Farewell Madah and Kgosi

Featured from left to Right Madadh and Kgosi in their summer coats howling.


It's been a long time since I wrote my thoughts down on my blog. My life got so busy and writing is most of what I do so on my free time I try to do anything else. In case you are wondering grad school is going great but I will touch on that another day.

I found out the other day that Madadh passed away. If you haven't been following my past adventures, Madadh was a socialized wolf raised by Tony at Wolf Watch UK. Her and her brother Kgosi were the first wolves I got to see up close, observe and even touch. Kgosi passed away a few months ago and Madadh followed suit last week. They were both approaching nineteen years old which is  a great age to live as a captive wolf, a testament to the care and love they received from Wolf Watch UK.

I decided to write up a bit about my favorite memories with these guys as closure but also to give you a taste of what it's like to have been this close to a wolf.

The first greeting.

I still remember this like it was yesterday. I had taken an eight hour train ride, a taxi and accepted a lift from a stranger all the way to get to the tiny town where the sanctuary was close to. I was particularly nervous. This was the first time someone had actually decided to give me a volunteering opportunity close to wolves and I would be damned if an expensive long ticket would stop me(side note: Thanks dad for funding all of these expeditions. This wouldn't be possible without you).

Tony drove in and picked me up. I  introduced myself and we talked a little bit about the sanctuary. As we drove to around the typical English country side roads, a huge plot of land filled with pines arose of out nowhere. As if on cue the wolves began howling. Tony smiled and said they always howl when his jeep pulls in. I was excited.

After some brief introductions to the dogs and people present, Tony decided to show me around. First I saw Callow and Pepe. I caught a glimpse of Poppy. Then it was time for Madadh and Kgosi. These two black/gray wolves approached the fence, really happy to see Tony. He let Madadh into the large enclosure. " Kgosi is a bit grumpy around men." I didn't care. There was a wolf in the same space I was.  Madadh came up, sniffed me, jumped on and nipped my lip gently. She then started wandering the large enclosure. We walked behind her as Tony told me all about himself, the wolves and Wolf Watch UK. I was transfixed. Madadh graced me with her attention a few more time and when I finally got my hand and caressed her fur I realized how lucky I was. The fur, coarse and wolly was a great indicator that this wasn't some sort of dog. This was the real deal.  My day was made.

Even in the train ride home, riding with a muddy pair of jeans(I made a fool of myself diving in a small pond that I thought was shallower than it was. I even thought I could jump over it) and smelling of all sort of smells, all I could think of was Madadh, her eyes and how lucky I was.

Kgosi and the first hello

I was at Wolf Watch again. This time I was there for the summer. I helped around by helping with tours, feeding the wolves and all that good stuff. At night I spend time reading on wolves. I would be lying if I said I didn't get the majority of my knowledge from those nights. It's a miracle what no internet or phone signal can do.  It was another day when Tony suggested we let Madadh into the large enclosure for some enrichment. I still don't know if he did it on purpose but he also let Kgosi out with her. At that point, Kgosi has been getting food from me for about a month but we didn't interact much apart from distracting him when Madadh came out for meet and greets. Like a bullet, Kgosi came for me, sniffed me a little bit and move out. Madadh stuck around for some long deserved ear scruffs. It was until later on when me and Tony sat watching the wolves, that Kgosi decided to come and investigate.

At that point, Madadh had laid the boundaries of our relationships. Foolishly I assumed the same applied for Kgosi. I moved to pet him, my hand always visible to him. He gave me the "don't " look. The think you need to understand is that wolves aren't inherently aggressive when it comes to social interactions. Kgosi's "don't" look wasn't one that implied an attack. I wasn't in any danger.  It was simply him saying don't. Tony drew his attention and I gave him plenty of space until eventually I petted him.  It was like petting a King.

It was a different feeling between the two. Madadh was more aloof while Kgosi was more serious. None the less I grew to love them both.

Our howls

I was up in the observation post, sitting outside watching Madadh and Kgosi from afar. I've seen Tony howl to the wolves before but I never dared tried. I felt that I would look silly if it didn't work.  I was reading a book on wolf survey methods when they mentioned wolf howling surveys. It's when you hike around wolf country, howl and see what responds and where. I decided to give it a go. No one was around at the time so it would look less silly if I failed. I did my best Tony imitation and howled. No response.  I couldn't be any more embarrassed at myself. "Look at you thinking you are the wolf whisperer all of a sudden" I said as I sat back down. Then a howl. Another one. A third. A fourth. Finally a fifth. Everyone joined in. Tears rolled at the back of my eye as these wolves howled back at me. As they stopped I started again. It went back and forth for about half an hour or so.

When Tony returned I told him the news. He smiled and said that they love their back and forth howling.

Not a day went by after that when I didn't howl at the wolves.

The pond

It was a day after we did some shooting at Wolf Watch. If memory serves correctly it was Merlin but it may have been another BBC production. Tony had let Madadh out the large enclosure to roam around. We sat by the pond discussing this and that, watching Madadh play with the water. She came to us and non nonchalantly rested her head on my shoulder for a few seconds before going to Tony. That display of affection still makes me smile to this day.


The last howls

This is perhaps my most recent but most earnest memory. I hadn't visited  Wolf Watch for more than a year and a half. A lot changed in my life. I had worked at different wolf centers, I graduated(or was going to in a week) and was on my way out of the U.K, heading to Cyprus and then eventually California. I knew that after that it would be hard to ever return to Wolf Watch UK. I knew deep down that this would be my last visit for a long time.

Tony picked me up at the train station and we chatted as usual about what's going on at the center(they had a new wolf Anja) and he had met some people at Wildlife Paradise Park. It was exciting times for Wolf Watch and exciting times for me.

After the hellos to Eva and the assorted canines, Tony looked at me and said  "Well do you want to go say hello?"  I hadn't seen the wolves in a long time and although Tony and myself emailed back and forth, it's obviously a different thing. We entered the enclosure, when the now obviously senior wolves perked up. Madadh came up and said hi but Kgosi remained where he was. He eventually got up and said hello as well.  We sat down and let them come and sniff and say hello. Madah sat down and started howling. The softest howl came out. Apparently she had lost her voice and didn't try to howl as often anymore.  It was at that moment I realized that this may be the last time I ever get to see Madadh and Kgosi. I was right

Remarks

You have to understand that as remarkable that this relationship seems to you(it's my understanding that a lot people think so and for all I know I am glorifying something that wasn't as special as I make it out to be),it holds no candle to the relationship these wolves had with the man who raised them. Madadh and Kgosi loved Tony in a way that was obvious to even the most oblivious of people. Tony's love for them was the same. This is a man who decided to dedicate a large chunk of his life to helping wolves by rehoming them, raising them and making sure they aren't put down.

Madadh and Kgosi didn't just offer love, nips and fun times. They seared and sealed my passion to study and help wolves in the wild and in captivity. They offered me a first hand experience in what wolves have to offer and what wolves are about. They offered me a unique perspective in wolf life one that very few people get.

It all wouldn't be possible without Tony of course, who decided to share crumbs from his amazing relationship with these animals and gave me time and opportunities to interact with these animals but also encouraged me to pursue this. It's him I think about when it comes to loss. Thank you Tony for doing everything you did for me and letting me come close to these amazing animals. You are in my thoughts in these trying times.

Thank you Kgosi. Thank you Madadh. I will always remember the howls, the bites, the snuggles and the petting.  I will always remember the feeling of your fur. May you rest in peace wherever you may be.



No loss is too small when the bond forged was strong.





If any of you want to support Wolf Watch UK and their amazing work check out their website.

Who are you rooting for?

It's been a long time since I wrote on the blog. I got carried away with life and my masters thesis so I haven't had a chance to put my thoughts down in a blog post. Never the less, here I am and I have a few things in my mind.

The first thing(and what I will talk about today) is predators. I was thinking about this while watching  the BBC series "The Hunt". I love predators and I am sure anyone reading the blog knows that. I just think that the way these animals live and hunt is extraordinary. They have to rely on themselves to survive and while the same goes for herbivores(since they have to rely on themselves to not get eaten), it feels different with predators.

During a very vivid scene of orcas hunting a baby humpback whale, I found myself rooting for the orcas and hoping they make the kill. It occur to me however that someone else might be rooting for the baby humpback to escape and survive. I pondered on that thought a little and thought that in the end of the day it may have something to do with human psyche and what is your outlook on life. I don't mean it in a " strong people root for predators, weak people root for herbivores" situation. A lot of herbivores are pretty badass.

What I mean exactly is the outlook on life and how you perceive it. Speaking from personal experience, people rooting for the prey tend to be more empathetic towards everyone and tend to have a larger picture view of life. They plan their life and set goals they want to achieve later in their life. People rooting for predators tend to trust only "their own" people and tend to prefer living in the moment with their plans not ranging that far into the future. They have a general idea of what they want to do later on but the  words "we will see" tend to come in mind.

This is of course a very gross generalization of humanity, one of the most complex species on the planet.  Of course there will be people who won't match these boxes and of course there will be people who will disagree with what I say.

But that's not really what I want to get through today. Whether you agree with what I say or not, I believe in what I am saying. So what that says about me as a human? I think that we have this tendency to take certain things from nature and project them into how we believe the world works. It's impossible to prevent ourselves from doing that. Ultimately the question isn't should we do that, but rather what is it that we do? What elements of our world perception come from our observations in nature and what is instilled by society. Can we overcome certain beliefs through our experience with nature?

When I first started being interested in nature, I found myself believing that predators were the best. They are highly adaptable killing machines. "Why would anyone root for anything else? Deer are stupid grass eating things and humpbacks just swim around. " It's only by learning more and observing more that I learned that prey species aren't all that stupid after all. Humpbacks will defend gray whales and their calves with possibly no other motive but altruism. Deer will move in herds to prevent themselves from being attacked. Other species have learned to look at patterns to prevent predation.

So much like nature, our perception of the world is ever evolving and what we take from nature constantly changes the more we observe and live in it.

Troubling times

I was going to try my best to fill this blog with optimistic news. I was going to mention how excited I was with my new project and the fact that I am closer to finishing my masters but today I learned about the EPA being frozen. People say it's not really a big deal but I am here to tell you why it is.

Unfortunately a large amount of grant money that funds environmental research comes from the EPA and other federal foundations. The lack of funding means that a lot of research has been halted and alternative funding sources are going to get a lot more competitive in the future. This means that research that was vital may be sidetracked for something deemed to be more important by the funding agencies that still work. All of us in the research departments already know how competitive grants are and with a freeze this big it means a lot less research is going to be carried out.

The hiring freeze will also have a lasting impact. The  sector is highly competitive when it comes to jobs and this freezing means that people trying to work for the environment will have to take any job they get which means that less and less people will be hired and therefore will be proved to go into the private sector. While that's not necessarily bad, a lot of people that hoped to work in Government agencies(myself included) will have to compete twice as much.

It's hard to say exactly what's going to happen. However the record shows that the current administration will probably work more for money rather than the protection of the environment.  This isn't particularly encouraging when you consider that some of the chair positions don't believe in climate change which is deemed to be the most worrying subject in the research community. It isn't always gloom but these are the times we live in.  All we can really hope for is to fight for the environment and what it stands for.

Millennials and wildlife

Recently a trend that starting popping up on my Facebook and Twitter feed involves a series of articles and studies on how Millennials are having a hard time engaging with nature. A few articles such as National Geographic  try and create a picture that the millennial generation needs a different encouragement to engage and visit National Parks. Others such Business Insider just say that Millennials simply don't care about nature. I thought I would just give my two cents on the subject while trying to be as civil as possible.

For starters let's start with the obvious which is the socioeconomic position that  Millennials are in. Many people in this current generation are struggling to find jobs and to support housing etc. If you do happen to get a job it's often one that doesn't pay a lot and demands a lot of your time. So in my opinion one of the main reasons why Millennials aren't in National Parks every weekend or are out experiencing nature is because we simply don't have time. If you get one day off after an eight or twelve hour shift then it's most likely that you will use that time to do chores around the house or catch up on your social life.  Let's not forget that a lot of jobs nowdays are often taken home. By that I mean that even if your 9-5 job is done, most jobs have documents etc that you need to catch up on. 

Despite that fact that National Parks are a relatively cheap destination backpacking and camping aren't, You need a car or mode of transportation to reach the area and if you want a good set of hiking books, a good backpack and a decent sleeping bag and tent then it all adds up. Sure it's often a one off investment since these items tend to last for a long time but the initial investment can be steep for someone barely scraping by(which is often the case with Millennials). 

It's always the case with these articles that go after a newer generation. If you decide to tour all National Parks and engage with nature you are called " lazy" and that you live off your parents' money and aren't contributing to society. If you decide to work then you don't engage enough with national parks and so forth and so forth. It's a vicious cycle that simply won't let go. 

Now on to another issue. The fact that Millennials need to be always plug into the grid. That Millennials won't visit wilderness areas because they get no signal. This is true for some people that's not often the case. The ability to disconnect is in fact one of the reasons why myself and friends enjoy visiting wilderness areas. The ability to zone out, sit down and stare at a fire or read a book by the coast is a small luxury  in a world that is often over flooding us with information and news.

I also want to say that although our generation seems to be on the grid, it doesn't mean it can't appreciate wilderness. There are entire websites, subreddits etc dedicated to the beauty of nature. At any point during the day I can view pictures of mountain ranges, forests etc that I have never visited before in my life. I can have a much broader perspective of the world and of nature. I can watch scenes featuring wildlife that I will probably never have a chance to witness in real life. The idea that we are a generation obsessed with staring at our screens needs to stop. Some of us may be but then again every generation has some rotten apples.

Campaigns such as #findyourpark, help engage those of us who may have never considered visiting a park or had no idea how close a national park is to them. However ultimately I think it's up to the parents as well as your age. When you are a child you find nature wonderful. As you grow up new experiences tend to take preference over nature. There are electronic games and later on flirting and drinking. That doesn't mean that our generation doesn't appreciate nature. It just means that for some time we choose to focus on something else.

Perhaps another fact which makes it seem as if millennials don't choose to hang out at National Parks is the accessibility of travelling. It is easier than ever to jump on a plane and go somewhere you have never been before. Sure it takes money(see my point above) but if you can do it then why would you visit a local National Park? The park will be there when you return but a cheap ticket to the otherwise side of the world is fleeting. So most people my generation tend to travel when possible because we all know that eventually travelling won't be as easy. Whether it's family, a job or simply age, travelling is a concept that always seems like it's going to experience. So we opt for that option because the local parks will always be there. Perhaps a better way is to explore whether millennials attend other parks abroad. Perhaps some sort of age study may support my thoughts.

Overall though it's a false accusation. Our generation has embraced National Parks, public lands and wildlife as much as any other. Online campaigns to stop cullings, to stop pipelines and to preserve public lands are thriving. For us national parks aren't just a place to visit but also a place to defend, write about, tweet about and facebook. We share our information fast and we like getting information fast. However in the end of the day when we are around a campfire staring towards the beautiful landscape of Yosemite/Yellowstone or in my case the West of Scotland, everyone falls quiet and just absorbs nature. As much as other generations want to separate us from nature, the primordial spirit will forever be there.

Should California reintroduce Grizzly Bears?

It's been a busy month for me. Between the job and my Masters I hardly had time for thinking about wildlife. However recently I became aware of a new campaign that attempts to bring back the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) back to California. For those not aware, the grizzly bear is part of the Californian state flag and features in a lot of paraphernalia regarding California. However the actual species has been extinct  since 1922/1924. This was mostly due to gold fever and the human settlement in California. Human presence meant that grizzles were rapidly hunted and persecuted.

Now a new movement seeks to reintroduced the grizzly back to California, thus restoring some native pride and increasing the biodiversity.  I have to admit that I don't think it's a good idea just yet.

First things first, the habitat proposed is in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Whilst there is ample habitat there, it neighbors the Central Valley which is inhabited and also is the main agricultural center of California. Conflict is bound to occur sooner than later since bears are wanderers. Bears wander around to mate but also to find food. Not only that they maintain large territories that could include ranches and farms. This means high tensions from the start which is not how you want to start a reintroduction. Campers and hikers may not mind the presence of grizzly bears so much however people's whose property borders the potential habitat will likely come into conflict with these bears. Although grizzlies tend to have relatively low depredation rates, bears also tend to utilize trash cans more frequently than other predators. Therefore it is more likely to see grizzlies entering private property more often. Not to mention the fact that bears are omnivores, therefore certain farms that grow fruit may act as attractants for the bears.

So let's put the human/wildlife conflict and focus on simple ecological facts. Although the Sierra Nevada is suitable habitat, the grizzlies will have almost nowhere to disperse from there. Some of them may find themselves in Northern California where there is more suitable habitat but everywhere else is just fragmented habitats. One of the largest conservation challenges faced is habitat fragmentation and introducing a species to a fragmented habitat goes pretty much against the IUCN reintroduction guidelines.  Not only that but deer population is decreasing in California and with the drought, resources will be limited for a reintroduction as well as for the initial population to thrive.

There are however certain pros that come out of it. First things first, it's a case of practice what you preach One of the issues that developing nations seems to have with western countries asking them to conserve areas/species, is that it's easy for those countries to preach since they don't tend to have much to conserve or have already exploited all their national  resources for progress. Reintroducing grizzly bears will show that California and to an extent the U.S.A value their native wildlife and will aim to conserve it. In addition to that it will show other nations that the U.S is willing to conserve larger species that create conflict, a criticism that always comes from nations that have to deal with predator conservation.

Furthermore the presence of grizzlies will bring in more tourism as wildlife tends to attract more tourist. Increased tourism will mean increased capital which means that more habitats may be conserved if the government and the general public see some value in nature.

Overall however, reintroducing the grizzly should be something that's far away on a Californian's mind. Although it seems good in practice, the complications that could arise from such program would be too much to be worth reintroducing the grizzlies to limited habitat. California despite it's beauty and wilderness is densely populated and quite frankly should focus on saving other endangered species endemic to California. Though the grizzly may return at some point, there are others that need more dire help and soon.

Fan mail Q&A

Hello everyone,

As June goes by I decided to dedicate a blog post to answer a few of the emails I have gotten in one fell swoop. Names are obviously changed etc to preserve anonymity. As always if you have any questions feel free to email me at petroschrysafis@gmail.com

Q1: How will the U.K leaving the E.U affect the environment and the policies in place?

A: That's a good question. I don't know the specifics of E.U law but I do know that the E.U has certain laws that are set in place to protect migratory birds, nest sites as well as certain habitats all of which were protected in the U.K under E.U law. Therefore the U.K leaving the E.U means that may choose to manage those sites as they wish which may affect species if those sites/species aren't managed as they are in the E.U. For example if a specific species of geese is shot in the U.K but protected in the E.U it would have been protected under E.U law but now it will not. 

That being said there are a few ways this can change. Usually countries sign international law agreements so the U.K can participate in species/site conservation in the same way as the rest of the E.U. if it wishes.

Perhaps the biggest issue is the funding for conservation/research. The E.U. has money set aside to fund conservation efforts and research as well as money used by reserves and incentives for landowners to manage their land in specific ways. With that money gone the U.K government may either have to compensate the landowners and provide funding to reserves etc or conservation efforts may be undercut. 

Q2: What are your plans right now and the future?

A: Currently I am studying at CSU, Fresno doing a mixture of behavioural ecology and urban ecology. As for the future I am hoping to direct my studies back to wolves and mix behavioural ecology with conservation.

Q3: I live in Northern California, in what is now wolf country. A lot of people are saying that it's good but a few have mentioned " accidentally" shooting them. With the wolves moving further down what's going to happen to them?

A: First of all the Shasta Pack is doing very well. New images surfaced and they are a beautiful pack. Secondly there have been reports of another wolf in Lassen Country which is still unconfirmed. As it stands wolves in California are protected under the State and Federal laws so it would be illegal if any wolves are killed. Reporting individuals which say that they will kill wolves will amount to nothing sadly as it could just be an act. What  is going to happen is hard to tell but hopefully there will be a healthy population soon enough and wolves will live in California undisturbed by humans.

Q4: How far do you expect Pacific wolves to venture into California?

A: My guess is that undisturbed they will make it into the Sierra Nevada and edge on the Central Valley. That is going to be the proving grounds in terms of conservation efforts. The Central Valley is largely agricultural so depredation will likely occur. Now whether agricultural owners are going to be okay with compensation/coexistence remains to be seen. 

I doubt they will make it past Yosemite to be honest but wolves always seem to surprise. In fact wolves may move into Southern California if there ever is more progress in the Mexican wolf front.

That's all the questions I have. Thank you to everyone which send me emails asking me about my opinion on certain things and don't be afraid to send me more emails if want to know my opinion on anything else.

About the foxes in Cyprus

                                         (Photo credit: Patrick Callaby)


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.