Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Against Lion Safari Park

A pair of Asiatic lions

The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that had raised criticism over the state government's plan of starting a fenced lion safari park for tourists in Gir Forest National Park. The PIL claimed that the park will damage the forest's ecosystem. The petition was filed by a city-based activist named Biren Pandya, who argued that permission for this park was pending for ten years and originally the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) did not give permission for the park. However, on May 18 of this year, the central government refurbished the CZA and "without any inspection (which is necessary) the final permission was granted by the technical committee on June 5." The PIL claimed that setting up a safari park on reserved forest land was in violation of standards of wildlife conservation. It also claimed that 400 hectares of forest area which used to be a haven for lions and other animals had been fenced in the past few years to be made into the safari park. Furthermore, it alleged that 18 lions have already been transferred and the entire lion satellite population has been "wiped out." The court indicated that the petitioner came after much delay and by then physical infrastructure like fencing had already been finished. The goal of this safari park is to cut down on the tourism in Gir Forest and is said to have three zoo-bred lions (one male and two females) for public viewing in a forest environment.

The idea of setting up a lion safari park in the vicinity of Gir Forest is something that generates mixed opinions. On one hand, it can help in regulating the tourist flow in the national park and on the other hand, it may damage the forest ecosystem. Even though this project was given an approval without proper inspection by the CZA, it is still very important to closely monitor it to see that it does not do any major damage to the Gir Forest ecosystem. In addition, the flow of tourism to this park must also be closely monitored. Just because the animals that are to be transferred to the park are zoo-bred does not mean they are used to being around people. They are still wild animals and should be given their space even in captivity. Furthermore, it would be very beneficial that the lions coming to this park should be kept for educational purposes as well as tourism. The goal of having a safari park should not solely be for providing entertainment for local and international tourists; but also for educating the public. That is, the park should also serve as a venue for school groups to learn about lions, other Gir Forest wildlife, the importance importance of conservation, etc. Just like Gir Forest, this safari park should administer strict rules and regulations to the public to ensure that the forest ecosystem is not negatively affected by tourism and other anthropogenic factors. The following suggestions above can help make this lion safari park a reputable place next to Gir Forest.

View article here

IIT Madras Blamed for Death of Wild Animals and Poor Waste Management

Spotted deer feeding on garbage scraps on IIT Madras campus

IIT Madras has recently become a subject of controversy over a large-scale death of wild animals and poor waste management disposal on its campus. According to Md. Nasimuddin, Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forests Department, a data from the forest department showed that up to 517 animals had died, including spotted deer, blackbucks, and jackals, since 2010. The government of Tamil Nadu indicated that the issue had been given to the attention of the institute's management by the forest department on many occasions. An affidavit showed that the range forest officer from Guindy National Park had been carrying out weekly investigations inside the campus and advising authorities to take proper action. The affidavit further added that the forest department was taking legal action in case of an offence (i.e wildlife death due to an accident) against the person responsible on the campus, but did not provide facts of the action taken. The government also stated that IIT Madras must step in to curtail noise pollution during cultural festivals. The wildlife warden of Guindy National Park suggested a number of steps such as safe disposal of solid waste like plastic, a fully developed veterinary care unit, and a plan for management and protection of wildlife.

IIT Madras logo

The news about the death of several wild animals on the IIT Madras campus, due to poor management is very appalling. Several of the victims included endangered species like blackbucks and much of the campus is protected forest which is carved out of Guindy National Park. This means that students and staff have the opportunity to see wild animals on the university grounds. But with the presence of wild animals, it is crucial to properly manage waste disposal and ensure that wild animals stay safe by any means. This includes educating the students and staff to never feed the animals and establishing a segregated area exclusively for the wildlife. The affidavit included that blackbucks were attacked by stray dogs, which indicates the need to establish such an area to protect the wildlife. Furthermore, an inspection report by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board showed that plastic waste was seen in areas such as Krishna Hostel gate, Velachery residential area, and the sewage treatment plant area. This is why properly managing waste disposal, especially plastic, is of utmost important to prevent any possible incidents of pollution in the vicinity of IIT Madras. In addition, noise pollution should also be kept at minimum due to the presence of Guindy National Park.

View article here    

French Sheep Farmers Protest Against Wolf Attacks in Lyon

French breeders demonstrate with their sheep in Lyon

A total of 1,500 sheep farmers disembarked to the French city of Lyon with their flocks to express their anguish over a number wolf attacks in France's Aveyron region. The farmers warned that the wolves, which returned to the country in the early 1990s and now comprise of 360 animals, are threatening their way of life. According to breeder Francois Giacobbi, although the number represents only a handful of wolves in the area, the 800,000 sheep have become a "pantry for the wolf." The farmers claim that the use of electric fences and livestock guardian dogs has not worked. Last year, government figures indicated that 8,000 sheep were killed in attacks blamed on wolves in southeastern France. This year, the figure has reached 4,153 with major increase in Aveyron where attacks increased from 16 in 2016 to 50 this year. The farmers are particularly at odds with the government's so-called "wolf plan" which allows a nationwide killing of up to 40 wolves by July 2018. Unions closed off on talks over the plan last month, particularly over a new measure which requires farmers to give proof that they have take protective actions to receive financial compensation for wolf attacks. On Monday, the farmers called for the right to be allowed to shoot wolves on sight over and above the limit according to the plan whenever their flock is instantly threatened. They demanded the government to establish a "zero-attack" policy, warning otherwise that their way of life could diminish.

Up to 1,500 farmers took to the streets with their flocks demonstrating to call for attention to increase in wolf attacks on the sheep

It is very disturbing to see what a hostile relationship France's sheep farmers have with wolves, and are now demanding the government to allow them to take matters into their own hands in dealing with wolves. Despite the use of non-lethal protective measurements like livestock guardian dogs and electric fencing, the farmers claimed that such measures have not worked. They even added that they do not need to have solid proof to show that they have lost their sheep to wolves and received "massive subsidies" for such losses. This is outright persecution of an animal that has always been depicted as a "cold-blooded killer" in European folklore for centuries. Ironically, people in Europe were treated in much the same way during the Middle Ages when there was no need to have legitimate proof to condemn a person(s) accused or suspected of committing a serious crime. In addition, this "wolf plan" is described by pro-wolf groups as "very favorable to farmers and very anti-wolf."

A banner showing French poet Victor Hugo's quote which reads "He who saves the wolf kills the sheep"

The farmers, the government, and wildlife activists should compromise peacefully regarding the problems farmers are facing and come up with plans that benefit both farmers and wolves. This includes educating farmers to never unfairly stigmatize wolves as killers that should be decimated without question. In addition, when farmers claim that non-lethal protective measurements are not working, they should have proper reason and proof as to why they are not working. Otherwise, there would be no help in tackling this issue of livestock predation by wolves. The arguments and demands farmers made in Lyon indicates that their mindset is similar to that of their ancestors from the Middle Ages. They should be taught that such a way of thinking and taking actions based on that thinking will not make much difference in solving their wolf problem. If somehow the wolves disappear from France, then it would cause a major ecological imbalance as the number of prey species will increase and present farmers with another problem of disease spreading to their livestock.

View article here    

United Kingdom to Ban Ivory Trade in Attempt to End Elephant Poaching

A two-month-old male elephant calf chasing an Egyptian goose

The government of the United Kingdom has recently announced that it will introduce a "total ban" on the trade and sale of nearly all ivory in an effort to end elephant poaching. The country is currently the largest exporter of legal ivory in the world, with pieces carved before 1947 or worked on before 1990 with government certificates lawfully allowed to be sold. The projected ban would prevent ivory trade all together and will possibly be launched next year. The government claimed it wants to help stop 20,000 elephants being poached every year. Environment Secretary Michael Gove claimed that the legal trade "masks the illegal trade", and that it was "far easier, far more effective" to entirely ban it all together. The announcement of the ban is due to the pressure on the government from campaign groups and notable figures in spite of the policy not being included in the 2016 Conservative General Election proclamation. Among the individuals who previously demanded ban on the ivory trade included Stephen Hawking, Prince William, and former Tory leader William Hague. Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, even called for the ban within the cabinet. In the consultation announcement, Mr. Gove indicated that the plans for the ban "will put the U.K front and center of global efforts to end the insidious trade in ivory."

It is tremendous news that the government of U.K has announced a complete ban on ivory trade with very limited exceptions, in order to stop elephant poaching. The announcement was welcomed by everybody, including elephant conservation charity Tusk, which suggested that the government should move quickly to close its ivory market following the consultation and before the country presents the next conference on the illegal wildlife trade in 2018. This is extremely crucial because it would look embarrassing on U.K's part if the ivory trade is still allowed, while other countries like China are pressured to fight the illegal trade. Countries such as China where the demand for elephant ivory, rhino horns, and other products made from endangered wildlife remain high should not be seen as the only countries whose governments should be pressured to ban the illegal trade of such items. Governments of other countries, not just U.K, must also ban the illegal ivory trade if they are to help in effort to end poaching of elephants and other endangered wildlife. John Stephenson, chief executive of Stop Ivory, stated that this unparalleled crisis will only end if people stop buying ivory and other products of endangered wildlife. The public must step up in the fight against poaching and the illegal wildlife trade by never purchasing such illegal items.

View article here          

Global March for Elephants and Rhinos to Take Place October 7

Participants in the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos

It has been announced that thousands of people around the world will be participating in the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos (GMFER) on October 7, in order to put pressure on international leaders to combat poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. Last year, the GMFER established marches in over 140 cities and had representatives at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES which was the largest meeting on the international wildlife trade. During the meeting, CITES agreed to urge that countries shut down their domestic ivory markets instead of regulating them. This year, in addition to demanding government action to end the wildlife trade, GMFER will be focusing on ensuring that conservation efforts do not alienate the local communities. To do this, GMFER will be hosting a program called "A Day With Wildlife" in partnership with the Black Mamba Anti-Poaching Unit and the Bush Babies Environmental Education in South Africa's Kruger National Park. The organizations will be spending the day with children and elders from bordering communities in Limpopo, talking about the history of Kruger National Park and the importance of collaborating with homegrown communities to achieve conservation goals.

The significance of this year's GMFER focus is to reach out to local communities and empower them about the value of joining forces in protecting elephants, rhinos, and other endangered wildlife around the world. According to Rosemary Alles, cofounder and president of GMFER, indigenous communities in elephant and rhino range countries are known to be protective of poachers because they bring resources back to them in order to survive. She further added that the Western world needs to be more aware and understanding of the struggles of indigenous communities and should consider other options than just militarizing to stop poachers. This distinctive approach is an essential step towards ending poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. Mainly targeting poachers and other would-be perpetrators alone is not enough; it is equally important to reach out to local communities and educate and empower them about the crimes against wildlife and the value of conserving the world's wildlife. Furthermore, countries around the world should close down their local ivory and rhino horn markets as this would further dwindle the elephant and rhino populations. 

View article here                    

Death of a Huge Crocodile Could Trigger Power Struggle

Saltwater crocodile

A huge saltwater crocodile was recently found dead in the Fitzroy River in Queensland, Australia. The crocodile was identified as a 17 foot-long male, which had been shot in the head and discovered by a local farmer named John Leaver who spotted the animal's carcass floating in the river. He stated that it has been around 2-3 decades since such a gigantic crocodile was found in Queensland. He further added that the animal had been shot in the head and based on the damage to its skull, the bullet may have come from a quite large caliber rifle and the user must have "felt very threatened." The crocodile was taken to a nearby farm where an autopsy will be conducted before its burial. According to Michael Joyce, southern operations director from Queensland's Environment Heritage Protection (EHP), the crocodile was estimated to be between 80 and 100 years old. He further added that the death of this majestic crocodile may spark a power struggle between younger males, as they compete for dominance and therefore becoming more aggressive. This means that people living in the area could be at great risk of attack from these crocodiles and should be extra careful over the coming days and weeks.

Fitzroy River at dawn

The death of this gigantic crocodile is a clear indication of how human beings interfere with the pecking order of various species of animals. Before this crocodile died, all the smaller and younger males kept well clear of him and knew their individual places in the hierarchy. Although crocodiles are solitary by nature, they congregate in certain parts of rivers and usually tolerate one another. However, that is not the case with the saltwater crocodile which is the most aggressive and territorial of the crocodiles. It is so aggressive, that a large male will not tolerate the presence of any other male in his territory. Therefore, the largest and heaviest males have the most status and having access to the best basking sites. So when a large male crocodile is killed, it will deliberately create a power vacuum amongst younger males as they fight for dominance thus changing the balance of Fitzroy River's crocodile population. Local residents should be advised to be extra careful and the waterways of the Fitzroy River should be intensively patrolled to check for any suspicious human activity that could spell disaster for crocodiles and other wildlife.

View article here     

Sea Shepherd to Discontinue Hunt of Japanese Whalers

A Sea Shepherd ship in pursuit of Japanese whaling vessels in the Southern Ocean

The anti-whaling organization, Sea Shepherd, has recently announced that it will no longer pursue Japanese whalers. The organization had been restricting Japanese whaling vessels in Antarctica's Southern Ocean since 2005, but Captain Paul Watson, the founder of the organization, stated that the cost of dispatching vessels south, increased use of Japan's military technology to track them, and the passing of new anti-terrorism laws specifically to foil Sea Shepherd's activities made pursuing ships physically difficult. Captain Watson further added that Japanese whaling companies have strong political support, as well as all the resources and grants provided by the government. He even accused the governments of U.S, Australia, and New Zealand for being "in league with Japan." Although the governments of these three countries are opposed to commercial whaling, they have criticized anti-whaling activists for "dangerous, reckless, or unlawful behavior." Sea Shepherd has been subjected to this sort of criticism for its methods of pursuing whaling vessels, with the Japanese government labeling them as "eco-terrorists" and seeking to place Captain Watson on the Interpol watch-list. In addition, the organization was fined for contempt of a U.S court for violating a ruling not to physically attack or harass Japanese whalers. Despite strong criticism, Sea Shepherds twelve-year effort against Japan's whalers had been successful, having saved 6,500 whales.

Commercial whaling has been an ongoing issue for many years. Much of the criticism had been directed towards Japan. There had been numerous cases in which the Japanese government was summoned to court, regarding whaling. One example was seen in 2014 the Australian government took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its whaling program in the Southern Ocean, which resulted in Japan's whaling programs being condemned for being in breach of the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling. The court even refused Japan's argument that it was whaling for "scientific" reasons. A year later, Australia pursued Japan in its federal court which fined the whaling company Kyodo $1 million. The penalty has not been paid yet. Last month, Gerry Brownlee, New Zealand's foreign affairs minister, stated that he was "extremely disappointed" Japan had passed a new bill to finance its whaling fleet and expressed concern about the country's ongoing efforts to reverse the long-term international moratorium on commercial whaling. Last year, Australia, New Zealand, U.S, and the Netherlands signed a joint statement which accused the Japanese government of disregarding the ICJ order and criticized the anti-whaling activists. Whenever there is news of suspected whaling activity carried out by Japan or any other country, have the governments of U.S, Australia, New Zealand, or the Netherlands taken action by sending their federal agents to confront the perpetrators? Captain Watson indicated that countries opposed to Japan's whaling should have their ships in the southern waters to track and obstruct whaling and uphold their own laws against the practice. If the governments of U.S, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and other anti-whaling countries cannot tolerate the actions implemented by Sea Shepherd or similar organizations, then they themselves should send their fleet of ships to combat the ongoing threat of whaling.

View article here