Wildlife and conservation new, wild travel information and links for booking
At the minimum, the Amur leopard population fell to as low as 30 individuals. The Asiatic cheetah is therefore far closer to extinction. At the current time there are thought to be 9 males and 3 females left in the wild. Given that in 2010 there were around 100, while this is still a highly threatened species clearly the threats to their continued existence have not gone away.
The recovery of wolves bears and lynx over the last several generations in western Europe has been nothing short of astounding.
In the 1960s the population of the iberian wolf did not number more than a few hundred, yet now there are 2500. Similarly, bears got very low but now more than 300 roam – though this still has some way to go. The Iberian lynx was not heavily hunted, yet was still almost wiped out due to human introduced diseases wiping out most of the rabbits in Spain.
France destroyed its wolf population completely, though they are back, having crossed from Italy about 20-30 years ago. Bears were similarly almost wiped out, except a tiny relict population in the Pyrenes. Unfortunately, this population has not done well and is essentially only there because of bear translocations from further east. Similarly, Lynx were eradicated by 1900 though this has been reversed by reintroduction projects. There are a couple of zones where lynx are found (a reintroduction project in Switzerland returned them to part of france), However, there is not going to be more than 130 lynx in the whole country and the population does not seem to be growing.
Italy retained a wolf population, though in the 1970s there was only 70-100 left. Nowadays, 1000-2000 wolves roam the country, and it is roaming members of this population that seeded the population in France. 80-90 bears remain in Italy (the Marsican bear), and while this is a more healthy population than that in France, it is still not enough to be secure. Lynx were eradicated but have been reintroduced, though they are not thought to have established a population that would be secure longterm without continued translocations.
Scandinavia could in some ways be thought of as a strong-point for all three animals in western-Europe, though there are still views that are not helpful. The encouraging thing here, is that the wolf is able to return from Russia. There are no more than 500 wolves in this area, and Norway has a relatively strange view of the wolf, with human hunting elk very popular, wolves are seen as a nuisance and kept at a minimum. Norway has a similar view of the bear, with them being far more common in Sweden. Lynx are widespread in this part of the world.
Why should we champion the return of these animals? They have the capacity to rebalance environments, as well as allowing forests to operate properly – in the UK, as we are missing these predators, replanting forests are often hindered by deer grazing them to much. There are other reasons though. These animals can be a big tourist draw, allowing people to make a good income, often in places where there is little other economic potential. In the UK, return of wolves and lynx would save hundreds of human lives each year by reducing deer collisions on our roads.
Will their recovery continue? I hope so, though it seems to very much be an area where progress is two steps forwards and one step back.
The coral itself is actually usually quite a dull colour, the brilliant colours of coral reefs come from the algae that lives within its coral tissue. These algae’s are called Zooxanthellae and in return for their home, the algae supply most of the corals nutrients.
The problem, is that these algae are very sensitive to temperature changes, and so if the sea remains unusually warm or cold for more than a few days, the algae leaves the corals and this is called a bleaching. This bleaching has occurred more and more recently in the last few years.
As a result of this, it is feared, that up to 90% of the corals worldwide will be lost by 2050.
This is where the red sea corals become so interesting.
Just 2 years ago, researchers found some corals in the Gulf of Aqaba, a trench between Israel, Jordan and Egypt which could withstand higher temperatures for longer. Just 1 degree above normal, sustained for a week can be enough to cause bleaching. If the temperature does not fall quickly, the corals will die. Yet here, corals have been seen to survive temperature rises above 7 degrees. It is thought that these corals have developed these abilities because they regularly suffer large temperature changes.
If they can identify corals that have this ability, and translocate them into new reefs, they will cross-breed. As the heat resistant corals are heat resistant, they are likely to survive far longer and therefore be able to pass on their heat resistant trait into the whole reef.
Given the rapidly warming planet, we only have about 30 years to act. Apart from their own intrinsic value, coral reefs are also worth roughly $600,000 per square kilometre each year, through protecting coastlines, increased tourism, medication and a whole lot more effects.
This is a fantastic possible save for the worlds reefs, time will tell if it works.
Do elephants need tusks? It is a big question. Given the fact that they have them would suggest that they do have a purpose and therefore that life without them may be harder.
In Gorogosa national park in Mozambique, tuskless females became more common after ivory poaching become common during their 15 year civil war.
Being born tuskless, is not an unnatural affair. Indeed, some females have always been missing tusks. However, during the war 90% of the parks elephants were poached. If an elephant is chosen for its tusks over a period of 15 years, this gives elephants born tuskless a significant advantage. Importantly, with a death rate of 90% even if the tusks make life easier in some way, they are still going to loose them.
Elephants are dangerous animals that need to be treated with respect at the best of times. They can do much damage with their trunks and likewise throwing their weight around can easily overturn a car, As a result, while loss of tusks may be an impediment (and would appear to be so, as post poaching periods tusks usually return) it is clearly not a death sentence – and as in these periods, having tusks IS, it is not surprising that the few born without rapidly come to dominate the population.
It is a huge threat to a species if it is only found in one reserve. This I believe is common sense, and not hard to explain. If all the remaining members of a species live in one place, an unexpected event could wipe out the entire population.
The UK has had a problem with bovine TB for years. The problem has continued to be that many cattle are lost each year.
Badgers are blamed for carrying the infection between fields. It has been pointed out that cows are often not checked when bought or sold, and that the spread of the illness can often be attributed to this. Never-the-less, the British government has steadfastly continued on this plan for a very long time.
Continue reading “Despite all the evidence, the government is determined to placate farmers by killing a further 60,000 badgers and for what”Declared extinct in 2003, recent genetic analysis shows that the Caspian and Amur tiger are so similar that they cannot be declared as sub species. As such, if the Amur tiger population continues to reboand it would be possible to translocate members west to restart the Caspian tiger population.
This should not be done though until the Amur tiger population is more stable.
Komodo dragons are the largest lizard that survives. Unfortunately, as they are found only on a series of islands amongst the Indonesia archipelago, sea level rise can quickly rob them of prime habitat.
As a result of this, they have been moved from vulnerable to endangered.
At the beginning of the year, a census showed that the population of wolves in Norway was about 81. This (you would think) is a population way to small to need a cull. Indeed at this population, you would think that even for trophy hunting, if you hope to be able to sell hunting permits again should be kept to single digits. In the Sierra de culebra is a hunting reserve: this reserve hosts around 80 wolves, and they allow at most 10 wolves to be hunted each year.
Norway announced that it would allow 51 wolves to be shot – about 60% of the population. This is totally insane, and indeed, they were taken to court. What is more ridiculous, is that the wolves live within the “wolf zone” an area of nature set aside to protect the predators. In virtually every country in the world, the idea of killing animals in an area set aside for their survival seems counter-intuitive. This zone makes up 5% of the country.
The appeal was rejected, and over the weekend hunts went on. A total of 9 wolves were shot.
This is foolish for Norway’s global reputation, as well as being foolish in terms of managing the local ecosystem. Furthermore, while a small level of culling may be required to control predation of livestock, Norway is likely to be able to make a great deal of money from wolf tourism – many people visit the country to see the wonderful scenery, and the return of the wolf could have increased these wild tourism numbers
Unfortunately all three Nordic countries have similar plans, with Finland suspending plans to kill 3 packs of wolves just last month – citing European legislation.
Sweden has shot most of their annual quota of 27 wolves (this is the country in which I had the best view of a wolf, by chance while sitting in a bear hide).
Pressure on the Nordic nations should be brought to bare, to halt this unnecessary slaughter from being repeated
In 2009 Nepal counted 121 tigers. in 2013 198 was counted – a 60% increase. There are thought to be around 240 individuals at this point.
As such target met.