There are two topics I would like to discuss this week. One of them being the shooting of a gorilla in a zoo and the second in the red fox(Vulpes vulpes) in Cyprus. I choose to start with the fox since I've expressed my opinion on zoos and management a few times in this blog.
Cyprus is a small island in between Egypt and Turkey. It's got a variety of habitats that are representative of it's location at the equator. From shrublands to wetlands to pine forests, Cyprus manages to cram a lot of biodiversity in such a small space.
The main topic if discussion environmentally wise is the fox. Over the last few years, Cyprus red foxes have seemingly increased in numbers. In fact so much that Cyprus Game and Fauna service have deemed that it should be "managed". In fact some people have already taken law in their own hands and have killed a few of them. Never the less, the reasoning behind the control of fox populations is the fact that fox numbers have now surpassed rabbit numbers which according to Game and Fauna is indicative of an unhealthy ecosystem as the predator has surpassed it's prey's population. Well there are a few things wrong about that so let's get started.
First things first: Every basic predator-prey relationship demonstrates a fluctuation in population numbers. Prey numbers go up while predator numbers are low, predator numbers increase causing a decline in prey and the predator numbers drop due to a declining prey population. It's ecology 101. So fox numbers being high means that there will likely be a drop next year due to lack of prey.
Assuming of course that foxes feed on just rabbits which they don't. Predator-prey models are only valid in a closed system or for predators with a very specific diet. In the fox's case, it's not so. Foxes are omnivores which means they can sustain themselves on pretty much anything. So fox numbers might still increase despite prey numbers dropping. Of course foxes will switch prey if they can't find rabbits.
So if foxes can't be controlled by prey then what can they be controlled with? Well one answer is disease and parasites. Overpopulated areas are more likely to be vulnerable to contagious diseases and parasites which can result in population declines. Another answer is intraspecific competition. Although foxes aren't known for killing each other in territorial disputes, the stronger foxes will push out others into less suitable territory which will result in poor living conditions and possibly death.
What is more a habitat has what we call carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is defined by how much of each species can survive on a habitat's resources. So nature has a system in place to keep predators at bay. However that's not to say that foxes will never need management. All I am saying is that it's too early to decide.
What needs to be done at this point is simple:
1)Monitor the fox population yearly and seasonally: Find out how many pups are born, where foxes den, how many there are etc.
2)Study fox diet: Scat samples can show us much more on the diet composition of the fox.
3)Game and Fauna Service should release their study to the public. Last time I checked their methods were outdated and not accurate. An independent consultant should be employed to run independent monitoring to make sure the numbers match up.
4)Enforcement should be present: Foxes should only be managed by officials and not everyone else
5)Observe fox population for at least three year and then make the decision.
6)Management should be scientifically accurate. Decisions should be made using ecologists to ensure a sustaining population
7)Priority should be given to areas where foxes could cause conservation issues such as endangered bird nesting grounds or agricultural areas.
8)Last but not least: Hire some new blood. New blood in the Forestry department and the Game and Fauna will ensure that the science remains up to date and that we don't rely on just a few aspect of ecology to determine management.
No comments:
Post a Comment