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.

Ignorance breeds intolerance breeds hate

When I first started having conversations about large predators  with people outside my field, it surprised me how surreal some of the responses were. It often went along the lines of " they can exist but only as long as they don't come down and bother me or my animals/children". It was usually followed with " so long as they stay in Yosemite or Yellowstone(insert national park or forest) they are welcome to stay".

It's a very hypocritical and intolerant view of the natural world and I think that it's the primary reason why many people end up hating large predators. Intolerance and a selective view of wildlife leads to a very sheltered and completely out of touch viewpoint. It's the main reason why conservationists are trying so hard to promote co-existence. Unfortunately it doesn't just apply to large predators. Regardless of the species people seem to forget that animals have no boundaries and that they won't stop breeding or dispersing because you don't want them too.

So how have we reached this viewpoint? In my opinion it's got to do with the fact that we believe we own the world. People say the own the land or that it's their country, their mountain, their national park etc. Even with public lands people still seem to believe they should have a say in how it's managed or run.

We stopped perceiving the world as a place that we inhabit but rather a place we own.  We forget that our actions can influence the way the natural world works and we forget that nature will interact with us whether we like it or not.  Ranchers get upset that their livestock is attacked by predators but refuse to acknowledge the fact that both ranchers and livestock are part of the world. Nature is dynamic regardless of how static it is perceived and this is where the issues lie.

When people say control the wolves, they fail to understand that by killing a pack you are creating a void for another one to fill in. People forget that culling coyotes may promote more puppies next year since there are more resources available. Most people are taught the basics of ecology and biology but fail to apply them to their situation, instead living in fictional worlds where predator-prey relationships are exclusive to the two example animals, that wolves only roam the tundra and that whales only swim in waters far away from the beach.

Intolerance of the natural world is formed because we fail to understand how dynamic it truly is. Hate happens because the natural world won't fit into one of the neat boxes we have set up for it. People are always saying " why isn't this animal just happy with the land we gave it. Why does it want more?"

There in lies the folly of ignorance. We think we manage nature instead of understanding that we are part of it.

Is Scotland ready for wolves?

As my interest in wolves begins to grow and grow I tend to look into a possible wolf reintroduction in Scotland and wonder about it. Should it happen? Moreover can it happen? It seems that this is a discussion that occurs every so often and the media publish it but then it just dies out. While a few die hard groups still advocate for it, the idea in general hasn’t been discussed for a while. I decided to tell you my opinion on the matter.

I will start with the most common of all arguments. Scotland and the rest of the UK have too many deer.  This article basically sets up the scene as 50% of the deer need to cull in the UK. It’s no secret that ecosystems and communities need a balance and in my opinion Scotland does not have a balanced ecosystem. Deer are way too numerous here and that is damaging the ecosystem as deer are not hunted by anyone other than humans. Thus a lot more numbers and so a lot more damage to the ecosystem. Although other carnivores could be reintroduced, the other candidates are the lynx and the bear and although they will impact deer movement, no one could do it better than the wolf.  Wolf reintroduction advocates say wolves will provide some restoration to the system and that they are needed.

Although I agree with the point above there are other things to keep in mind. Reintroductions won’t happen unless the people want it to. Clearly you have the two fronts, farmers, livestock owners and hikers worrying about the wolf, and the advocates and conservationists who wish for the return of the wolf.  But there is more to the story. What about the average Scot? Will he/she be affected? Although wolves are not as elusive as the cat family, they can be quite elusive and it is only when they want to be seen that they will be seen. However due to the proximity of villages/town to wilderness in Scotland it is very likely that encounters with wolves will happen. The problem is that these stories may be exaggerated and demonize the wolf. A recent article put foxes in the spot as one fox attacked a child in the UK. Although these encounters are minimum, they can serve as an argument against wolf reintroduction or wolf shooting to occur if wolves were to be reintroduced. Of course on the other hand people on those rural areas could benefit as reintroduction could mean more tourism which is wolf based and so more money.

People tend to take examples of real life and almost everyone uses Yellowstone National Park and the wolf reintroduction there to argue their case. I won’t argue that Yellowstone is perhaps one of the most studied areas when it comes to wolf reintroduction but I highly doubt that what happened in Yellowstone will happen in Scotland. Yellowstone is a large area where more wildernesses surround it. The reason why wolves thrive there was because they have space. Wolf packs will travel large distances (up to 50km) for hunting and wolf packs also require vast areas for themselves. Although the European wolf tends to form small packs and break up over summer it is no doubt that wolves will spread eventually. And that is where the problems begin in my opinion. Wolves may not stay put in the areas you have designated for them. Wolves may spread and make their home near countryside towns or pastures and go into places people may not want them. The least we want is for wolves to become rural or urban pests. You have to also bear in mind that ICUN guidelines strictly state that reintroductions should be done with animal welfare in mind so it will be unfair if reintroduced wolf packs end up getting shot.  The problem is that wolves in Scotland won’t have the space they had in Yellowstone or in North America in general.

What is more Scotland already has a great deal of issues going on with their wildlife. The Scottish wildcat is in danger of going extinct while the American mink is invading the Scottish countryside and it’s forests. In addition more red squirrels are being driven to extinction by the grey squirrels and deer ran rampant, hybridizing and destroying habitats. Although the wolf may solve a few of these problems, I believe that Scotland needs to spend resources in order to manage the wilderness better. These resources will probably be better allocated to such plans in order to set up some sort of balance to the system as of present. Then letter in time perhaps these resources could be allocated to wolf reintroduction. But for now the wolf’s best chance is for an initiative that would work on a variety of programs to restore the Scottish wilderness.

Zoologists should know their birds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we approaching a globalised ecosystem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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