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.

Let's talk about wolf perception

The wolf. An animal that is the icon of wilderness. A symbol of defiance and dominance. We often use phrases such as alpha male, wolf pack and the sort. Our connection to wolves is a strange one indeed. Some people love them, some fear them and some indeed despite them. It's an animal that stands for pretty much anything you want it to be. Its imagery has been associated with anything from Native Americans to hippies to Nazis and everything in between. A wolf is truly an animal that can be whatever you want it to be. It's got traits that we as humans want and seek and so we seek to identify with it in certain situations. It's a pity that most of the things that people assume about wolves are simply not true. Let's break some of them down shall we?

1)Alphas do whatever they do and are dominant over all the others in the pack: 

Let's get it straight. No such thing as an alpha male or female. There is a breeding pair that happen to also be the most dominant at most times but this is due to seniority. Not only that but the breeding pair doesn't always call all the shots. They are experienced leaders which allow the younger wolves to lead the hunt.  Wolves don't work with a strict hierarchy. It's not a pissing contest between them. Wolves work together in a pack in order to survive. So there is no dominion over all. Merely the breeding pair calling the shots due to experience. 

2)Wolves aren't independent:

The entire idea of an independent wolf clearly works against what the wolf truly is. Wolves rely on each other to survive. Wolves hunt together, fight together and live together. More often than not some will leave one pack but only to form their own or join another. The wolf as a symbol of independence is vastly mislead.

3) The wolf as a part of supremacy:

First of all wolves don't keep bloodlines pure. Lets get that out there. Quotes along the lines of " Wolves stick with their own" are just supremacist propaganda.The black coat on the wolves is evidence of interbreeding with dogs(they got the black coat from dogs) and the wolfdog hybrids as well as wolf coyote hybrids are pure evidence that wolves do not keep their bloodline pure. Just like all animals they will mate when given the opportunity.

4)The wolf as a savage fighter:

Again this here is a major issue. Wolves don't do well alone. They fight and they are pretty tough but the wolf's strength is in their pack. Not really on their own. Wolves can be killed by bears, mountain lions or other wolves. Hell even golden eagles can kill them. So if you as a human want to be identified as fierce fighter choose a bear. Hell choose a wolverine. Those little things are badass.

What can you do for Earth Day?

Today is Earth Day. It's a day to celebrate Earth in all of it's glory. Despite how small the world seems it can be so amazing and beautiful. I got a wake up call when I visited Yosemite National Park and was blown away by the vast beauty of it all.  So today in order to honor Earth in all her glory here are a few things you can do:

1) Take a hike: Organize a hike with some friends or alone. It doesn't have to be far away or in a popular destination. Take a walk in your local forest, local water feature, cliff, foothills etc. Despite where you live there is always some nature around. If you can't make it out of town, visit a park. Take a second to appreciate where you are and how Earth made this possible. Breathe in the scenery and understand the magnitude of it.

2) Wildlife Party: Take a minute to learn about your local wildlife, Most places harbor some sort of wildlife. Take a minute to learn about what kind of wildlife there is around you. You may be surprised by how cool some of your local critters can be. You may even be surprised to learn that there are some species around that you didn't think were around.

3) View the world: Browse the internet and find pictures of different landscapes across the world. Take a minute to understand how that landscape is different or similar to yours. It will help you understand how diverse Earth truly is and how wonderful it is.

4) Help around: Find local groups that organize cleaning of parks or beaches and help them out. Volunteer to teach people about their local habitats and wildlife. Community outreach may seem boring in comparison to fieldwork but it is still very important to help Earth.

5)Find out ways to make a difference: Learn a little more about local recycling, local initiatives for conservation or energy saving. Any small difference you can make will be to the benefit of the planet in total.

Enjoy Earth day and make sure you spend it with friends and family.

Where have I been?

It's been a good couple of months since I posted on this blog. I assure you my love for nature has not changed but I've been pretty busy. Let me give you a rundown of what I've been up to.

1)Masters: I finally got accepted at a masters program and I am studying at California State University, Fresno. My research includes urban predators and how they are adapting.

2)I've started raising guide dog puppies. It's a great experience so far.

Okay now that those are out of the way let's talk about the future of this blog. It's been inactive for a while now. I aim to resurrect it with new content but I have also decided that I would like to have other authors cowrite.So if anyone is interested then please get in contact with me and we can work out the details.

Otherwise I aim to update content at least once a week with maybe species of the week making a return.

Thanks for being here and reading this.

Pete

Is California wild enough for wolves?

Photo: OR-25

On the 7th of January 2016, news that another wolf has been sighted in California became public. This wolf may or may not stay in California but at the time of this writing, there is at least 1 pack(the Shasta pack).  Looking through comments online and reading various newspaper articles, I've spotted a recurring trend. People were saying that California isn't wild enough for wolves. That there are humans everywhere, lots of fragmented habitats and that there aren't enough wild places.  That in my opinion isn't true.

First things first, wolves are incredibly adaptable animals. They can found from the frozen tundras to rural areas in Italy and Portugal. So the idea that an area isn't wild enough for wolves isn't true. So long as there are food sources and not a lot of conflict, wolves can thrive in a variety of environments.  That doesn't mean however that it will go well with the locals.

The problem that wolves and humans often face is livestock depredation. In areas where a lot of land and prey is available to them, wolves tend to just prey on wild animals and not cause issues to humans(apart from hunters in certain areas which claim that wolves kill off all the game animals). However in areas where wolves live on the fringes of human habitats, conflicts over livestock tend to occur. When prey animals tend to be less available, wolves will often attack cows and sheep. In some cases, even if prey animals are widely available wolves will do that anyway, Once a pack has attacked livestock, it is likely they will repeat it. This is due to the biology of the animal. Livestock requires less energy to hunt than game animals and are often fatter so wolves will prefer them once they realise that. Hence ranchers and government organisations tend to try and remove the "problematic" wolves either by killing them or capture them and send them to zoos. This is often the main source of conflict between humans and wolves and what will most likely happen in areas of California.

While California is a state that is vastly populated, there are plenty of wild areas that will be suitable for wolves. Habitat fragmentation isn't a major concern for an animal such as wolves as they tend to traverse large areas to find new territories. It may become an issue due to prey availability so we may see more wolf depredation as time goes by but it may be prevented using non-lethal methods. California can most probably sustain a large population of wolves but it may not be interconnected. Whether humans will allow for that coexistence to occur is a different thing all together. What's for sure is that wolves returning to the West Coast posses interesting challenges for the locals.

Should we call coywolves a new species?

Lately there has been a lot of media attention towards the coywolf and what it means as a species. For those of you who don't know coywolves are canids which can be found in the East Coast of the U.S.A. They are believed to be part coyote and part wolf(whether it's red, grey or eastern is up to the location) and sometimes with a splice of dog in there. These animals are of a much broader build than coyotes are and often form larger packs like wolves. However they look more like coyotes and tend to thrive even in urban environments like coyotes do.  Coywolves present an interesting challenge to biologists as the scientific community isn't sure whether to call it a new species or remain classified as a hybrid.

The point is does it really matter? Not to the animals that's for sure but to us it should. Animals like prizzlies(grizzly and polar bear mix) and coywolves just started appearing more and more frequently and the media isn't doing them any favours. They are often described as "ultra predators","a new breed of predator"and other sort of sensational words used to stir up the audience. This is the problem right here. While science is trying to understand whether these animals are unique or have shown up in the past before, the media is scaring people. Instead of leading a debate as to whether human activities have caused these hybrids or whether these hybrids were meant to appear naturally, the media and certain scientists are all about classifying them.

While this may be important for legislation and conservation, I feel that humans are missing the bigger picture. Those of us with some knowledge in evolution will know that favourable traits are selected for. So is it completely strange that these coywolves are just coyotes which are selecting favourable traits from hybrid ancestors? Is it too hard to believe that red and silka deer breed to form a more agile deer that is also stronger?

I suppose the reason why the people are challenged with the idea of superior "hybrids"is the fact that this is an instance of viewing survival of the fittest with our own eyes. Human activities have cause a much more disturbed environment and thus animals have been forced to adapt faster or die out. Pizzles can hunt in a longer range and can eat berries as well as meat. Some pizzles get the best of both grizzles and polar bears. The same goes with the coywolves. Of course some others will get the worse traits and die out. But the idea that these animals are evolving and adapting right before our eyes is newfound and indeed has caused some to label these animals as new species instead of acknowledging that these could be the very species they knew 20-30 years ago and that they are now adapting to a different world.\

And it's a scary thought to acknowledge because we have all been taught that evolution is a process that spans over hundreds, thousands and millions of years but instead is now happening in front of our eyes. Polar bears are losing range, the ice caps are melting, the Northern regions are getting warmer. All of these are factors as to why grizzlis started heading north and polar bears south.  How can all these reasons have happened in the past century or so? Well that's the scary answer my friends. It's us. Instead of focusing on why these animals are changing and adapting, we seek to label them as a new breed of mega predators and hold debates as to whether or not they are a new species. Instead of identifying that the reason coyotes breed with wolves in the first place is because we shot wolves to oblivion and thus limited their mating options, we seek to see these animals as a newly found threat caused by unknown reasons.

To conclude my post, these animals probably aren't a new species but rather one that is adapting to become a new species. The reasons why this is happening should be entirely on us and we should understand that and change our own ways.