Zoos

This is an issue that bothers me a lot. The cries from people to stop zoos and release the animals seems to be increasing and public outcry about the captive conditions of some animals seems to be forcing zoos to reconsider their policies. I should point out that this is only dealing with zoos as marine parks, such as SeaWorld will be covered another time.

Zoos have positive and negative aspects but I am not going to lie when I say I support some of the zoos out there. Don't get me wrong, I believe that animals should be born free and live free but zoos do have some benefit Firstly zoos can offer stock for genetic variation and can take part in vital conservation work as with the Mexican wolf, the Sumatran and south china tiger as well as the pandas. Several conservation efforts are in part funded through zoos and some of these efforts may have not even started if it wasn't for zoos as public are more likely to donate money when they have seen an animal close up.

What is more, zoos have what I like to call an "exposure effect". People get to see animals up close and in person. Although people will argue that you can see animals in documentaries and online I can guarantee to you that it's a lot different to see animals up close. It usually makes little difference in adults but any difference counts. Even if one of those adults decides to look up tiger conservation, Scottish wildcat conservation and so forth and donate money or time towards a species conservation, then that is a small victory for conservationists everywhere. However in my opinion children are the group which benefits most about zoos. Sure zoos might at points give misinformation and sure children may get upset if animal living conditions are poor, but children are the ones who are more influenced by zoos rather than anyone else. A lot of the people I tend to talk to in my degree and other wildlife related degrees all agree that they do it because they love the animals and the environment. Not all of us however were lucky enough to have an animal experience which actually took place in the wild. For me the first wild animal experience  that I remember wasn't until I was ten years old and saw humpbacks of the East coast of the United States. Until then I was content with the zoo we had in Cyprus(which featured animals in horrible conditions), the rare wild animals of Cyprus and the museums. It was only through documentaries and the zoo that I grew up to love animals. As most children are fascinated by animals in the first place, a visit to the zoo only enhances that fascination. If from a school trip, three or four children end up being fascinated with animals and support a cause then again some small victories are gained.

On the negative side, the demand to see these animals causes animal captures, captive breeding where it may not be necessary and in the end some animals ending up in poor conditions. Not all zoos have proper living conditions for their animals and even so some animals may not be suitable for captive conditions and just die. A lot of animals die every year because of poorly managed zoos, bad living conditions, transportations, vet operations and so forth and this is a sad truth.  Although a lot of zoos are beginning to clean up their acts, provide better habitats for the animals and started aiding conservation efforts there is still a long way to go.

In my opinion zoos are a necessary evil. There may be a time when traveling is cheap and easy and the chance to see a wild lion is only a weekend and a few dollars but for now with travelling still being expensive for some, animals being elusive and rare in the wild, and the demand to see animals up close then zoos will remain around. All we can hope for is that the captive animals live a decent life and the zoos aid conservation efforts.

Why the Wolf

Today I will go on a more personal note because I want to answer the question people ask me constantly. Why choose the wolf? Although I am still studying my undergraduate and don't have any official plans, my main focus is either wolf research or orca research or both. Carnivore research/conservation really interests me  but I prefer to specialize on wolves and orca. So when people ask me why choose the wolf I find myself wondering. I still haven't seen that animal in the wild. So why choose it?

I could tell you that I have some sort of connection with the animal, I could tell you that I admire the animal and that it fascinates me and I wouldn't be lying. Instead I want to say that it's not merely that. There is an aura of wilderness that surrounds the wolf. It's reintroduction to Yellowstone and the number increase in the United States represents one of the most successful conservation stories in the world. The findings from the ongoing research on wolves managed to change the wolf's image from a feral, demonic, bloodthirsty animal that would attack on sight to one of a species key to an ecosystem, a loyal family member and shaper of habitats. This alone fascinates me. The way in which the view for such animal changed in a span of ten to twenty years is alone enough to intrigue me and make me want to study this animal.

The wolf for me also represents intolerance and the clash in the West. I am not from the United States and I have never heard our farmers and ranchers complain about predators so when I first heard of  people complaining for an animal causing that much trouble in the livestock industry I began researching it. Despite the wolf taking very few livestock every year it finds itself in the crosshair of ranchers and hunters who seek to blame the wolf, the bears and the cats for livestock depredation. Hunters claim that the elk, deer and mouse have been declining in numbers and blame the wolf. It's all about the intrinsic politics, the interest in states to side with conservationists or hunters/ranchers ( basically where the money and favors lay) which also interesting seeing as an animal can have that big impact in society. People rally to the banners of conservationists and wolf lovers while hunters and ranchers try to defend their own rights. Few things have brought such as schism in modern society than the love and hatred of predators.  

Mainly however it is the animal itself. There is something about the wolf. A social animal and an efficient hunter it can bring down animals on their own. However it does a lot better forming packs, sacrificing mating rights and perhaps risking eating less for social contact and comfort. Although a lot of things can be explained by genetics, physiology etc I am more intrigued by the brain of the wolf. The fact that the whole pack rejoices when wolf pups are born and they come out to play. The fact that the pack tolerates these pups playing, protects them and will even protect older members in some cases when they cannot hunt.  There is something sentient about that, something sentient that cannot be denied by people who observe the wolf. It is why people, including myself are so intrigued to watch documentaries and hear stories about wolf packs and feel happy or sad when events occur.

Although I have love for all the animals around, the wolf is one of those animals that managed to win me over, to make me want to defend it, study it and watch it roam free and wild where it should be and that is why I choose the wolf.

Animal Rights 2:Pets

I want to talk to you about pets and the arguments some people use. Should pets have more rights? And so forth and so forth. 
For starters several countries in Western Europe as well as the United States and Canada and Australia have all adopted strict regulations when it comes to animal cruelty and animal rights. But are these enough?

I come from Cyprus, a small island in the E.U, where animal rights barely matter. Few movements are starting to appear and they are requesting animal policing and better animal laws. It is a new thing in Cyprus for people to care about animal welfare. What kind of rights should animals have and where do we draw the line between laws affective animals and laws affecting humans.

 Senseless beatings and abuse of animals. This is one thing that really grinds my gears. Want to yell and scream at your pet? Although it does make me uncomfortable and I disagree, it is like parenting  so I kinda can't intervene although I don't like it. However beating up or abusing your pets is a horrible act. Should it be punished the same way as a human being abuse? I hear people saying yes. I am okay with that. I want the same rights for animals and humans. However others don't feel so comfortable with this and need to distinguish themselves from animals due to potential, sentience etc. People argue that the penalty for human murder shouldn't be the same as  an animal  but others argue that if you are willing to torture or kill animals then you are capable of doing the same thing with animals.
 For me it really doesn't matter. I want those people punished. I want them to be punished severely. Whether it is the same as a human equivalent, worse or better I don't mind although I prefer equal rights. As long as the sentence is severe enough to either discourage or punish the perpetrators then I am happy.

Pets in restaurants and public places. This is perhaps the least of our worries but they are important to some. Should pets be allowed in public places such as restaurants, pubs etc? I honestly see no reason not to. If the pets are behaving properly and there are no hygiene reasons(for example a dog or cat pooping in the restaurant, potentially poisonous pets etc) then I see no reason as to why animals shouldn't be allowed in public places. My question however is, should we bring them there? 
A lot of animals have sensitive hearing. Bringing a dog to a restaurant/cafe/pub that plays music that is louder than normal may mean that the animal will suffer. Usually they will show it but just as humans can tolerate loud noises so can some animals. It doesn't mean they enjoy it, but rather that they just tolerate it because they have no other place to go. So maybe we shouldn't be as sensitive about leaving our pets at home or with someone with a little while as we go out. If not then pet friendly places may be a choice. If they don't exist then I agree that they should be introduced, with the government offering incentive to owners allowing pets.

Overall although pets are much better off in Western countries the situation is still bad in a lot of places in the world. Even so regulations need to be stricter and more monitored. But perhaps instead of that maybe we should focus on making sure that the rest of the world shares the same views with us on pets.  

Zoologists should know their birds

This is clearly my opinion but it is something that I really had to find out the hard way. Zoologists should know their birds. It is an essential skills. I never paid that much attention to birds and I hate to admit it but it was wrong of me.

Birds are a great indicator of the ecosystem's health. The more variety of birds that can be seen then the more healthy the ecosystem is. In addition to that, if rare or elusive birds are spotted in large numbers that usually means that the habitat is unspoiled or well preserved. This is a great tool for zoologists and ecologists alike as with some knowledge you can estimate the health of the ecosystem as well as get a general idea of what flora might be available around.

In addition to that you can obtain some bearings in regards to the habitat you are in. Although most people tend to know where they are most of the times, birds tend to be a good indicator if you entering different habitats. For example different birds can be seen on the borders of forests rather than inside the forest or in forests close to the sea. This is how you can identify edges of different biomes or habitats. It is a useful tool as it may lead to observations regarding some animals who partake in a migratory pattern.

Birds also tend to be a living indicator of events that are happening all around you. If you spot scavenger birds circling an area then there is a kill or a corpse around. What is more sudden spurs of birds flying around, loud chirpings and warning calls may be an indicator that predators are approaching or are on the prowl. In addition to that birds usually are a good indicator of weather patterns as well as they usually can feel climatic shifts. A skilled observer may be able to predict rainfall or storms through behavioral patterns of birds.

Although some may find that birds lack of interested, bear in mind that a lot of birds or their nests are usually targets for all sorts of different animals. Thus knowing which birds nest when and where might be the key to tracking down other species. An example will be foxes which usually prey on all sorts of birds and their nests. Spying on bird nests or setting camera traps usually is a good way to capture foxes while they are out foraging.

Although there is no harm if your knowledge of birds is limited, I found that the more I learn about birds the more observant I become of things all around me and I have only starting learning about different species of birds during the summer. It's a nice piece of knowledge to have and one which one day may be handy.

Are we approaching a globalised ecosystem?

I promised to talk about animal rights but this is a theory that I thought about while studying for my Conservation Biology course and so I thought I'd share it before it escapes my mind . Are we indeed approaching a globalised ecosystem due to our influence?
 

A lot of changes are occurring on our ecosystems. Animals go extinct, habitats are lost and invasive species seem to out compete native species. Most of this due to human interference. Some conservationists argue that humans are keystone species as they shape their environments. Others argue that we have distanced ourselves too much from nature and thus we aren't shaping nature but rather destroying it. For the sake of this article we shall assume that humans are shaping nature. Human actions contribute to global warming which in fact results to habitat loss for arctic species. Animals such as polar bears in North America are now recently seen to migrate further down into grizzly territory and vice versa since the climate is not as cold for grizzlies now. This results in hybridization, with the two species producing hybrids. This is also apparent with whale species , bird species and so forth. With human interference, nature is removing an individual habitat and merge the wildlife there, with other wildlife in other habitats adopting a "merge or die" ideal. So plants which are more efficient but wouldn't survive in arctic habitats now may climb up on latitude and out compete  the natives there and hence resulting to that plant being more predominant in those areas where it wasn't before.

In addition to that humans have moved wildlife around for a variety of reasons such as hunting, food source etc.  This wildlife may be more efficient  and hence outcompete native animals or predate on them. That wildlife is not and wouldn't probably  be in those areas. For example the American mink in the United Kingdom would never be here if it wasn't for the fur trade. The American mink is causing major problems by preying on water voles and other native animals.  Also the grey squirrel is outcompeting the red squirrel which may be driven to extinction.  All of this due to human interference in the past.  In the future these animals may be all that we see being as they are the most efficient at resource gathering, at avoiding each other and will not have any other animals which could out compete them. 

Finally with deforestation, overfishing and human development some habitats are lost forever and replaced with others. Those are either towns, farms, sustainable forestry etc but they won't be the habitat they were before. Not all of those animals are likely to survive in their new habitats and hence may die out. In the long run all these new habitats will consist of all the same animals such as urban foxes, crows, pigeons etc.

So we are looking at the creation of globally similar ecosystems. Think about it. Grizzles will merge with polar bears, wolf subspecies are likely to mingle, gray squirrels will be more widespread and so forth. Basically if humans are part of nature then we are facing ourselves with ecosystems that may be purely based on latitude and climate rather than other factors which may affect biodiversity.

Allow me to elaborate. Three hypothetical animals, all live in the same habitat and feed the on the same resource. Deer 1, Deer 2, Deer 3. Deer 1 is found only in the U.S.A, Deer 2 in Eastern Europe and Deer 3 in Japan. Deer 2 is the most efficient deer and would out compete all the others. Explorers and conquerors  took Deer 2 from Eastern Europe to Japan and from there to the U.S.A. Unless conservation managements occur,Deer 2 will take over all those habitats.   Also wolf 1 lives in the arctic and wolf 2 in the boreal areas. Normally wolf 2 would be too cold, or would not be able to efficiently hunt animals in wolf's 1 habitat. Wolf 2 is more adapted to his habitat so he doesn't venture into wolf's 1 habitat. With global warming wolf 2 is losing his habitat and is forced into wolf 1 habitat to find more food and habitat. Same wolf 1 now has a wider habitat to explore and exploit. Those two meet and breed producing hybrids. These hybrids may be better than wolf 1 and wolf 2 and so natural selection will lead to the rise of these  wolf 1 and 2 hybrids.

All of these mechanizations will lead to a more streamlined ecosystem  where the same animals will be common in most regions and biodiversity will suffer. Being as we are the drivers behind this, is this an intentional act of nature or we simply messing things up? Bear in mind though that this will take years to happen and may be reversible as habitats begin to form again and natural selection takes its course again.