Wolves Should Be Allowed to Flourish Throughout the U.S

 

A black wolf captured on camera in Oregon in 2017.

The Trump administration recently announced that gray wolves will no longer be federally protected under the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48 states. This long-foreseen move has attracted both praise and criticism. Federal wildlife officials called the move a success story, similar to the ones involving the bald eagle and American alligator. Critics addressed the view as premature and have already promised to take legal action. According to Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, the wolves are only beginning to get a foothold in places such as northern California and the Pacific Northwest. She further added that they need to be federally protected to seek habitat in the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. Other critics called the move as another environmental attack by the Trump administration, which has reduced several other environmental protections. These include protections of endangered species and migratory birds.

A pair of wolves feeding on a white-tailed deer.

From what I have seen and heard over the years, the issue of gray wolves in U.S is a very complicated matter that has pitted both wildlife and conservation groups and federal officials at odds with each other for a long time. Since 2013, the Obama administration proclaimed delisting the wolves stating that the animals' numbers have grown to the extent that they are no longer at risk of extinction. It further added that the wolves should be managed by state and tribal governments. Two years ago, wolves were delisted in Wyoming and Idaho due to constant pressure by sportsmen and agricultural groups. Consequent lawsuits saw the animals get delisted, relisted, and again delisted in Wyoming. Nowadays, wolf populations are managed by state wildlife agencies in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and hunting them is allowed. Similar hunting seasons are anticipated in some states in the Midwest if the national delisting survives the court challenges.

Wolfpack preying on a bison.

I feel that the future for gray wolves in the U.S is very bleak without any hope with these ongoing court battles between wildlife groups and federal officials. These animals are deliberately being prevented from repopulating other parts of the country with hunting seasons. How can an animal that once disappeared from parts of the country where it once flourished not be welcomed back? Is this called conservation? Should wolves should be kept in certain places, preferably protected areas without human intervention, and elsewhere they should be treated like common vermin? I strongly disagree with that. These animals are crucial for the health of ecosystems throughout the U.S and Canada. I strongly urge that non-lethal measurements be implemented to prevent wolves from preying on livestock. This includes providing ranchers with livestock guardian dogs to protect their cattle, sheep, and other animals. Just shooting wolves in cold blood will not make a difference, especially if the intended targets unintentionally turn out to be alpha leaders. In the wolf society, when alpha members die, the whole pack would be in disarray. Without alpha leaders to maintain order, subordinate members would recklessly go out in search for food on ranches risking the wrath of concerned ranchers. At the same time, the ranchers would suffer livestock losses while protecting them. This is why I believe that wolves should be kept as endangered species in the U.S until they inhabit more of their historical range. 

View article here 

China Secretly Supports the Sale of Pangolin Parts Despite Ban on the Trade

Pangolin

The government of China had reportedly launched a high profile crackdown on the illegal trade of pangolin parts in response to combating the covid pandemic. Pangolins are known for being carriers of coronaviruses and some people believe that they play a go-between role in hosting the Sars-CoV-2 virus which leads to the Covid-19 disease. Therefore, in February, the country placed a permanent ban on the consumption of pangolins and other wildlife. In June, it banned the usage of pangolin scales in traditional Chinese medicine and bolstered protections for its native pangolin populations. However, a recent report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) revealed that the government continues to support the sale of pangolin parts. The agency discovered that 221 companies are licensed to sell pangolin scales. Among them is the international pharmaceutical company Tong Ren Tang, whose shareholders include major western financial institutions. The report, titled Smoke & Mirrors, also showed that pangolin scale-products made in China are available for purchase on eBay, Alibaba's Taobao, and other e-commerce platforms. The EIA had earlier found out that even though pangolin scales were removed from the raw ingredients list of the 2020 edition of Pharmacopoeia, they were still listed within some 80 authorized traditional medicines. The report ended by forcing the Chinese government to "unambiguously prohibit commercial use of wildlife" and to "remove pangolins and other globally threatened species entirely from the pharmacopoeia and other nationally approved medicine lists."

Sign board of Tong Ren Tang in Beijing

In my opinion, this news has revealed the ugly truth behind China's stance on the illegal wildlife trade during the covid pandemic. Even though the country banned the consumption of pangolin and other wildlife products, it was secretly supporting the sale of such illicit products much to the chagrin of individuals and organizations involved in global wildlife protection. It is absolutely outrageous to see how the Chinese government pledges to fight against the illegal wildlife trade and at the same time support the sale of wildlife products. I strongly urge the Chinese government to take strong measurements to effectively ban the sale and consumption pangolins and it should be done without any secretive political backing of the illicit trade. This means all those companies licensed to sell pangolin products should have their licenses revoked and shut down if necessary. In addition, major e-commerce platforms like eBay should establish a strict policy against selling of pangolin and other wildlife products.

View article here   

Trinidad and Tobago's Illegal Wildlife Trade Needs to be Dealt With

Capuchin monkey

On the island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, a conservation NGO known as El Socorro Center for Wildlife Conservation put light on the illegal wildlife trade saying it must be dealt with insistently. Its director and founder, Ricardo Meade, said in a statement that the issue is worsened by the Caribbean country's penetrable borders. He added that monkeys, which are not native to Trinidad and Tobago, are the most widely trafficked animals. They are smuggled into the country from Venezuela and Guyana. Many lose their mothers to hunters and exhibit aggressive behavior in reaction to such a traumatic experience. In addition, they are also carriers of diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis which Mr. Meade pointed out as a warning about letting monkeys loose in areas like Chaguaramas. He further added that many of the monkeys that have already been released have become a big problem to the country's ecosystems. Mr. Meade also pointed out that birds are also victims of the illegal wildlife trade and their plight is ignored by authorities. This, he warned, could lead to a destruction of Trinidad's bird population, including poultry, especially if a viral infection takes place. He blasted the careless approach from authorities who do not implement laws and called on the Ministry of National Security to focus on the illegal wildlife trade. He believes that education is required to prevent instances on the issue. In order to do so, he recommended utilizing marketing methods to involve young people and demand action.

Blue-and-yellow macaw  

I would strongly suggest taking Mr. Meade's demands and recommendations for combating the illegal wildlife trade into serious considerations. It is equally disheartening that animals like monkeys, which are not native to Trinidad and Tobago, are traumatized by the loss of their parents and venting their aggression on their so-called owners. It is also frustrating that authorities such as the police and the coast guard have a careless approach towards the issue and what problems it presents to both people and wildlife. It is highly crucial to conduct necessary measurements to educate the public about the dangers of the illegal wildlife trade, in order to involve them in the fight to call for an end to such a sadistic practice. I would also urge the authorities to refrain from having a lenient attitude towards this lucrative, yet unethical issue and take strong measurements to combat it.

View article here 

Reintroduction of Tasmanian Devil Crucial for the Wildlife of Australia

Tasmanian devil

The Tasmanian devil is aptly named for its homeland, which is the island of Tasmania off the coast of Australia. But what many people don't know is that this ferocious marsupial once inhabited mainland Australia 3,000 years ago. While the cause of its disappearance on the mainland is a mystery, it is widely believed that dingoes were responsible for wiping out these predatory marsupials. As a result, majority of surviving devils remained on Tasmania from where they got their name. But now, in a major historic step, a group of 26 devils were released on the mainland marking the species' return after 3,000 years of extinction. The animals were released in a 1,000-acre sanctuary at Barrington Tops approximately three and a half hours north of Sydney. Behind the reintroduction is a project known as Aussie Ark. Its president, Tim Faulkner, stated that the releases were made in July and September. He further added that an "insurance population" would be established in response to a contagious facial tumor disease, which first struck the Tasmanian population in the mid-1990s. The disease decimated the devil population from around 150,000 animals to fewer than 25,000. The reintroduction is also aimed at controlling the fox and feral cat population in the area. The project has also planned to bring forty more devils into the sanctuary over the next two years. The animals will initially be placed in a fenced area for breeding purposes. They will then be released into the wild and closely monitored to see how well they contend with other wildlife and various environmental factors such as bushfires.

A young Tasmanian devil being handfed

I find it very amazing that Tasmanian devils are making a comeback to mainland Australia after 3,000 years of disappearance. People have long believed that these carnivorous marsupials are only found on Tasmania through nature shows, books, and even the loveable cartoon character. However, this news brings in light that the devils in fact did inhabit the mainland. Their disappearance is thought to have been attributed to the dingoes, but this is one of many theories made to understand their extinction. Another theory states that hunting and land clearance by Aborigines led to the demise of the devils. Others suggest the extinction was caused by climate change from the most recent ice age and increased aridity. But regardless of which theory is accurate, what is clear is that the reintroduction of the Tasmanian devil is crucial for Australia's ecosystems.

A Tasmanian devil in its natural habitat.

Ever since the Tasmanian devil became extinct on the Australian mainland, the forests of New South Wales underwent major ecological changes. These changes were a result of introduction of foxes and cats in the region. These invasive species have been roaming Australia since they were brought to the country by British colonials. For decades, they have been preying on the native wildlife and responsible for extinction of some species. Feral cats have even been hampering attempts to reintroduce threatened species into areas where they had become extinct. Despite measurements implemented, there has been no major change in slowing down the cat and fox populations especially in areas free of predators like dingoes and wedge-tailed eagles. But now with the reintroduction of Tasmanian devils, it looks like there might be a game changer on the horizon. Armed with jaws eight times more powerful than a Doberman, they could easily stand up against a cat or a fox. I hope this will give conservationists an edge in curbing Australia's invasive species situation.

Chris Hemsworth and his wife Elsa Pataky helping release Tasmanian devils in a sanctuary outside Sydney. 

In my opinion, reintroducing the Tasmanian devil back to its former mainland stronghold is not only beneficial but also crucial. Its former habitat has continuously been threatened by foxes and feral cats and controlling their populations is essential for the benefit of Australia's wildlife. In addition to that, this marsupial has been suffering from an untreatable facial tumor disease on its current island homeland. By establishing an insurance population, I think this would help separate uninfected devils from infected ones in Australia. This way, the disease-free devil population can increase on the mainland. I also think it is important to assess the dingo population in southeastern Australia before releasing any introduced devils into the wild. Even though there is a 1,553-mile long fence designed to keep dingoes out of the region, it is necessary to inspect it for any evidence of these hardy dogs crossing in and back. Any damage in the form of holes or anything allowing the dogs access through the fence should be fixed. And if there is presence of dingoes in southeastern Australia, they should be captured and released outside the region. What struck me about this news is that the project received help from the star of Marvel's Thor Chris Hemsworth and his wife, fellow actress Elsa Pataky. Both of them helped release some of these devils into the sanctuary. This to me goes to show that famous celebrities are aware of the world's conservation issues and are lending their support by any means. I believe that when famous celebrities lend their support to such causes, it should be taken as an inspiration by ordinary people to follow suit and work towards making change for the better. This especially applies in present day when the natural world is fading and the evidence is all around us and staring in our faces.

View article here       

Can Genetics Decide the Translocation of Asiatic Lions?

Asiatic lion

The Asiatic lion has been one of India's roaring conservation success stories after the tiger and the elephant. Over the years, its numbers increased from around 300 animals to 674 at present. However, with numbers of lions dispersing to parts of Gujarat state outside Gir Forest, its last stronghold, calls for translocating the animals out of state had been made but to no avail. There were several reasons for the delay on both scientific and unscientific grounds. One recent case was reported with respect to new findings on the basis of genetics. That is, Asiatic lions are not considered to be greatly different from their counterparts in Central and West Africa due to their genetic similarity. The discovery was presented in the 2017 report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in which Asiatic lions, and Central and West African lions share the same nomenclature Panthera leo leo. That finding was supported by members of Gujarat's State Board for Wildlife (SBWL). One of the members, Bhushan Pandya, noted the IUCN report and called for a postponement in the planned translocation of some lions to Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh. Pandya stated that a panel of lion experts has been called to study the change in nomenclature. In effect, the IUCN edited the taxonomy of the cat family and classified lions into two subspecies: Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita of eastern and southern Africa. The report further added that Asia's lions had conquered southwest Asia over 20,000 years ago. This was way earlier than the indication that lions were introduced to India from East Africa by the Mughals in the 17th century.
 

A West African lion in Benin's Pendjari National Park. Notice the resemblance from the image above? 

I really don't understand why the reintroduction of Asiatic lions should be postponed on the basis of genetics. Just because the lions are genetically and morphologically similar to their Central and West African counterparts doesn't mean they should not be translocated outside Gujarat. These lions are differentiated from one another in a variety of ways. For example, Asiatic lions thrive in a savannah-type habitat which is different from the ones in Africa. They also inhabit dry deciduous forests which are absent in Africa. I would also like to point out that Asiatic lions are identified by a fold of skin hanging down from their stomachs, which is easily noticeable when the animals are viewed sideways. African lions, on the other hand, lack such a distinguishable characteristic. Furthermore, lion populations in western Africa are much lower than in India - around fewer than 250 mature individuals which makes them critically endangered. Asiatic lions, on the other hand, number about 674 individuals.

Morphological comparison between the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo leo) (top) and the African lion (Panthera leo melanochaita) (bottom)

In my opinion, reintroducing lions from western and central Africa into India would be absolutely pointless in case Asiatic lions become extinct due to any catastrophic events. Such movement would be met with immediate refusal from regional governments; the same when Iran once declined India's request to lend some of its cheetahs as part of the country's cheetah reintroduction project. I also don't understand who came up with this suggestion that India's lions were introduced into the country by the Mughals. It doesn't make sense since lions of East Africa are identified by their larger and more prominent manes and Asiatic lions have smaller less developed manes. What is clear is that the lions which colonized southwest Asia 20,000 years ago were the same lions that are now currently recolonizing parts of Gujarat from where they disappeared decades ago. They are also the same lions that once reigned supreme in central, northern, and northwest India centuries ago before becoming extinct. I don't think it is necessary to study the nomenclature change to help in the decision-making process of whether to translocate lions outside Gujarat or not. The bottom line is that Gujarat's lion population has increased significantly and efforts need to be made to translocate some of these lions in protected areas out of state without delay. These lions need to be closely monitored to see how well they are doing in their new environment. This would help in determining whether to continue with translocation efforts or halt them.

View article here