Human/Wildlife conflict

Human/Wildlife conflict is an issue that seems to be arising more and more in Conservation Sciences. It basically boils down to the issue that certain wildlife(not just predators mind you) cause destruction in human settled areas and the humans in return seek justice/retaliate etc.

The main issue that should be identified here is the fact that wildlife isn't doing anything it's not suppose to. Wolves will kill livestock, elephants will attack something that scares them and dolphins will steal fish from a net. These are things you can expect from nature. So the essential of the conflicts boils down to conservations vs stakeholders instead of the animals.

So really one of the current problems faced in one of these conflicts is how to best solve them in order for it to be a win win situation. If you make it illegal to retaliate, usually you need to crack down on those laws and as it's common with wildlife crimes, it's hard to do. One of the sayings that anti-wolf people use is "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up". Essentially meaning kill the wolf(and endangered species), hide the body and just don't tell anyone about it. This is a sentiment that is widely shared with many people across the globe. Especially those who live in poverty areas where the difference between selling 10 livestock or 15 could be the difference between starving or eating.
So really who can blame them? A farmer in India that loses livestock to predators has a right to be angry at the animal as well as the conservationists.

So let's focus on the win-win situation. How would we make it work? First of all a compensation scheme or an insurance scheme always seem to be a good idea. Making sure that people get their money from the death of a livestock seems to reduce the anger. However for most people it's not enough. A cow may be worth $500 in paper but to a farmer it may be worth more. Also the stress of being predated on causes cows to miscarriage, less yield etc. So monetary compensation shouldn't be enough.

One of my favorite ideas is the predator friendly meat. Several ranchers in the U.S.A have set up a co-op of farms that essentially ensure that no predators are harmed for their products.That makes sure that wolves, coyotes, raptors and other carnivores are not killed in case of depredation or moved. It's a great idea that ensures that consumers can support the cause if they wish.

Another one is a model from the above. Introducing products produced from predator friendly areas is a great way to provide an extra source of impact. For example snow leopard products help locals associate snow leopards with monetary benefits and provide them with an extra source of income that could help onset the costs of having snow leopards around.

Each case is unique and each one has it's own solution. From text messages to save people from being attacked by elephants to encouraging guarding dogs each site can have a win win situation if they are willing to reach a common ground. And in order to promote coexistence we really should.

Welcome Shasta pack!

When I was originally writing this, wolves were still not a thing in California. Apart from 0R7, there have been reports of another wolf sighting in July but nothing else. Right now, California has welcomed wolves back into it’s beautiful northern part. California Fish and Wildlife officials have found pictures of at least two adults and five pups. The pack has been officially called the Shasta Pack and this is beautiful news indeed.  It just goes on to show that effective wolf management can go a long way to help species recovery.  But it’s an uphill battle from now on in California and I wanted to just write some advice on how to properly manage wolves in order to achieve a beautiful balance in your state.

1)      Don’t panic: Wolves are not man eater or man hunters by nature. The beautiful Mt.Shasta landscapes are not dangerous because of wolves. Wolves will often shy away from humans so you are safe. If you have a dog with you, make sure they are on a leash and that they don’t wander off too much from you. Keep a noise making device to scare off wolves in case they attack your dog. However given the fact that it’s just eight wolves, it is highly unlikely that this will be the case. States which have hundreds of wolves only get 1-2 dog fatalities a year and usually it’s from dogs allowed to roam.

2)      It’s just eight wolves: It’s a small pack in a vast wilderness. As of now, there is no reason to worry about livestock or human conflict. The only thing I can see driving them to hunt livestock is fire(that would move them from their territory) or lack of food(which is unlikely).

3)      Listen to the science: Please. This one is important. If Californians want to coexist with wolves, listening to science is pretty much a given. Oregon has been doing very well so far, with the wolf numbers increasing, non-lethal measures in place as well as proper compensation in case of livestock depredation.

4)      Keep your livestock in check. If you happen to live anywhere near the Shasta pack’s territory, then it’s a good idea to keep a better eye on your livestock and consider non-lethal methods. It’s highly unlikely that your livestock will be predated but you want to avoid it as much as possible.

5)      Cherish what you have. Wolves haven’t been in California for about 90 years. Now they have returned. If you are interested then keep track of them and make sure people understand that the wolves returning is a good thing.

Enjoy California and please be environmentally responsible. I will try and get myself more involved with the Shasta Pack and I will keep you updated.

Go Outside. Remain

So today I want to talk about something a bit more personal. Let's talk about nature in general. Lately I've been getting urges of wanderlust as it's been a good few weeks of me stuck in a city. I am here to talk to you about this and about why you should experience a piece of nature at least once a week.

Even if it's a walk in the woods, or a stroll down the beach, none can argue about the therapeutic effects that nature has on you.  It allows you to relax and change your setting. The longer you stay outside the more you don't want to return. I am not even saying that you should go to the wildest places available. Even your local woods can be important to your wellbeing. We've associated feeling good in nature with hippies and somehow that's bad. If you ever take more than two seconds, stop and observe nature you will understand what I mean. Just listening to the sounds of nature, feeling the dirt on your feet and smelling the air can change your outlook. Regardless of your beliefs, you can't argue that some nature is always good for you.

Try and incorporate nature to your schedule once a week. Visit your local botanical gardens, go picnic at a lake or even just drive to a great viewpoint and just enjoy a cup of coffee while taking in the view. It won't massively effect your life but mentally nature can have huge benefits towards your well being. Nature doesn't necessarily mean isolation or the wilderness. In Aberdeen, there are great spots to enjoy nature that are in the city itself.

Incorporate a bit of nature in your schedule every week. I promise you won't regret it.

Can compassionate conservation work?

Today I want to talk about compassionate conservation and whether it can or cannot work. For those who don't know, compassionate conservation is an idea proposed in which animals in conservation are treated ethically and the lives of individual animals are considered. If you didn't know already, there is killing that occurs in the name of conservation. Sometimes it's for the best and sometimes it's for science to pinpoint a problem. For example predators are likely to be killed if a particular prey is endangered. This occurs when the problem about whether the particular animal's population is declining and nobody knows why.What essentially compassionate conservation is proposing is that each animal's individual life should be considered and lethal methods shouldn't occur. Here is my opinion as to whether it can work or not.
Conservation is all about problem solving and depending on their severity, a rapid reaction may be needed. Although killing is never a good affair, it can help tackle and contain a problem very fast. In addition to that killing animals is sometimes the only option. Take the American mink and the gray squirrel for example. Both animals are invasive animals and the mink is doing significant damage to the Scottish wildlife as it is. Thus the only way to restore the ecosystem is to capture and kill the mink. So killing is a tool that should definitely be considered as part of conservation. By removing killing, you are unfortunately limiting the extend towards which conservationists can react to a problem.What is more, places like the U.K have no natural predators to regulate their deer population and so humans have to kill the deer in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem and a healthy deer population.
However there are several flaws with considering killing. In a lot of circumstances killing animals in conservation is often a pre-emptive strike. Investigation for the causes for an animal's decline usually points towards predators before they do anything else and hence there may be a lot of unnecessary killing. In addition to that, sometimes killing animals may cause more issues. For example killing some wolves in a pack causes social disturbance which may end up with more lone wolves predating on livestock. Culling coyotes only leads to them breeding more as a response to death and in which case the problem isn't solved at all. In addition to that, animal killing isn't often specific enough to the animal and endangered species may also be killed in the process.
What I believe should occur is to assimilate compassionate conservation ideals to current conservation practises. Kill only when necessary and don't assume that killing will solve a problem. More research should be conducted before killing occurs. By placing value into individual animal lives, we may opt to kill animals which may not have a larger impact to the ecosystem(i.e not hierarchical dominant animals or mothers with young). Then again by doing so we providing value for animals and endanger labelling some animals as useless.  So to conclude, in my opinion killing should only be used when other methods cannot be used and when killing occurs it should be done humanely and with the species' biology in mind.

Shooting for conservation

This is a subject that I have to say I have done a lot of research on. The concept that some animals are hunted to provide money for conservation is one that I see as having great potential only if managed right. So let's try and see the argument on both sides.

Firstly hunting can bring in a lot of money. Hunters are willing to pay great amounts for the opportunity to shoot animals. Not only that but usually there are other cash flows to it as well. For example a group of hunters that will go to shoot a lion will not just pay for a tag but also for a place to stay and a guide. Their stay there will also bring more money to the local communities and hence improve the lives of the local.

The money obtained from the hunting can be put into good use by tackling some of the conservation issues that come from the local community. For example instead of poaching, with legal hunting the local communities may make enough money from the hunters in order for them to stop poaching off the local wildlife. In addition to that problematic animals may be targeted for a hunt, which could make the life of the locals a lot easier and reduce the general hate for specific animals. For example targeting elephants that trample crops could bring in money for the locals as well as allowing for the crops to recover and the locals to make some money.

The problem however with this is that the money don't always end up in the right hands. Organizations dedicated for the protection of specific species may never end up seeing a penny of that money due to the fact that most hunting and trapping is regulated by governments. What is even worse is the fact that some of the money that might end up in local communities due to the hunters, may instead end up in the hands of corrupted governments. Although this does not happen in all the instances, corruption may be something that may or may not be present.

Apart from that, hunting for conservation is not applicable to all species. Many species that need conserving are not prized hunt trophies and hence is a strategy that cannot be maintained for all instances. Although people will pay hundreds of thousands to shoot a black rhinoceros,, very few if any will pay to shoot a red panda. This is often a mentality common enough among hunters. The larger, more elusive and dangerous an animal is then the more its worth to shoot. What is more, conservation is already hindered by the “value” that some animals have and “selling” endangered animal tags will only add to this misguided notion that everything in nature should be judged by value.

Last but not least, some endangered animals really cannot afford losing some members of their population. It may be that governments consider this but it may be that they don't. Even if the a population is viable after certain members have been hunted, biology is getting increasingly complex in regards to genetic,behavior and interactions. By killing off that one animal, the social cohesion of a group of animals may be damaged beyond repair. By killing another, territories may shift resulting to conflict and animals being removed from their territories. What is more several animals may genetically hold the key to a species survival and unknowingly have lost their lives to the idea of hunters hunting to gather money for conservation.

In my opinion hunting for conservation is not something that is easily applicable. It is a great idea in thought but should require proper scientific backing before being suggested. With biology gaining more and more levels of complexity, hunting even one of these animals that is endangered, can lead to irreversible mistakes that would properly not even be worth the money. 

Conservation misconceptions

Today I want to talk to you about some popular misconceptions people have in regards to conservation. Like any sort of topic, conservation has also fallen victim to some popular misunderstanding by the general public and I here I am trying to analyse why some of these are wrong or how they have been misinterpreted.

IUCN Red List: The International Union for Conservation of Nature is the international body that judges a species status and gives it a rating from “Least Concern”all the way to “Extinct”. However as said the Red List is international and judges a species' distribution, ecology and population. This can lead to a misconception that an animal that is listed “Least Concern”is not actually endangered in a particular area. A vivid example is the wolf in the United States. The population there was deemed as endangered exactly because there were not a lot of there around in the United States. Internationally the wolf is not actually endangered, with populations of the tens of thousands in Russia and Canada. This is one of the most classic cases of misconception regarding different bodies and organizations of conservation.

Conservationists don't kill animals: This is unfortunately not true. As much as conservation organizations would love not to hurt animals, a lot of animals are killed every years in the name of conservation. Whether it is grey squirrels trapped and killed in order to help the red squirrels recover or whether it is invasive species killed or predators culled,killing does occur in conservation. It is however done humanely and with the greater good in mind. Invasive species are removed because they damage the environments, predators are killed to give endangered prey animals a temporary relief of pressure and so forth. The decision to kill animals is not one that comes easy and often there is a lot of debate and scientific investigation before a decree is issued. If you have any doubt on whether particular animals are shot in the name of conservation, then I urge you to research the subject as certain organization use the “greater good”excuse to push their own agendas.

Reintroduction are done in secret, with different animals than the ones that used to be here: Another common misconception is that conservationists go around reintroducing species in secret of the public. Although reintroduction sites and other records may remain secret to protect the best interest of the animals, there will never be the case of animals being reintroduced in a habitat without the people being aware of it. This will put animals and humans in danger especially if the animals are predators. There should be several legal issues on the reintroduced animals so as the money and time of the organizations involved won't go to waste if the animals are killed. In addition to that conservationists do not reinforce a current population without approval for the government etc. It costs money, time and a lot of lobbying and you have to remember that conservation organization not only do they have the greater good of nature in their mind but also care about humans. Animals that are different that the native ones are also a misconception as different animals may affect the environment differently. Animals are being reintroduced to maintain or restore a particular balance of an ecosystem. By reintroducing the wrong type of animals may mean that particular niches are not filled, other animals may be harmed and the balance may be skewed completely.

These and other misconceptions that I will try and analyse on another article are what is hampering particular conservation efforts or making others worse. I recommend keeping in mind that conservationists not only do they want the good of the environment but also the people so think twice before believing everything you have been told.

Is Scotlad ready for the lynx?

Most people these days agree that Scotland needs an apex predator. Deer need controlling and the ecosystem needs a predator. I have already discussed the possibility of a wolf reintroduction but now with the Lynx Trust UK filling an application to begin a lynx reintroduction into the Scottish Highlands I would like to cover the issue of a potential lynx return.

The Eurasian Lynx is the candidate considered for reintroduction in the Scottish Highlands and it is a medium size cat. It mostly feeds on ungulates,unlike other lynx, so it could potentially make a good candidate for Scotland. It will potentially help the landscape recover by moving deer herds around which would reduce the pressure from the plants hence allowing the landscape to recover. This is one of the main arguments used by re-wilding fans through however the lynx has a few added benefits to its side.

Firstly lynx are usually very elusive animals. It is very unlikely that people hiking across the wilderness will come across a lynx and extremely unlikely that they will feel threatened by a lynx. This is good in regards to public image as the lynx does not bear a ferocious reputation as the wolf or bears do. Hence the general public is more likely to be more accepting of a lynx roaming the Highlands than any other predator. An additional bonus to this is the fact that lynx reintroduction can be very low profile hence people are unlikely to hear or see the lynx much. This will allow the lynx to expand it's range quietly and without much turmoil. The lynx is generally an animal that is accepted more by farmers and ranchers than wolves or bears so very little opposition will be met in reintroducing in.

Secondly lynx may aid in wildcat protection. The Scottish wildcat is under threat by habitat loss but it's greatest threat is hybridization with feral cats. Lynx has been documented to kill feral cats which could help boost the genetic purity of wildcats. However it is not documented how wildcats will react although other wildcat species seem to coexist with lynx. There are no observations on what effect the lynx will have in the red squirrel efforts although lynx are recorded to prey on squirrels if they can. In addition to that we don't know what effect they will have on pine martens or American minks. It is easy to assume positive effects but caution should be noted. Just because lynx coexisted with native animals in the past does not mean that they will do so again.

However lynx reintroduction will not without it's disadvantages. There will be livestock depredation and although it will not be in big numbers(due to the lynx solitary nature it will not take many livestock) it will probably make reintroducing other carnivores really hard. In addition to that due to the close proximity of towns and villages to natural habitats it may be possible to see the lynx slowly moving into rural areas and maybe even urban environments(although highly unlikely) and hence potentially becoming a pest. The most likely scenario of this is that lynx may venture into villages or towns every once in a while and eat from garbage or attack pets but it is highly unlikely that it will escalate to something bigger due to the shy nature of the lynx.

Overall with proper monitoring, scientific effort and the right support, lynx reintroduction can happen and should happen. It is a species that will not produce much political turmoil and might set the stage for further re-wilding and it is time that a “practice what you preach” action is actually done.

A wrong cause

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about why you should research the organisations you support and why it is crucial to apply critical thinking and investigating your organisation before you start supporting them. In this article I plan to expand a little bit on causes. People tend to take up causes that although seem to be well intended might end up screwing up with others plans other organisations have in place for the benefit of others. I am talking about wildlife of course and in particular animals.

Conservation has it's dark moments. Not only does it seem like it's a war that seems to be lost with so many defeats and very few victories(depending on where you stand) but working for conservation you might have to be involved with a task that few are happy about. Culling. Culling is basically the act of killing animals in order to thin out their numbers. It is often done to make sure that some animals don't overpopulate, to remove invasive species, to stop a disease from spreading, to prevent inbreeding(this is quite questionable) and to relieve other species from the pressure the culled species might be inflicting on them. For example it is common practice to cull predators in a habitat where a particular prey is considered endangered. As is natural, an animal loving public will protest to the “unjust” killing of these animals and it is true that although it is highly unlikely that an individual animal has done anything to blame, for conservationists they have to go. A recent example of this is the attempt to protect whatever Scottish wildcats(felis silvestris grampia)are left in the wild. One of the methods that this is done with is with the culling of feral cats(with which the wildcats hybridise and also the feral cats spread diseases to the wildcats). The public however was not happy to hear that game keepers will be going around trapping feral cats and killing them. Protests from certain people and specific groups occurred and now plans have changed to neuter and vaccinate the feral cats. Although unknown to me as to whether these plans were already in motion or if they changed from culling to neutering which it is to my opinion a more costly and harmful approach. Another example is the removal of grey squirrels(Sciurus carolinesis) from Scotland and ultimately from the U.K in general in order to allow red squirrels(Sciurus vulgaris) to thrive. Public outcries about the grey squirrel have died out as people realize the necessity of removing them.

If you are going to advocate for certain animals or certain animal rights then make sure you read up on all the facts. The animal may be cute, may be majestic but in the end it might be that it's harming the ecosystem a lot more. However make sure you do your research well. Groups with agendas will often misinform the public by being selective on what they quote and publish(see my previous article). It is often a good practise to contact both sides and then deciding. If you decide for example that grey squirrels shouldn't be killed because of the mistakes humans made then that's fine. Human morals vary after all. Just make sure you are not misled and used for other agendas.

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. 

Wildlife Tourism

Wildlife tourism is a good way to get to experience nature without going to zoos. It offers a more immersible experience with nature and it's a chance to watch all sorts of local fauna and flora as well as observe behaviours that you might not observe in the wild. On the other hand it's a wild card, never knowing if you are going to get what you want and when you want it. Due to it being summer time and prime vacation time I want to talk to you about whether or not you should practise wildlife tourism.

First things first wildlife tourism supports the animals in their natural habitats. As in any other industry, animals that attract tourists build an industry around them. Hotels and shops are built to cater for the tourists as well as make a profit from them(which doesn't mean it's bad. It is a business, it needs to make profit). These hotels,hostels, wildlife tour guides and all the relevant businesses that build up from wildlife tourism all depend on tourists being present in the area, spending time in the area and more importantly spending money. By visiting these areas not only do you get to visit scenery and watch animals but you are also supporting local businesses. These businesses in turn might advocate for conservation or against plans that could potentially ruin their business. For example: With recent events regarding the wolf removal from the endangered species list and the opening of hunting seasons a lot of people are worried about their business. They are worried that if too many wolves are seen shot, trapped or dead that the public will refrain from visiting and not only that, if wolf numbers decline and the visibility of animals is decreased then the public will probably shift their attention to a place where visibility is still high and hence local businesses will suffer.

Secondly it's an experience that is multi layered. What I mean is that it's not just a trip to the zoo, look at the animals and go. Odds are that when you go on vacation you visit a place with a specific purpose in mind. Whether that is to spot a rare bird, catch a glimpse of a bear or tick off the Big Five, anyone that goes off to visit a country for wildlife will have something they would like to see. However as I said above you won't see just that. By taking a Jeep for a safari to go watch lions you also appreciate the local fauna and flora and something else might catch your interest while you are there. In these areas, smaller animals and interesting plants are often neglected in favour of large mammals that are often rarer to watch. However on the ride/hike there and on the waiting time for the animals to show up, nature will intrigue you or your family. A small rustle in the bushes, a raptor flying up high or small mammal peaking or running away from you are experiences you won't get anywhere else. For that experience alone wildlife tourism is worth it. If you went tiger watching but your eye caught a glimpse of a beautiful bird, you might ask your guide about it and find out that the bird is rare and endangered. Bits and pieces of knowledge will flow through you and at the end, what first started as a tiger watch became an overall appreciation for the habitat and the residents there. This is what I enjoy about wildlife tourism. You learn and appreciate the habitat and observe different animals apart from the ones you came to see and learn more about them.

It's not a guaranteed experience however. Depending on where you are going, what you want to watch and the time of the year you have to understand that animals can be elusive. Just because you are visiting a National Park or a Reserve does not mean you will actually see the animals you want to see. Usually the locals tend to know what you want and hence will take you to the favourable spots that you can find the animals you seek. However depending on a lot of factors you might spend your holiday not even catching a glimpse of the animal you wish to see. So my advise will be to do some research first. Find all the hotspots, best seasons to visit and good rated guides for hire. All of these will increase your chance of seeing what you visited to see. However it is better off that you don't raise your expectations too high. Pick a location you can visit but don't spend all your time chasing the animal around. Plan your holiday to include other activities. Try and combine a few animals in one trip. If they are in the same environment you are likely to encounter animals that you might have missed before. One example is people visiting Yellowstone National Park. People who go wolf watching have often glimpsed on grizzlies, mountain lions,mouse, elk and all the fauna of Yellowstone in search for wolves. In a twist you might not see wolves until you decide to go watch grizzles and wolves might appear. It is a natural habitat, nothing sets up scenes for you and a lot of the encounters with wild animals often happen when no one is expecting it. So prepare a series of outings, do your research and hopefully you will see what you went there to see.

It takes time. Wildlife holidays have to have a long span. You can visit a reserve in three days for example, however you might want to maximise the experience due to the elusive nature of animals. Usually , depending on the visibility of animals, a wildlife holiday lasts about two weeks to a month unless you happen to be a local in which case you can arrange for a weekend and always return whenever you can. But for people who travel halfway through the globe to see animals then maximizing your trip is important to getting the experience you would like. In addition to that it is really rare that animals will appear on the spot you are watching on the clock. You will probably have to wait some time and be patient in order for you to see animals.

It takes effort. There will be a lot of moving around either with a car or hiking. People who have been on such trips will often tell you that when an animal is spotted it goes on the radio and you have to dash around to go see it. More often than not, wild animals are seen in the early morning or the late afternoon and even at night time so be be prepared to lose sleep and be exhausted by the end of the trip.

There are currently very few studies to see how wildlife tourism actually affects wild animals. Do they become habituated to humans? Do boats, even when they keep their distance, stress animals out? Although most tourists will try to minimize their impact on the habitat they are visiting, we are learning new things about how nature works every day. It could be very likely that at one point on we find that the whales we have been watching all these years are more and more stressed due to our activities. Some forms of wildlife tourism such as dolphin swimming or fish feeding have been under criticism by scientists by causing disturbance and/or habituating animals to human presence which could create problems. In fact some shark attacks on divers are thought to have occurred by sharks who have been fed by previous diving groups and hence became used to human contact and presence.

Overall however a wildlife holiday is a great experience. Not only does it support local businesses and a sector of the tourism that could advocate for conservation but it also provides experiences often lost while gazing at animals at the zoo. It makes you appreciate a habitat and teaches you things you never knew. So long as you respect the habitat and the animals living there you should enjoy them as much as possible and learn everything you can.

Supporting the right people

Advocating for conservation is not an easy job. Everyone can tell you that. In fact studying any conservation biology modules or degrees can be downright depressing. Sometimes it feels like for every good thing that happens, three more bad things occur. It feels bleak, grim and sometimes soul crushing. But these people give their everything for every inch of ground gained against those who don't care about the environment. Is it always the case though? Be careful which organizations you support, where you work or volunteer and where your funding goes. Today I will tell you why you should be careful.

Firstly conservation organizations have goals in mind. Without goals there is no point in having them around, and although it might seem that they are working for the greater good of the environment some of these organizations have secret agendas that they pursue. For example, apart from some extreme organizations, an organizations won't call itself “the organization for killing wolves and slaughtering cougars and bears”. Instead it will choose to call it itself “the balanced nature organization”and advocate for predator culls and eradication claiming that the predator population is harming the rest of the ecosystem. Most organization like that often are under disguise and their motives should be questioned.

Although most of these “organizations” have been subjected to scrutiny and may have had their real motives known to the world, there are still those who might mislead people into supporting them. If possible take some time and do some research before choosing to support a local conservation organization.

In addition to motives, actions speak louder. Before choosing to volunteer or donate money to a conservation organization observe them a bit. How active are they? Have their actions had some sort of impact? Have the money you are giving them produced some result? Usually donations are in packs of a monthly or yearly donation. Do you feel that the money you are giving them produce an equivalent amount of work? Remember you are donating an organization who coincides with your ideals or does work that you believe is right. If an organization has 10 000 members that donate around $30 a year but the organization does nothing but organize a fund raiser and is not even present in the conservation front line then maybe its time to change your donations. Be careful though. Your organization may not win the battles it is fighting. It is often the problem with conservation, that people are fighting a losing battle but every inch saved is a small victory. Sometimes grand victories will be won but more often than not conservation is about a collection of small victories that matter. So if your preferred organization is out there everyday, attending conferences, participating in research, fighting legislation and getting involved but the government refuses to listen to them then it might not have been their actions that prompt the government to ignore them. Internet is your best ally at this point. Use a search engine and find out what your organization has been up to and what have they done in the past. Here are few bullet points that in my opinion can give you a broader perspective about the groups that you support:

• How long have they been set up? Through age you know that there will be a record of the group's actions
• How often are they mentioned? With age comes exposure. The younger the group the less exposure will be around. If an organization is young but is mentioned in news articles constantly it means they are driven which is usually good. If they are an old organization and not mentioned then that they might not be as driven.
• Observe the website. The news section, the networking and the design usually points to a well structured organization.
• Ask around. Don't be afraid to email them asking for actions taken and why you should support them. If they are driven or care they will reply to you with information. Further more look around in different forums and read what other people say.

In regards to volunteering, then things are often easier to distinguish. By entering an organization you join a circle. That circle may be small and limited to your coworkers but you learn things. While you are there you will hear conversations, you will hear viewpoints and if you don't agree with what they are saying then get out. If you support any sort of organization with your time and effort and don't feel good doing it then there is hardly any point of volunteering there. Be careful of what you support as well while volunteering there. Know your organizations objectives, ideas and viewpoints and covey them whenever you can. If you think you are doing doesn't agree with you then stop volunteering there.

Finally use your judgment. You have done some pocking around and read about the organization. Now it's time to use your judgment. Apply it to what you learned. If in the end you think that the organization is worth it then support them in any way you can. If you can't volunteer in the field and don't have money to donate but want to help, email them. They might direct you in some ways that you can help. It might seem like nothing to you but liking&sharing on Facebook, setting up a website, monitoring websites or inputting numbers on a spreadsheet might help an organization a long way. Don't be afraid to offer your services no matter what they might be.

De-extinction

Lately there are a lot of articles and talks going on about using DNA to bring animals back from extinction. Although most magazines and websites have actually covered this subject and I think they did a better job at it I would however like to give my opinion about the subject.

The experience of witnessing an animal that has been extinct for thousands of years will very likely be a mixture of curiosity and excitement. The things we can learn from studying a mammoth or a saber toothed cat will shed light on evolutionary research and behavioral research as well all sort of other researches. In addition to that conservation efforts may be helped tremendously by providing a viable population for struggling species. In these aspects then cloning and reproducing an extinct species is interesting. But of course there is the other side of the coin.

To recreate a species then a surrogate mother will be needed. In the case of a mammoth then an elephant is likely to carry the embryo and then give birth to the baby mammoth. If that's the case, given our knowledge of environmental and behavioral changes then how can we be sure that what we have is a mammoth the way that they used to exist. It might look like a mammoth but will it behave like a mammoth?

In addition to that some species' habitat is completely changes. Talks about reintroducing mammoth to the Siberian wilderness in order to recreate the pristine habitat the existed are just nonsense in my head. Firstly the mammoth has no predators. It is unlikely that the big cats or wolves will be able to bring down enough mammoth to affect the population. I mean sure the African elephant has no top predators either but we know that. The mammoth co-existed with direwolves, saber tooth cats and all sort of large carnivores and we don't have enough evidence to suggest that these predators did not hunt mammoth.

Another point is animal welfare. Most of the animals brought back so far have suffered for a brief while with lung or heart problems until they finally died. There is little doubt that this won't happen again. It is a natural process of learning from our mistakes. However how many animals must suffer and die in order to de-extinct a species that probably went extinct for a reason.

Finally, despite it being a potential conservation tool, it is also likely that some people may not be so concern with conservation now that species can be brought back. Who cares if there are less than 400 Scottish wildcats. All we need is some DNA, reproduce them and reintroduce them. Unfortunately this method won't work since the habitat needs to be replicated as well. However I feel that the feeling of urgency to take action for certain species may be lost if people know that species may be brought back from extinction.

Overall, despite cloning species, bringing species back from extinction, the certain practice should be put in the back of the shelves. We need to focus and conserve whatever environment we have now, allow that to flourish before we consider reproducing an animal that went extinct.

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.

Science and advocacy

This is an issue that has been crossing my mind for a few days now. The result of this was an article that I read which debated whether scientists can actually advocate for animals or habitats they are studying. Some people say they shouldn't, while others say they should and both arguments have some validity to them.
If you define the purpose of a biology scientist, it is to discover how the field of biology works through observation and experimentation. For the results and the data to be of any significance then the science must be completely objective and not biased. Arguments for the validity of data collected by scientists who are advocating for conservation can come into discussion as well. People tend to believe that researchers fond of a particular animal will skew data their way to show how the animals they are studying require a lot more conservation efforts. Predators tend to get the spotlight as trophic cascades have allowed an inside view into how top predators affect the community of an ecosystem. However where does it stop? Naturally with trophic cascades you can go as far as you would like and still attribute certain effects to predators or herbivores. This is what worries scientists as some of them may end up attributing way to much into certain animals while that may not be the case.
However advocating scientists tend to the ones most passionate about the subject they study. They often advocate because no science or even false science is used in conservation efforts and to create management plans. An example of that is Jay Mallone who recently published a paper criticising the science behind the Montana wolf management plan. Although this sort of action can be viewed from both sides of the same coin(one being that he is right and the other being that he is being favourable of the animal thus refusing to see the reason of the management plan), I think that advocates tend to be in favour of good proper science that will give the animals/habitats they are trying to preserve a fighting chance.
I suppose it is up to each individual researcher and scientist to know when to distance themselves. It is a crucial skill to learn and accept that perhaps a portion of the animals you love and study will have to be shot down as part of a government’s management plan or for development. Of course there will be those scientists who fail to see when it is time to accept things due to their attachment to animals but then again what is right for habitats or animals may not be as objective as we think. People opinions differ and probably will, which is why science is constantly a debate and a challenging world.

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.

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.