a similar event occurred in which polar bears were sighted by a boatload of tourists congregating in large numbers on Wrangel Island. According to Alexander Gruzdev, director of the Wrangel Island nature reserve, the bears were seen feasting on a bowhead whale carcass that had washed ashore and later resting around it. While this encounter may seemed like a spectacle for the tourists, scientists see it as an indication of the effect of climate change on the polar bears. Due to the melting of ice earlier this year, the bears are forced to spend longer time on land than on ice where they are most at home. In addition, the bears will sooner or later face competition for little food there is on land the more crammed together they are on coasts and islands. Wrangel Island is known to be a resting place for polar bears after ice melts in early August until November, when they leave the island to hunt for seals. Mr. Gruzdev added that it is also known to have the "highest density of maternity dens in the entire Arctic." However, according to Eric Regehr from University of Washington and the lead scientist on the U.S-Russian collaborative study of Wrangel Island's polar bears, the animals now spend on average a month longer on the island, compared to how they did 20 years ago. Studies have also shown that the number of bears discovered this autumn was 589, far surpassing previous estimates of 200-300 animals which Mr. Regehr calls "anomalously high."

Coastal landscape of Wrangel Island

I really think that the public should recognize this sighting as an indication of the climate change's effects on not just polar bears, but also other inhabitants in the Arctic Circle. Not only is the melting of ice forcing the bears to spend more time on land than on ice, but it is also compelling them to venture close into villages putting locals at risk. Since mid-October, the bears have been coming dangerously close to a Chukchi village called Ryrkaipy near Kozhevnikov Cape which is located 124 miles south of Wrangel Island. Kozhevnikov Cape also happens to be an important site for walrus congregations known as haulouts. Due to change in ice conditions, walruses are forced to come ashore in steep inadequate areas. According to polar bear specialist Viktor Nikiforov, hundreds of walruses died this year as huge individuals crushed one another probably after being disturbed by a predator. The incident resulted in some walrus carcasses floating to the village, thus attracting polar bears. This was seen when one bear broke a window of a house, sending the entire village to go on high alert. Mr. Nikiforov added that scientists and local people moved walrus carcasses away from the village with bulldozers and reiterated concerns that bears spend more time ashore than on ice. He further added that measurements such as bear patrols need to be implemented to reduce human-bear conflicts.

Climate change is also forcing walruses to come ashore in unsuitable areas.

I also feel that because polar bears are spending more time on land than on ice, they are unable to hunt for seals the way they used to decades ago. Despite having some food sources on land such as lemmings, musk oxen, or even grass, the bears solely rely on seals as their main source of energy-packed food which they have evolved to depend on. This also explains why hundreds of bears gathered around the whale carcass on Wrangel Island. Like seals, whales are also packed with energy which polar bears rely on. This is why they often target beluga whales, as well as seals and walruses, while hunting on ice. The impact of climate change appears to have tremendously influenced the behavior of polar bears. They are spending more time on land in larger concentrations than they are on ice and they are forced to move dangerously close to human settlements increasing the chance of human-bear conflict. This is why it is highly essential to consider the effects of climate change seriously and take necessary action to prevent any devastation of both people and wildlife.

View article here                          

U.S Federal Government Should Recognize the Link Between Africa's Poaching and Terrorism

Elephants in Tsavo East National Park

The Trump administration was recently reported that it would allow the importation of elephant trophies into the U.S from Zambia and Zimbabwe. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service argued that the new policy would encourage wealthy big-game hunters to kill elephants, lions, rhinos, and other threatened species to raise money for conservation programs. But recently, President Trump indicated that he is delaying the policy until he can "review all conservation facts" with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. The decision made by the Trump administration was highly criticized by animal rights advocates and environmental groups. However, one of the key political figures to speak against the decision was California Republican Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who pushed the administration to cancel the policy, calling it the "wrong move at the wrong time." He also opposed the action because of matters not only about Africa's wildlife, but U.S national security, pointing out the political upheaval in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe was placed under house arrest by the military. Due to this unstable situation, the U.S Embassy in Zimbabwe has advised American people to limit their travel outdoors. In addition to Mr. Royce, two other lawmakers, Republicans Vern Buchanan of Florida and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who also happened to be co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, blasted the policy. Furthermore, Tanya Sanerib, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, called for "immediate federal action to reverse these policies" and not just a tweet to show that President Trump is reconsidering this decision.

Although it is great to see that public outrage has forced President Trump to put this federal policy on hold, it is extremely crucial to recognize the connection between the poaching of elephants and other endangered African wildlife to international terrorism. Mr. Royce, in his statement, indicated that elephants and other African animals are "blood currency for terrorist organizations." This shows that he recognizes poaching as not just a threat to the world's most magnificent animals, but also a matter of national security. Africa's militant organizations like Al-Shabaab, Janjaweed, and the Lord's Resistance (LRA) profit from poaching of elephants in which they are able to gain access to arms and ammunition to carry out their terrorist attacks against both local and foreign people. I think that if poaching of Africa's elephants, lions, rhinos, and other endangered wildlife continues uncontrollably, it will lead to more incidences of terrorist attacks in both Africa and other parts of the world, especially when globally significant terrorist organizations such as the ISIS will benefit from elephant ivory and body parts of other endangered species. It is highly essential that the U.S federal government recognize the link between poaching and global terrorism and act upon it. Otherwise, lives of both people and animals will be in grave danger.

View article here                   

Trump Administration- A New Enemy to Africa's Elephants

Trophy hunter David Barrett with an elephant he killed in Zimbabwe in 2009

The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has recently confirmed that the Trump administration will lift the ban on the importation of elephant trophies from Zambia and Zimbabwe after deciding that sport hunting in those countries will help conserve the animals. The decision was made public by Safari Club International (SCI), a trophy hunting advocacy group that, along with the National Rifle Association, sued to stop the 2014 ban. USFWS's principal deputy director, Greg Sheehan, disclosed the news to the organization during the African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF) in Tanzania. Although African elephants have been listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act since 1978, a provision of the law permits for sport-hunted trophies to be imported if the government decides that hunting will help protect the population. A spokesperson for the USFWS indicated that a notice regarding the agency's decision on elephants in Zimbabwe will be published Friday in the Federal Register. It is uncertain when the agency's decision will be posted, but it is said that the decision will allow for anyone who legally kills an elephant in Zimbabwe from January 21, 2016 to December 31, 2018, or in Zambia in 2016, 2017 and 2018 to obtain a permit to import their trophy into the U.S. The decision was praised by SCI President, Paul Babaz, who said that it demonstrates the agency's recognition on hunting being "beneficial to wildlife and that these range countries know how to manage their elephant populations." However, in a blog post, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), called the decision "jarring." He also added that the decision coming from SCI "suggests an uncomfortably cozy and even improper relationship between trophy hunting interests and the Department of the Interior." The Interior Department is led by Secretary Ryan Zinke, who is an avid hunter and has pushed to increase opportunities for hunting and fishing. Earlier this month, he announced the establishment of a so-called International Wildlife Conservation Council to advise him on "the benefits that international recreational hunting has on foreign wildlife and habitat conservation, anti-poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking programs."

Ever since he got sworn into office as the President of the United States, Donald Trump received severe criticism from the public regarding his views on issues ranging from immigration to the global environment. He has even attempted to reverse the laws implemented by the Obama administration, and one of them happened to be the ban on the importation of elephant trophies from Africa. This is extremely outrageous because it shows that the U.S is not taking a tough stand against the illegal poaching and trafficking of endangered wildlife around the world. How is regulated sport hunting going to help in the conservation of endangered species like elephants, whose numbers continue to fall in the hands of human beings? According to the 2016 Great Elephant Census, Africa's elephant population plummeted by 30 percent across 18 countries. In Zimbabwe, it decreased by 6 percent and Zambia recorded "substantial declines" along the Zambezi River, even though the population elsewhere in the country remained stable. President Trump does not seem to understand that the illegal slaughter of elephants in Africa is also linked to militant groups like the Al-Shabaab, Janjaweed, and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). These groups benefit financially from the elephants' ivory because it promises them arms and ammunition to conduct their terrorist activities in their countries of operations. It is not just local people who are ruthlessly killed by these bloodthirsty killers; non-African people have also been victims of their brutality. For example, Al-Shabaab was responsible for an attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi in 2013 which claimed 67 lives. Out of the 67 people killed, 17 were foreigners. This clearly implies how the illegal ivory trade is linked to international terrorism. In my opinion, the decision made by the Trump administration to allow importation of elephant ivory in the U.S is sure to spell disaster for both elephants and people. In addition, it will certainly result in severe public backlash not just towards President Trump but also members of the American public having their photos taken with elephants they have killed for trophies.

View article and video here 

Wolves and Politics Don't Mix

Gray wolf

A group of Republican lawmakers are pushing a legislation that would prevent game wardens and law enforcement from investigating and prosecuting illegal wolf killings in the state of Wisconsin. This legislation is being backed by GOP state Republicans Adam Jarchow of Balsam Lake, Mary Felzkowski of Irma and Romaine Quinn of Rice Lake, and Senator Tom Tiffany of Hazelhurst. In an email demanding co-sponsors for the bill, the authors stated that it is an effort to compel the Congress to enact an undecided federal legislation that would remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list. Mr. Jarchow, who announced a run for state Senate, indicated that the bill reflects an executive order made by Governor Butch Otter of Idaho in 2011 that he believes forced the federal government to end wolf protections there. In 2011, the Department of the Interior removed the wolf from the endangered species list in the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Republicans quickly formulated and declared a state wolf hunt targeted at reducing an increasing population. However, that hunt lasted for only two years after a federal appeals court placed the wolves back on the list, claiming that the federal managers failed to think about the impacts of de-listing and did not give reason for the loss of the animal's historic range. Since then, an increasing number of beef producers, farmers, hunters, and lawmakers in northern Wisconsin have protested that the state's wolf population has gotten out of control and is causing problems. Mr. Jarchow stated that they have been waiting for the authorization of federal legislation that would remove wolves from protection again. But until that happens, he thinks that the federal government is acting in bad faith, so Wisconsin should not participate in what he sees as inadequate management. However, Rachel Tilseth, a wolf advocate of the group Wolves of Douglas County, is doubtful the legislation will pass. She thinks that it is more about getting attention for the anti-wolf movement in Wisconsin. She also claimed that wolves are destroying northern Wisconsin's deer populations and decimating mass amount of livestock are false. Despite a recent report of a record population of wolves in Wisconsin, she revealed that compensations made to farmers for animals attacked by wolves were down last year.

This issue of de-listing wolves or keeping them as endangered species has been going on for a long time. And all this time, it has become more of a political matter than a conservation issue. Politicians across the country have been debating whether to keep wolves as endangered species or remove them and majority of the arguments they have given do not have any scientific backup. It makes me feel frustrated to see the country's politicians, regardless of what party they are, constantly argue on what to do about wolves and at the same time farmers, ranchers, and other people are complaining about the animals causing trouble. I say that the issues related to wolves in the U.S should be of concern to conservation groups and not politicians. Conservation groups provide arguments and suggestions with proper scientific proof when it comes to dealing with issues related to wildlife. While none of the politicians have background in science, they should be willing to listen to and consider the arguments and suggestions made by conservation groups to help with their bill-drafting and decision-making on issues related to wolves or other wildlife. This recent legislation was drafted just to gain attention from the country's anti-wolf movement and probably does not contain any valid facts why game wardens and law enforcement officials should not investigate and prosecute killing of wolves in Wisconsin. This is why it is best to leave matters related to wildlife and conservation to biologists, researchers, and groups committed to the survival and well-being of wild animals, including endangered ones. Only they can determine whether an animal species can stay on the endangered species list or not.

View article here                     

International Law Enforcement and Military Officials Must Help Africa's Anti-Poaching Personnel

Ravi Perera (center) accompanying members of Kenya's anti-poaching patrol with a bloodhound. 

Ravi Perera is no ordinary crime scene investigator. While he normally investigates crime scenes for a local police department in northwest Orange County, California, twice a year he travels to Kenya where he provides training to the personnel in support of the country's anti-poaching efforts. He even arranges for delivery of donated equipment, especially compact digital cameras which anti-poaching patrols need to record evidence at wildlife crime scenes. A native of Sri Lanka, Mr. Perera was first drawn to Africa by photography. When he was able to visit, he fell in love with Kenya where he set up a small business that allowed him to lead personalized photographic safaris in the country. During his visits, he learned that poaching is a huge problem in which elephants and rhinos are targeted for their tusks and horns. According to Mr. Perera, 13 rhinos were killed by poachers in 2007. But by 2014, the number of rhinos killed grew to 1,215. The poachers are known to adopt brutal techniques in obtaining rhino horns by crippling the animals with bullets and hacking off as much of the horn as possible with a chainsaw. In addition, they also shoot to kill if confronted by an anti-poaching patrol. These are the conditions Mr. Perera is working to improvise for the anti-poaching patrols. For his next trip, Mr. Perera is going to collect compact digital and trip cameras, clothing, and first aid and trauma kits. He is also planning to take with him a collection of fingerprinting supplies to check to see which might work best in lifting hidden fingerprints from rhino horns. He will also continue to teach Kenya's anti-poaching patrol personnel how to collect and examine gunshot residue and accurately record a crime scene by using digital photography. As part of his solution to the problem of excessive area for anti-poaching patrols to guard in person, Mr. Perera will teach them how to install traps using trip cameras that set off only under special circumstances. Furthermore, he will anti-poaching patrols correct handling of evidence and how to efficiently use their dogs.

Mr. Perera teaching anti-poaching personnel how to use camera trap.

Bloodhound getting a sniff before being set off to track a scent as part of an anti-poaching patrol.  

Mr. Perera discussing with the personal keeper of northern white rhinoceros Sudan how he is doing and how to keep him safe at the Ol Pejeta Conservancy.  

Mr. Perera is an ideal role model in the battle against illegal poaching and trade of wildlife around the world. Not only does he spend his time investigating ordinary crime scenes, he provides help and training to the anti-poaching personnel in Kenya in order to save elephants, rhinos, and other endangered wildlife from poachers. Although anti-poaching personnel in Kenya and other African countries are fully dedicated to defending the wildlife, they often lack necessary skills and equipment which allows poachers to stay one step ahead of them in the ongoing war against poaching and illegal wildlife smuggling. This is where people like Mr. Perera step in to ensure that anti-poaching personnel are able to gain advantage against the poachers. This includes teaching them various techniques such as how to properly install camera traps, accurately handle and examine gunshot residue and other evidences at a crime scene, and effectively use their dogs when out on patrol. However, Mr. Perera is not the only one teaching anti-poaching personnel how to combat poaching. There is even news that a team of British soldiers are training anti-poaching rangers in Malawi. It was even reported three years ago that a team of U.S Marines were training park rangers in Chad to combat elephant poaching. However, poaching still remains a continual problem for the future of Africa's wildlife. This is why it is very crucial that both local and international law enforcement officials and military personnel should join forces in taking a tough stand against poaching and illegal smuggling of Africa's endangered wildlife.

View article here             

New Species or Not, the Tapanuli Orangutan Needs to Be Protected

A female Tapanuli orangutan with young

A study of a small orangutan population in northern Sumatra has revealed a new species: the Tapanuli orangutan. The name derives from an area covered by the Batang Toru ecosystem located south of Lake Toba in northern Sumatra, where the orangutans are found. However, this discovery is nothing new. These apes were first reported in the early 1930s, but it was not until 1997 that scientists rediscovered them and later started studying the animals. An international team of researchers, in the journal Current Biology, described a wide-range of characteristics indicating that the Tapanuli orangutan is a distinct species. As part of the investigation, the team reported how they examined the remains of an adult male orangutan killed by villagers in November 2013. The analysis consisted of comparison of the skull and jaws to those of 33 other adult male orangutans, held in collections of ten institutions around the world, revealing that the skull of the male Tapanuli orangutan is smaller than those of Bornean and Sumatran orangutans. The researchers also noted the difference in the booming call of male Tapanuli orangutans to those of the two known species. In addition, they also indicated that Tapanuli orangutans have more cinnamon-colored pelts than Bornean orangutans with a curlier texture than the loose locks of Sumatran orangutans. The team also noted the facial hair of Tapanuli orangutans, indicating that dominant males have prominent mustaches and females have beards.

Male Tapanuli orangutan

The researchers also conducted an analysis of the genomes of 37 orangutans from Borneo and Sumatra, enabling them to unpick the apes' evolutionary "family tree." The results implied that orangutans north of Lake Toba separated about 3.4 million years ago  from the more southerly population of ancestral orangutans that first came from mainland Asia, giving rise to the Sumatran orangutans. A further separation from the population south of Lake Toba occurred about 674,000 years ago, giving rise to the Bornean species as well as the Tapanuli species that, like its ancestors, live south of Lake Toba. A previous research discovered that the mitochondrial DNA of Tapanuli orangutans is more similar to that of Bornean orangutans, while the nuclear DNA of the Tapanuli species is more similar to that of the Sumatran species. The new study disclosed that even after the separation between orangutans north and south of Lake Toba, the animals continued to interbreed which was possibly due to wandering males and resulted in mixing of the nuclear DNA. Fortunately, this behavior was cut short about 100,000 years ago - close to when a volcano erupted at Lake Toba - and stopped altogether between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. Essentially, since the females stayed put, so too did the mitochondrial DNA. According to William Amos, professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Cambridge, it was difficult to be precise when it came to timings of separations but that the proof for a new species stacked up. University of York's Dr. Andrew Marshall stated that the study emphasized the importance of conservation and added that there might also be an additional great ape species to be discovered. However, University College London's Professor Volker Sommer was not amazed, pointing out that there is no clear proof for what makes a new species. In his own words, he said that any bunch of expert biologists"can invent a new species, if they get their arguments together."

Lake Toba

It is very amazing through scientific research that new species are being discovered, especially in places like Indonesia which is one the major biodiversity hotspots in the world. Earlier, much of the newly discovered species in Indonesia came in the form of small animals such as frogs, invertebrates, and probably birds. But this is the first time that a new species of orangutan has been discovered. The research team that studied this unique species noted a number of differences and similarities between the Tapanuli orangutan and the Bornean and Sumatran species from the morphological scale to the genetic scale. While there is a great deal of amazement from scholars in biological, evolutionary, and zoological fields, others like Professor Volker Sommer are more skeptical than amazed. They argue that there is no clear criteria for what makes a new species. Regardless, the Tapanuli orangutan is critically endangered like its Sumatran and Bornean counterparts with fewer than 800 individuals believed to be existing in an area covered by the Batang Toru ecosystem. Therefore, it requires a great deal of protection from habitat destruction and the illegal wildlife trade so that researchers can continue to study it to unlock any further secrets about this newly discovered species in the name of science.

View article and video here                     

Walruses Need to Be Recognized as Endangered Species

Walruses on an ice floe

The Center for Biological Diversity has recently stated that walruses are threatened after the Trump Administration refused to list them as "endangered" last month. The conservation group, which filed a lawsuit in 2008 to get the animals on the Endangered Species List, said that the government's decision has put the species in an ominous state as it meets the effects of climate change. According to Chad Jay, who leads the walrus research program at the U.S Geological Survey Alaska Science Center, the animals are dealing with loss of habitat due to melting of sea ice which they rely on for breeding, feeding, nursing, their young, and avoid predators. Although the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recognized that sea ice is melting due to climate change, it denied that walruses are in danger of extinction, suggesting that that they will probably be able to adapt to their changing environment. However, even though the agency has estimated that there are almost 23,000 walruses left, it has indicated that there is some concern over the precise population numbers.

A gathering of about 35,000 walruses by NOAA's annual arctic marine mammal aerial survey 

The impact of climate change has and continues to tremendously affect the walruses through sea ice melting, particularly in late summer and early autumn. This is when sea ice shrinks to such a large extent that it does not cover the shallow areas that function as the animals' feeding grounds. Therefore, the walruses are forced to use land haul outs further away from their feeding grounds to rest between their feeding sessions. According to Lee Cooper, a research professor at University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science, walruses are known to survive without food for a certain amount of time. But that does not mean they can survive on the long run. The decline in sea ice is a result of ocean warming and acidification. Acidification is known to threaten clams and mussels, which constitute the main diet of walruses thus affecting their survival. In addition, climate change has even affected the movement and behavior of walruses. While males come normally come ashore at certain times of the year, since 2007, researchers have sighted more females and their young on land than males. The younger walruses are vulnerable to being trampled to death when giant herds form on land. In September, roughly 64 youngsters less than a year old were found dead near Point Lay in Alaska. This indicates that walruses on land are prone to disturbance from factors ranging from polar bears and human activities. And it is therefore crucial to identify specific areas in the Arctic region where walruses are present and mark them as off-limits to the public, in order to reduce the impact of human activities.

The Trump Administration decided not to list walruses as endangered species much to the dismay of the Center for Biological Diversity

It is equally essential that the U.S government should recognize the need to protect and preserve walruses and various species of Arctic wildlife under threat of climate change and global warming. The Trump Administration made a very shameful decision in refusing to recognize and list walruses as endangered species, despite the studies and research done by conservation groups like the Center for Biological Diversity. This indicates that the administration has very little to worry about the issue of climate change which not only harms harms the inhabitants of the Arctic, but also people and wildlife around the world. It does not matter what political party is in power or under whose presidency the U.S is functioning; the bottom line is that climate change and global warming should be taken seriously and essential measurements must be implemented to ensure the protection and well-being of people and wildlife around the world. In addition, acknowledging such environmental issues would put U.S in good terms with other countries and with various conservation groups on both national and international levels.

View article here