It's a trap

It's Autumn. A season which can be considered an important one in wildlife terms. Bird migrations occur, animals prepare or enter hibernation and for most animals this will be the season where they leave their parents' nest. Today I want to focus on a particular wildlife threatening "custom"that occurs in the Mediterranean and sadly enough is dominant in my home country Cyprus. Illegal bird trapping. In this article I will try and raise awareness of what problems this illegal trapping is causing and dispel some of the myths that people use to justify their trapping.

Blackcap or "Ambelopoullia"as they are called in Cyprus are a small bird that uses the Mediterranean as a migration route. They are considered a delicacy for the locals and a small plate of 12 birds can cost around 60-80 Euros to buy. They are trapped by the use of mist nets, which are laid across tree areas(much like nets used to catch birds for ringing) or the use of lime sticks. Lime sticks are sticks prepared with either industrial glue or an organic glue made from the gum that comes from a specific tree. The glue is laid on the sticks which are placed in between tree branches. The birds sit on the sticks are are stuck their, often suffering a slow, torturous death.

Many organizations are trying to stop the practice and the European Union has prohibited the practice from it's country members. Despite it's cruel nature of trapping the birds,it is not bird welfare that is the first thing that is troubling about this particular practise. Conservationists are against this method because it's non selective. The birds that are caught in the nets or on the limesticks are either killed by the poacher or die from stress. Due to the Mediterranean being a major migration route for a lot of different birds it means that all sorts of bird species are in danger of being caught in this poaching activity. Pictures from conservation and activist organizations show endangered birds meeting an unjustified death. This is one of the problems that people tend to neglect. Locals refuse to understand what non selective trapping can do. It is impossible to estimate the damage done to the endangered bird species or in fact all the bird species and because of its illegal nature it means that either all sorts of birds are sold as blackcaps(reports of robins and other small birds processed and eaten is all too common) or the corpses discarded, buried or feed to other animals. So data is hard to come by but BirdLifeCyprus estimates that about 2.5 million birds are killed every year in two trapping seasons. About 152 species are caught, 78 of those are considered endangered. And these numbers are concerning Cyprus. The practise occurs in Malta, Italy and Spain as well as other regions of the Mediterranean. So imagine the numbers adding up.

Another sad misconception is that the practise is legal. It is not. Although through lax laws and law enforcement in the past the practise was all but illegal, EU Directive2009/147/EC has prohibited such practise. It is a black market industry that has been estimated to an overall turn around profit of 15 million euros a year. Many of the big time poachers are either part of the organized crime or working for it. Thus the money are often used to fund organized crime activity. Small time poachers are usually the ones that make mistakes that allow to their capture while big time poachers often evade the law. Not only that but the fine is often around 600-800 euros which is nothing compared to the thousands of euros that can be made by trapping in one season. So although the fine might discourage some it will unlikely made a dent in those seasoned enough to comprehend the fact that the fine is nothing but a minor setback at best. A little known fact is the loss of approximately 40 million euros each year in the tourist industry. Countries such as Cyprus which are a major migratory route for birds, are often visited by keen bird watchers. These bird watchers are usually repulsed by the trapping and hence choose not to visit and in fact will also very likely spread the word, harming the country's tourist industry. Not only but even regular tourists are disgusted by the idea and hence either leave the country and never visit or refrain from visiting at certain times.

Overall non selective bird trapping can be combated. With local knowledge as well as an active anti-poaching task-force from the government the poachers may be arrested. However it is up to locals to stop supporting restaurants that serve blackcaps, report any activities and shun the so called “tradition”of eating blackcaps and in the end stop supporting the industry all together. Only then, when the trappers realise that no profit can be made will the illegal trapping actually stop and the bird migrations will occur undisturbed. 

Are hunters the devil?

Today’s issue is one that I have been thinking about since this particular article was released. WARNING:EXTREME ANIMAL TORTURE PICTURES:(http://www.examiner.com/article/wolf-killers-admit-it-s-all-about-the-sadistic-sexual-thrill). This ladies and gentlemen is a disgrace. People posting pictures of their kills in social networks and being proud or provocative about it is a disgrace to nature and humanity. However as much as some advocates like to hate hunters, should be generalized? Are all hunters evil,sadistic beings?

The issue is unfortunately often one of two extremes. On one corner you have hunters who are well educated, know their ecology as well as their quarry. Some of them hunt for the meat and others for sport however this hunter class is one that often respects nature or at least their game. They are observant individuals whose idea of appreciating an animal is to track it down. There is something primitive about returning to your own roots and hunt game once more. In addition to that a lot of hunters tend to respect animals such as wolves because of the challenge they provide. In fact local hunters and fishermen are often used in scientific surveys and by conservation These individuals however are decreasing or rather overshadowed from the other side of the hunter coin.

The other side unfortunately is the dark side. People who show no respect to nature whatsoever. Hunters who will gas wolf pups, ride crippled elk,  set dogs on a trapped coyote and will shoot birds just for fun. These are the hunters who will provoke advocates , activists and general nature lovers. I have no kind word for these people.  Although not the general population these people tend to give hunters a bad name all together. In this case hunters find themselves in the same situation that so many other groups do. Christians and the Westboro Church, Muslims with extremists and so forth. It is clear that these particular disturbed individuals  have issues that they decide to take on nature and unfortunately there are worldwide.  Can something be done? I highly doubt it. By removing hunters all together then some wildlife management will be challenging. In addition to that it is unfair for some hunters to be prohibited from hunting because of these individuals. My solution would be for the isolation of these individuals. For genuine hunters who re nature loving hunters to show the world that they are not like them. To isolate such groups and deal with them accordingly through a police force dedicated to wildlife.

It is easy to blame hunters for messing up conservation efforts. It is easy for them to be targeted by advocates or vice versa. The important thing to remember is that there are individuals that are not abusing or just enjoy killing. My advice would be not to let them rattle you are up or upset you. These individuals will always exist and the more power you give them over you, the worse effect will have on you.

Video game animals

Video games are an ever increasing medium of entertainment and storytelling. With the variety of stories told it is no wonder that in some of them animals will feature either as part of the scenery or even part of the storyline. Today I want to discuss an issue with you. Are animals represented accurately in video games, should we even care and should animal violence be present in them.

Hunting games aside, I believe that animals are present in a variety of popular games. Pretty much all the games revolving around fantasy will have some sort of predatory animal as an adversary at some point and a lot of open world games will feature birds or even mammals for ambiance. Which leads to the first point. Animals as adversaries. Personally I don't mind it. Although it may pain some people to shoot or stab virtual wolves or bears it is fine by me. I have virtually shot wolves, fought bears and stalked deer. What I can see as a potential problem however is that predators often tend to be demonized and lead to misinformation. People complain that stories or shows give some animals a bad name and quite frankly I think that some video games have gone to extreme lengths in regards to predators. Beware though! Should we accuse the games? Shouldn't we educate our children on the fact these animals are just virtual and that the actual animals are nothing like this. In addition to that, isn't it likely that a bear or tiger attack could occur in the wild. Is it really that wrong for video games to include video game attacks by animals? I am not saying that most games are accurate but who wants to include wolves in their game when the actual animal is very elusive. What would be the point? In my opinion the demonization of predators shouldn't happen but as with many other things in video games, it is all fake and in the end it is either up to us or the educational system to teach to our children that these animals aren't real.

Which leads me to my second point. Should violence against video game animals be considered abusive? PETA and other groups believe that games such as Battlefield 3(which included one scene that you have to kill a rat or be discovered), the upcoming Assassin's creed 4(which involves pirates and whaling) or Red Dead Redemption(where you can shoot the entire American Frontier) encourage animal violence. My opinion is that it doesn't. Shooting a virtual whale, while although controversial, will not harm animals nor will it cause the consumers to be pro whaling. Video game violence in some cases may be obvious, in others not. Pokemon will not encourage children to battle animals with each other and neither will killing and skining animals in Red Dead Redemption. In the end of the day it comes down to proper education. Virtual animals are exactly that, virtual. Unless there is a video game that doesn't out right torture animals, it doesn't warrant any sort of trouble.In my opinion it is a waste of time and money to campaign and advocate against this sort of cause, where there are a variety of other causes that are well worth campaigning.

Kudos however to some games who have done some research in regards to nature and set up a proper ecosystem of sorts. In Red Dead Redemption, hunting is just part of the open world environment but it is a way to make money and animals are everywhere. However animals are distributed by habitats, they hunt, seek water and will take livestock. The ecosystem pretty much feels alive. Want to hunt bears? Try mountainous areas where they den. Saw a deer carcass? A predator is probably around. These sort of video games, although featuring hunting, create an appreciation for nature and the animals themselves.

In my opinion it comes down to education. Video game animals are fake, education will stick forever. If proper education occurs there is no reason to fear anything from video games. As I said there are other causes to advocate for which deserve your attention more. In my opinion let video games be. Advocating against them will do nothing more but label you as stupid or a fanatic both of which do not benefit the purpose of conservation advocates but rather hurts it. People should focus on the real matters at hand and ignore video games.

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.