How can China Ban the Ivory Trade But Allow Trade of Tiger Bones and Rhino Horns?

Seized rhino horns at the Department of Wildlife and National Parks headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. 

In 1993, China had banned the use and trade of rhino horns and tiger bones. But now, 25 years later, the country made an announcement that it will allow the trade of these endangered wildlife products, infuriating conservationists who urged that the move will further devastate the animals. China's State Council indicated that it would partly lift the ban to permit rhino and tiger parts to be used in scientific research, medicine, and "cultural exchanges," emphasizing that the trade will be rigorously controlled and that the parts will come from captive animals. It further added that the animals' body parts may come from licensed distributors and can only be used by certified doctors. No reason was given for the sudden lifting of the ban, but enraged wildlife activists highlighted that the move would encourage poachers and traders to accumulate goods for a country that places phenomenal value on the animals' body parts. According to wildlife trade specialist Colman O'Criodain, the prospect of laundering a tiger or rhino product would be enough to increase the poachers' activities. Experts also feared that probable consumers will look for body parts in other parts of the world, especially Southeast Asia which is rife with tiger farms and South Africa where there are lots of ranches containing rhinos.

Bengal tiger

I find it extremely shocking and sickening how China would first call for a ban on all ivory trade and now announce that it is allowing trade of other endangered wildlife products, particularly rhino horns and tiger bones. It really goes to show how two-faced China and other countries can be when it comes to protecting endangered wildlife around the world. How can you ban the trade of certain products made from the body parts of endangered species and then allow the trade of others? When an animal is endangered, then it should always be protected no matter what. But unfortunately, countries like China seem to find an exception to the rule and make poor decisions by banning the trade of endangered species for some number of years and then lift that ban which further puts the lives of such animals in jeopardy. I find this move made by China will definitely result in an increase in poaching activities towards rhinos and tigers, and therefore further push them towards the brink of extinction. I urge the Chinese government to reconsider its decision and put a stop to the trade of rhino and tiger body parts. I also urge the people of China to refrain from purchasing tiger bones and rhino bones if they care so much about the well-being of the animals and voice their support for the protection of tigers and rhinos.

View article here                  

Can Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Be Helpful in Eradicating Mosquito-borne Diseases?

A genetically modified Anopheles gambiae mosquito 

Mosquitoes have long been associated with other animals as life-threatening parasites. Although they are food for some animals such as dragonflies and damselflies, mosquitoes have been and continue to be a threat for most animals, including humans. As carriers of some of the most lethal diseases, including malaria, mosquitoes have been responsible for more human deaths throughout history than all the wars and famines combined. Despite the development in vaccination and general precautions against such diseases, mosquitoes, particularly those of the genus Anopheles, claim more than 400,000 lives every year. But recently, a brand-new experiment is being done that could change the ongoing battle against malaria. It is a new kind of genetic engineering that can quickly spread a self-destructive genetic modification through a complex species.

Plasmodium parasite; the main cause of malaria

The scientists involved in this project used an innovative gene-editing tool called CRISPR to create mosquitoes with a "gene drive," which quickly transferred a sterilizing mutation through other mosquito species. A report in Nature Biotechnology showed that nearly all regular mosquitoes were wiped out by the ones carrying the mutation in a high-security basement laboratory in London. The researchers are especially heartened because, unlike in most attempts to use gene drives, the modified mosquitoes did not seem to further mutate in a way that would belittle the effectiveness of the mutation. However, they underlined that several years of supplementary research are required to further analyze the effectiveness and safety of the approach before anyone tries to release these mosquitoes or any other organisms engineered this way into the wild. The researchers also recognized that the technology brings serious concerns, indicating that it will need an extensive political debate, meticulous regulation and the agreement of people living in any areas where the mosquitoes might be released.

Nnimmo Bassey, one of several activists opposed to the technology of using genetically modified mosquitoes against malaria.

Target Malaria, a program promoting the research, has already started comprehensive discussions with African countries where the mosquitoes could one day be released. Nonetheless, there is already strong opposition among some activists like Health of Mother Earth Foundation director Nnimmo Bassey, who stressed that Africa has become a "testing ground for a technology that no one can say is safe definitively." Others like biologist Ricarda Steinbrecher of ECONEXUS added that wiping out or greatly suppressing an entire malaria mosquito species could lead to other more questionable species coming in to fill a niche. Jim Thomas, co-executive director of an international technology watchdog organization ETC Group, voiced his concern that the gene drives could be used to develop new biological weapons. Andrea Crisanti, a molecular parasitology professor from the Imperial College London who led the research, rejected the approach that gene drives could be used to create biological weapons. Although he recognized the concerns, which have been considered by many scientific organizations, Professor Crisanti and others stressed that the possible advantages surpass the risks. The gene drive technology could also be used to significantly suppress other mosquito species, such as those that spread other life-threatening diseases like dengue and Zika. In addition, gene drives could also be used battle agricultural pests.

Standing water containing mosquito larvae

I find it extremely fascinating that a team of researchers have come up with a plan to battle mosquitoes carrying the malaria. Based on the experiments they conducted, they are hopeful that releasing genetically modified mosquitoes in countries known for malaria would change the game in the battle against the disease, especially when there are mosquitoes that are resistant to pesticides. However, I also believe that it is important to note that there is still a great need of supplementary research needed to further study the safety and effectiveness of this approach before these mutation-carrying mosquitoes are released. This is especially true considering the concerns addressed by people like Dr. Steinbrecher, who pointed out that suppressing mosquitoes carrying the malaria virus significantly could result in ecosystem crashes especially when other more problematic species fill the niche. In addition, if ordinary mosquitoes are destroyed by their genetically modified counterparts, what will happen to animals that prey on mosquitoes like dragonflies, damselflies, and mosquitofish? Will they be able to survive on the ones carrying the mutation? This is why it is highly essential to further study these genetically modified mosquitoes to prevent any possibility of an ecosystem crash. In the meantime, emphasis should continue to be placed on preventing and treating malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases through vaccination, elimination of standing water, setting up mosquito nets and window screens, wearing long-sleeved clothes, and applying insect repellents.

View article here                        

Wildlife Conservation and Hunting Groups Need to Join Forces in Mitigating Human-Grizzly Bear Conflict

A grizzly bear at the Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center in Montana

Recently, wildlife managers in the state of Wyoming have euthanized two grizzly bears suspected of killing an elk hunting guide and injuring his client near Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The two bears, a mother and her cub, are being analyzed in connection with the mauling death of hunting guide Mark Uptain and injuring of his client Corey Chubon of Florida on Friday in the Terrace Mountain area. Wyoming Game and Fish Department spokeswoman Rebekah Fitzgerald believes that all possible evidence shows that the two bears were involved in the attack. Authorities stated that the bears attacked the two men when they field dressed an elk they had shot on Thursday and found it dead on Friday. Teton County officials added that the bears charged them "aggressively," but did not touch the elk. The incident occurred weeks after a federal judge briefly stopped Wyoming state officials' plan for a grizzly bear hunt this month. The hunt, which is currently on hold until October 1, was allowed to be initiated last year when the Trump administration removed the bears from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. The delay has infuriated hunters like Sy Gilliland, who feels that the hunt is required to control the increasing grizzly bear population living near people. While groups that protested the hunt mourned Uptain's death, they also added that life-threatening encounters between grizzly bears and people occur in September and October. These incidents happen when hunters actively move in the areas where the bears are foraging for food before winter hibernation. According to Melissa Thomasma of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates, killing more bears will not only prevent other human-bear conflicts but also threaten the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.

Grizzly bear exploring its enclosure in the Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center

I really believe that it is a high time for hunting groups and wildlife conservation groups to join forces together in order to ensure the survival of the grizzly bear population around Yellowstone, including mitigating human-bear conflicts. Remaining hostile to each other based on beliefs will lead to further incidences of human-bear conflict with both bears and people, including hunters, perishing in each others' hands. I think hunting groups and its members should be thoroughly educated about the current state of the grizzly population. That is, just because the population expands beyond the borders of Yellowstone and Grand Teton does not mean that bears should be hunted. It is highly essential to thoroughly examine the grizzly bear population to see if it is "self-sustaining." Only then legal protections can be removed or not, depending on the results. In addition, hunters should refrain from hunting during the months of September and October when the bears are out foraging for winter hibernation. Or at least they should carry a bear spray, instead of resorting to firearms for protection. Without any partnership between wildlife conservation and hunting groups, the future for grizzly bears in the U.S will remain unknown.

View article here           

Wildlife Refuge in Colorado Needs to Be Thoroughly Inspected for Plutonium Content

One of the gates of Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Situated sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, in an area comprised of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands, trees, and untouched rolling prairie, there is a place called Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. This wild place houses 239 of residential and migratory species, including the endangered Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Although it appears to be a haven for wildlife and an ideal place to enjoy nature and the outdoors, Rocky Flats has a shadowy past. Before becoming a wildlife refuge, Rocky Flats was once a location of a federal nuclear weapons facility during the Cold War period from 1952 to 1989. During that time, a small community stood inside the wildlife refuge where it created grapefruit-sized plutonium spheres known as "pits" which were used as triggers for U.S.A's thermonuclear weapons. The facility closed when the Cold War ended and the area underwent a more than $7 billion cleanup and demolition supervised by state and federal agencies. The cleanup ended in 2005, with the actual site of the old buildings staying fenced off forever, while the land that used to serve as an intermediary around Rocky Flats recently reopened. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that the soil in the buffer zone was tested and concluded as safe for "unlimited use and unrestricted exposure" more than ten years ago. However, there are some skeptics like Professor Tim Mousseau of University of South Carolina who believes that the soil still contains plutonium and that even the smallest and faint particles can be inhaled and embedded in the lungs. As a result, seven local school districts have halted field trips to the area and several lawsuits are seeking to keep the refuge closed off to the public. One of the attorneys involved is Tim Gablehouse, who is representing the neighboring town of Superior. He stated that the government has not conducted a complete environmental evaluation on what the side effects could be from activities like biking and hiking, and the threat of dust from the wildlife refuge being carried into wider linked trail systems and Superior itself.

Preble's meadow jumping mouse

I strictly believe that Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge needs to be reevaluated thoroughly for plutonium content in its soil. Even though the EPA has conducted an assessment of the soil and concluded it as safe more than a decade ago, it is highly crucial that scientists and researchers double check to ensure that the soil is plutonium-free. Plutonium is a radioactive chemical element and when it gets lodged in an organism's lungs, it often stays stuck inside the organism's entire life resulting in higher risk of cancer. In the case of Rocky Flats, people would be at risk of coming into contact with plutonium by engaging in outdoor activities such as hiking and biking. In addition, even a simple gust of wind could carry plutonium-contaminated dust into the air and affect anyone or anything in the way. This is why I strongly insist it is very crucial that the wildlife refuge should stay closed to the public until a thorough scientific investigation of plutonium content is carried out. Only then will the public know whether it is safe to enter the wildlife refuge or not. Without any accurate investigation and meticulous planning to eradicate plutonium from Rocky Flats, people's lives would inadvertently be at risk of cancer and other health hazards linked to radiation exposure.

View article here                   

Can a Regional Court in Kruger National Park Help Combat South Africa's Rhino Poaching Epidemic?

One of several entrances of Kruger National Park

For the past decade, South Africa has been suffering tremendously from rhino poaching with incidents occurring in protected areas ranging from private and public game reserves to national parks, including the famed Kruger National Park. Even though poachers have been arrested and brought into custody following such incidences, majority of the cases were and probably are delayed. But now, there has been a game changer in South Africa's battle against poaching. An opening of a regional court in Skukuza, the main camp of Kruger National Park and the park's administrative headquarters, has resulted in a surge in prosecution and conviction of poachers. In addition, SANParks protection services, in partnership with the South African Police Service (SAPS) and National Defense Force, have been carrying out concerted operations at key spots in Kruger National Park where cars have been stopped and inspected for illegal contraband which includes ammunition, firearms, rhino horns, and elephant tusks. Officials stated that poaching cases have received the much-needed attention since the opening of the regional court. Patrick Sibuyi, commander of the Skukuza police station, indicated that the court is designed to not just hold trials of suspected poachers but also facilitate poaching cases that had been delayed for a long time. He further added that using dogs of the park's K-9 unit has helped in finding illicit substances and equipment, and that a local police station has made it easier for those found guilty of minor crimes like driving in the park without a license to be fined at once.

A mother southern white rhino and her calf in Kruger National Park

I find that this is a very promising news that a regional court has been opened in Kruger National Park. But what I find particularly fascinating about this court is its intention to expedite South Africa's poaching cases that have long been delayed. This will certainly prosecute and convict poachers the way they should have been in the past years when they were tried in courts outside the national park. I'm also happy to see that rhino poaching is overall on the decrease in the country, according to SANParks. However, Kruger National Park has experienced a recent surge in poaching  with at least four incidents involving white rhinos recorded in the past week and a half. In addition, a field ranger was shot dead during a shootout with the poachers last month. Eleven days later, 23 poachers were arrested and charged at the Skukuza Police Station. I clearly believe that as long as vigilance is maintained and justice is served without delay, then rhino poaching would be greatly reduced in South Africa and elsewhere in the world. The demand for rhino horns has been and continues to devastate rhino populations in Africa and Asia. Just recently, a total of 50 rhino horns worth 10 million pounds were confiscated en route to Vietnam. It is highly crucial to step up the efforts in combating the ongoing poaching epidemic that is decimating rhinos and other endangered species indiscriminately.

View article here 

Can Climate Change Have a Profound Impact on Migration Patterns of Birds?

A group of barnacle geese

There are several different species of migrating birds in the world and all of them carry out their epic seasonal journeys in various corners of the world. Each species has its own flight pattern; the most common pattern involves flying north in the spring to breed during the summer in the Arctic Circle and returning in the fall to wintering grounds in the southern regions. One such bird that conducts this kind of migratory pattern is the barnacle goose. Every spring, barnacle geese make an epic 1,800-mile long journey from northern Germany and the Netherlands to their breeding grounds in parts of Russia above the Arctic Circle. According to Dr. Bart Nolet of the University of Amsterdam and the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, the journey normally takes about a month and the birds make several stops to eat and fatten up laying their eggs. However, that migration pattern is changing due to dramatic rise in temperatures which have contributed to early springs in the Arctic. Dr. Nolet's team tracked several geese to understand how they are being affected by the earlier snow melts. Their results were published in a study in Current Biology. The one thing that has not changed is what time of year the birds start flying south. Dr. Nolet stated that they leave their wintering grounds "around the same date regardless of whether it's early or late spring in the Arctic." It is possibly because the geese "cannot predict what the weather is or what the season is up there from 3,000 kilometers distance."

Migration route of barnacle geese with wintering grounds (blue), stopover sites (yellow and diagonal grid), and breeding grounds (red).

The geese historically used to arrive just after the melting of snow and lay their eggs right away. This gives plants time to grow so that the goslings can benefit from what is known as a "food peak." But lately, the weather in parts of the birds' migratory route in the north is warmer than it used to be making them realize they are running late and are therefore forced to speed up. This month-long journey has been reduced to a week-long migratory marathon with geese flying almost non-stop from their wintering grounds to breeding grounds. Although the geese make up time on the way, they could not lay their eggs right away because they need time to rebound and forage which could take some ten more days. Dr. Nolet says that means the goslings are unable to enjoy the "food peak." That is, once the eggs hatch, the food is already degenerating in quality, and what Dr. Nolet and his team found was that goslings "survive less well in such an early ear than they do normally." He further added that the reason the geese do not set off earlier for their northbound journey is because they probably take their cue to depart based on how long daytime hours last, instead of the temperature some 1,800 miles away. Fortunately, the barnacle goose is a "flexible" species that flies in groups, meaning when few start departing early, others would follow.

Barnacle goose family in Sweden

I find this to be a clear indication of how climate change can have a profound impact on wild animals and why it should be taken very seriously. Most people generally think of climate change as melting of polar ice in vast quantities, which threatens the wildlife in the North Pole as well as the livelihood of the local population. But that is not always the case; climate change can impact the world's wildlife in a number of ways. One of the ways is shown here about how increase in temperature can influence the migration pattern of various bird species like barnacle geese. Even though barnacle geese are described as a "flexible" species when it comes to migrating in the midst of climate change, that is not always the case with other birds. For instance, shorebirds find changing climate problematic which Dr. Nolet describes as "having to do with the mismatch between food peak and hatching of eggs." In short, the rise in temperatures in the Arctic results in birds like barnacle geese out of sync with their favorite food sources. This, in turn, also results in fewer chicks surviving their early months. I firmly believe that the study conducted by Dr. Nolet and his team should be taken into serious consideration in an effort to prevent climate change from further impacting the behavior of barnacle geese and other migratory birds. These animals' migration pattern is being affected to the point where fewer offspring could survive and if no action is taken, then it can certainly result in such species falling to the brink of extinction.

View article here        

Expert Recommendation is Highly Essential in Saving India's Wildlife

Indian elephants

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has recently concluded an array of measurements, in order to reduce instances of human-wildlife conflict and electrocution of animals. These measures include establishing a task force, releasing advisories to states to facilitate notification of elephant corridors and adjustment of road projects to expedite uninterrupted movement of animals. The action is the result of an order by the Supreme Court delivered to the ministry and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) in January in response to a petition by wildlife biologist Vidya Athreya. In her petition, Dr. Athreya included an array of suggestions to better the ground situation. In February, the NBWL set up a six-member expert task force to analyze the proposals on human-wildlife conflict, safeguarding of elephant corridors to reduce conflict, wildlife deaths by electrocution, and recovery plans for the great Indian bustard. Based on a report by the task force, the NBWL made final suggestions in its last meeting on June 13 that the ministry should direct state governments to safeguard animal corridors through land acquisition or by announcing such corridors as eco-sensitive zones because of difficulties in land acquisition. The ministry, on the other hand, has also decided it may consider forming a panel in partnership with the Central Electricity Authority, Power Grid Corporation India Ltd, the power ministry, and wildlife experts to discuss measurements that will prevent electrocution of wildlife by transmission lines. On human-wildlife conflict, Dr. Athreya recommended that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change should take up a comprehensive approach consisting of extensive studies on ecological and sociological views of conflict, giving conflict management training to forest officials and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to manage wildlife conflict, among other things. The ministry indicated that it will send advisories to states on establishing SOPs for other species besides tigers and leopards that are in the midst of human-wildlife conflict. Furthermore, the expert panel and NBWL indicated that infrastructure development agencies and concerned ministries should make mandatory adjustments in designs of current roads in order to minimize wildlife fatalities on the roads.

The great Indian bustard is threatened by the installment of renewable energy power lines in its natural habitat.

I feel very glad and hopeful that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and NBWL have acted upon the order issued by the Supreme Court in reference to the petition filed by Dr. Vidya Athreya. Much of India's wildlife is and continues to be under threat from the development and expansion of man-made projects. This is especially true for critically endangered species like the great Indian bustard, whose numbers have been decimated dramatically due to the installment of renewable energy power lines in its natural habitat and is teetering on the brink of extinction. Unless serious action is taken, this magnificent bird will completely fade into history. I believe it is highly crucial that various state governments and ministries should take advisories provided by the MoEFCC and the NBWL very seriously, in order to tackle human-wildlife conflict and other issues related to the endangerment of India's wildlife. I also firmly believe that the country's political organizations and state governments should seriously consider Dr. Athreya's recommendation on tackling human-wildlife conflict. Not only does it include comprehensive studies on scientific views of the conflict, but sociological views as well. In addition, the training and SOPs provided are guaranteed to help keep both people and wildlife safe. In order to save India's wildlife and wildlife of other countries, it is extremely essential to consider and follow suggestions provided by experts who specialize in relationships between people and wildlife.

View article here