An open letter regarding the University of Aberdeen accused for whaling

This is an article that I have been dying to write for a while now. My university has been accused of using whaling data in a project recently http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/aberdeen-university-under-fire-over-whale-slaughter-1-3200216. This caused quite a stir, especially in the Biological Sciences students who were shocked. After poking about and asking people, a few of us found that the data that were used, were from already harvested whales. Some students were still shocked while others, much like myself relaxed. In the end of the day data are data and so long as they were done ethically or in the past then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be used. Now I don’t know exactly what the data were used for. Talking to some people around university it seems to be for a PhD project that dealt with the effect of whaling as well as whale watching on whale species but then others say it had to do with whale physiology.  I hardly think it is relevant at this stage.

Allow me to elaborate. Science that deals with wild animals in their natural habitat is tricky. Some animals can be elusive, migrate, budget cuts can prevent you from doing exactly what you want, extreme weather conditions or extreme environments are few of the reasons why science is hard to conduct with wild animals. Scientists in general try their best to obtain their own data but will not shy away from using data from other sources. Whether these sources are volunteers conducting surveys on their own time ( as per the case of Shorewatch  done by  WDC which is an excellent use of volunteer time and locations), hunters reporting kills, trappers reporting catches, roadkill sites, sightings and so forth. The internet alone is filled with sites where everyday people can log in and report sightings of animals.  These data are used by scientists, NGOs, of even government organizations and find themselves in academic journals as well.  It is a matter that needs to be understood by the general public. Scientists are not always able to collect fresh data and hence may use older data which might have been gathered in less ethical ways or with questionable means.

Now this is where it falls to the individual. Some scientists may have no quarrel using data from any source so long as the data can help them gain an understanding of what is going on. Others may take  a more ethical route and prefer to make sure that animals have been treated fairly. Others simply try not to disturb the animals. There are myriad ways of thinking and whether they are right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, using the whaling data was fine. I understand the fact that in a way, the whaling industry is still supported if you use the data but the animals are dead and the data is already collected. Sure, this may be used to justify further whaling and I am not for that.  I do not agree with whaling due to the damage it does to the general population and the fact that whales  cannot recover from such harvesting easily. But in this particularly case the data are already present so why not use them. It is a moral conundrum surely but it won’t change the fact that these animals are dead already. In a way it is best that they at least be used for something.

My main issue is the way journalism has handled the particular subject.  Flaring articles accusing the university for whaling while very little was actually given in terms of what had happened.   Like most press these days, some articles were unbiased and provided information and some didn’t. This led to a confusing state both amongst students, staff and the rest of the world.  Maybe if it was handled better by both the University and the press then no confusion would have happened and people would be able to reach a conclusion on the own on whether they support what happened or not.

In the end of the day what appeared to be a shocking story ended up being a matter of personal views and opinions as the fog cleared out, but some damage may have already been done  that may be irreversible. Once again don’t trust what you read and question everything at least once before you believe it.

Species of the Week: Sockeye Salmon

Species of the Week:
Sockeye Salmon(Oncorhynchus nerka)

1. Is a type of salmon that is usually red, can grow up to 84cm and  weighs from 2 to 7 kg.
2. It can be found in the Pacific and like other salmon are anadromous. This that the young are born in freshwater, make their way to the sea where they grow to a certain age and make their way upstream where they give birth in freshwater.
3. Their bodies become red and their faces turn green when they begin returning to their spawning grown.
4. They mostly feed on zooplankton.
5. To avoid predation these salmon change their position in the water column, timing and length of feeding and school formation.
6. Salmon are considered semelparous which means that they will die once they breed once.
7. When mating, competition between these salmon occurs, with males establishing an dominant male who gets to mate with the female.
8. However it is not always so as some males will sneakily mate with the females when the dominant male isn't present.
9. Females choose the nest site, prepare the nest and defend it until they die.
10. Salmon are considered very important for many forest habitats in neighboring the Pacific as the salmon provide nutrients for the plants after they die as well as food for scavengers.

Species of the week: Siberian tiger

Species of the week:
Siberian Tiger also known as Amur tiger ( Panthera tigris altaica)

1. It's a tiger subspecies usually found in small mountain ranges in the Russian Far East.
2. It is the largest tiger and in fact the largest cat species and it stands 112 to 120 cm tall and weigh from  118 kg (females) to 177 kg (males) with the heaviest recorded to be 222 kg.
3. A key habitat for the tigers are the Korean pine broadleaf forests and can be usually found in a mixture of decideous-coniferous and boreal forests.
4. They mostly feed on deer but will feed on smaller species such as salmon,rabbits hares and pikas.
5. They have been known to hunt bear as well when the ungulate population declines. Bears constitute about 5-8% of the Siberian tiger's diet.
6. Siberian tigers are also known for suppressing wolf numbers to the point of wolf numbers being very low or even extinct.
7. Mating occurs throughout the year and gestation period lasts 90-105 days.
8. Although litter size is 1-6 cubs usually 2-4 cubs are born.
9. Female cubs stay with their mother and will either share the territory or get some next to their mother, while males will disperse to find mates.
10. Siberian tigers are listed as "Endangered"on the IUCN Red List.

Species of the week: Cooper's hawk

Species of the week:
Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii)

1. Cooper's hawk is a bird of prey native to North America.  It can be found from Northern Mexico all the way to Southern Canada..
2. Males are smaller than females as is often the case with birds of prey.
3. Males weight  about 220 to 410 g while females weigh from 300 to 700 g.
4. Males have a length of 35 to 46 cm while females length  is 42 to 50 cm.
5. Wingspan usually ranges from 62 to 94 cm.
6. They can be found in all kinds of habitats, usually in deciduous forests and open woodlands but also nest in cities.
7. Most of their diet comes from small to medium size birds such as Robins, thrashes, jays, doves and pigeons etc and they usually complement their diet with small mammals and lizards.
8. They hunt using an ambush technique usually dropping from cover or flying quickly through vegetation.
9. They live up to 12 years in the wild but the longest recorded has been 20 years.
10. It is considered as "Least Concern"in the IUCN Red List.

Species of the week: Cougar

First of all let me wish you guys a Happy New Year. Hope 2014 brings you luck and joy. Updates will be sporadic until February when my exams will end but expect the occasional article(I hope).
In addition to that species of the week will now include subspecies to add variety.


Species of the week:
Cougar(Puma concolor)

1. It is a cat native only to the Americas.
2. Although it is placed in the small cat family(Felinae) it's size and characteristics are similar to the big cats(Pantherinae).
3. They stand about 60-90 cm tall and and can reach up to 2.5m from head to tail.
4. Male cougars weigh about 50-100 kg while females weigh 29-64 kg.
5. Cougar diet compromises of anything that has meat from small rodents to large ungulates with a preferance to ungulates. This highly depends on the region and food availability.
6. They mate all year around with females coming in estrus for about 8 days every 23 days.
7. Gestation period last about 90-92 days and a litter is birthed about every one or two years of their reproductive lives.
8. Litter size can range from 1-6 cubs with the norm being 2-3 cubs.
9. Life expectancy is about 13 years in the wild and around 20 in captivity.
10. Cougars overall are listed as "Least Concern" in the IUCN Red List. However several subspecies can be considered to be under threat of extinction. 

Species of the week: Reindeer

Species of the week:
Reindeer(Rangifer tarandus)

1. Reindeer are also known as caribou in North America.They can be found in Arctic and Subarctic regions.
2. Both sexes grow antlers which is unusual for deer species.
3. Males are usually larger than females, with males growing to 180-215cm in height and weighing up to 320kg. Females grow up from 160-205 cm and weight 80-120kg.
4. Reindeer feed mostly on lichen but have been known to feed on grass and short tree leaves.
5. Reindeer mating occurs from late September until early November. 
6. Males fight with each other for dominion over females, with the dominant male forming a harem of females.
7. Calves are born early May to June. One calf is usual for reindeer.
8. Some reindeer have been known to undergo extreme migration for the winter. Reindeer in North America migrate up to 5 000km south in search for food.
9. Reindeer have been domesticated by humans, especially the Native American tribes.
10. Reindeer are considered to be of "Least Concern" by the IUCN list,

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.