The eastern black rhino is incredibly endangered, with just 1000 spread across a huge area. In this region, just 8 are known to live, so to see young is incredibly rare.
Rhino horn is incredibly valuable on the far East traditional medicine market, despite the fact that multiple scientific studies have shown that the rhino horn does nothing for humans. Never-the-less, this unmet demand for rhino horn, linked with the huge explosion of wealth in places like China, means that rhino horn is incredible valuable. While eastern black rhino horns rarely weigh more than 3kg, this can still be worth $200,000, which is very tempting, in a country where the average salary is under $200 a month.
As living conditions increase in the area, the desire to poach these animals is likely to decrease. Of course, these rhino are also likely to be worth similar amounts in tourism dollars across their lifetime, but that is a long-term thing, and something that the whole area benefits from (rather than the poacher, who is often struggling to make ends meet – though middlemen are instead making a fortune).
A small herd of 170 bison, released into a 20 square miles area of Tarcu mountains in Romania, are estimated to allow the land to capture 59,000 tones of carbon each year.
Big animals like this, stimulate the soil and plant growth, allowing the soil and plant growth to take up far more carbon than without them. Although Romania is one of the wildest countries in Europe, the European Bison was lost around 200 years ago. Between 2014 and 2021, 100 bison were reintroduced into the area, and that population has naturally grown such that there are now 170.
Scientists estimate that the lands carbon storing potential is as much as 10 times greater with the bison (they suggest that it is between 5 and 15 times more carbon.
Large parts of Australia look like the above photo, beautiful in a rugged way, but quite useless for the survival of many of Australia species. Australia has a wide range of habitats, which means that there are many areas which need to be protected.
The problem is, according to this study, declaring an area protected appears to be having little change on what is happened.
1/3 of all land that is set aside for restoration and conservation, has got worse rather than better. Given the fact that so many species are just hanging on to existence, this could be very bad news.
In one area that was studied, the majority of the area was cleared paddock – a serious problem for the koala and grey-headed flying fox which called the area home.
In particular, the idea of this scheme is so called biodiversity offsetting – if you are to clear wildlife habitat, you protect a similar sized area elsewhere.
Wolves have only recently returned to Austria, with an estimated 80 wolves spread throughout the country. It is perhaps not surprising therefore, that animal welfare activists, took the government to court, when it set cull numbers at 20, or 25% of the population a year.
The Austrian government had pointed to a condition in the 1992 EU directive on protecting wildlife, which states that wolf hunting to prevent financial damage can only be done if the population is in a favourable conservation status – something certainly not true in Austria. This condition can only apply to a wolf population which is stable.
I would also suggest that plans to kill 25% of the population each year, should also damage this, but this is a discussion for another day – when the population is far larger than it currently is. Other countries like Holland have similar sized wolf populations, and so this ruling could be applied in a variety of places.
Regional governments have absurdly argued that the wolf is no longer endangered in Austria, and that therefore its protection should be reduced. had the government listened would a ruling similar to the USA have come forward? Such that open season could be declared?
It is a good thing that wolves are so good at holding on, as we have spent much of our time attacking.
It is funny to think, that it is estimated our relationship with wolves (in the form of domesticating them as dogs) likely goes back to a similar point to the advent of growing crops, and well before the time that we started to keep livestock.
Given our fondness of dogs has deeper roots than our fear of wolves, it seems odd, that wolf persecution ever really got underway. It is true that wolf populations do need handling, but their existence is more good than bad. Places like the UK where they are missing, show this (when looked at the situation rationally)
There has been much discussion about the history of elephants in Borneo, and whether their loss is a problem
The origin of elephants in Borneo is unknown. Known for hosting the smallest elephants in the world, there are 2 theories as to how the elephants got to the island. The first is that they were released by a ruler in the 17th century (The most rapid population growth ever seen was 7,1% after the end of poaching in a reserve in Tanzania, a population of 30 elephants could become 1000 in just 50 years) – if this was the case, then their loss would not be bad; and the second is that actually the elephants arrived on the islands hundreds of thousands of years ago (as high as 300,000 years).
It is increasingly agreed that the second one of these ideas is likely to be correct. Though having said this, genetic analysis suggests that the whole population started with just 28 elephants.
Just 1000 are found on the island at the current time.
All wildlife on Borneo is at threat, as the palm oil industry continues to demand increasing quantities of prime rainforest be cut down. As this happens, elephants are forced into human areas, in their search for food, and then into conflict.
The Borneo elephant has only recently been assessed by the IUCN red list as a separate subspecies, but it is hoped that this recognition might increase tourism on this species as well as conservation dollars to save this species from its slow slide towards extincion
It is hard to believe that habitats like this could possible have previously held rainforest which produces enough soft fruit for monkeys like this. Just 10,000 years ago crops were a new thing, in the same way that cows and other livestock farming. Before this, we had to hunt for virtually everything.
The reason that they can work out what monkeys ate, is because they have seen the teeth, and they were not chipped at all, as a result of soft diet. There are thought to have been roughly 5 species of this small monkey family living at the time (30 million years ago). This is new, as formerly it was thought that early primates ate some fruit but also harder foods – clearly they specialized in fruit earlier than we thought.
Around the world, there are invasive species – from grey squirrels in the UK, to Macaques on Gibraltar, however, all these pale on comparison to having to live with wild elephants.
The elephants were bought to the Andaman islands in the late 19th century, to work in the timber operation, which continued until the last few decades. Thankfully, much of the forest in the islands survives – with some islands retaining almost 90% forest cover. This means that the elephants might well be able to thrive into the future.
The islands lie 850 miles from the coast of India, which means that while elephants would not have existed natively on the islands, there are many species which would be found in the same area.
Interview Island and North Andaman hosts these elephants – though they need to be watched, as a population of 100 elephants is already small, but if split between 2 islands, humans may well have to be helped to remain genetically varied enough to survive long-term.
While some have suggested that the elephants have damaged biodiversity, with some species having become less common, this ignores the impact of the timber extraction – it is far more likely that this is an impact of the many decades of pulling specific trees out of the forest.
Given the endangered status of the Indian elephant, this population is precious, but whether it can be left where it is long-term is something we do not know. There are still roughly 30,000 elephants in India, but the Andaman island elephants are going to need to be watch, long-term, to make sure that they do not damage species only found in their new home.
In 2023, the wolf population of France fell by 9%. This population was thought at 1003, down from over 1100.
It should be noted that France, as a large country, is likely to easily be able to support many more wolves than this. There are parts of the country, where wolves have not returned, with their main population lying in the Alps and surrounding areas, but also along the border to the East, and along the south of the country, with another population lying in the Pyrenees (it should be noted that this population is just started – thought to only be 16 individuals, though likely already increased). Should the wolf population in the Pyrenees become stable, wolves would be capable of using them as a staging area for repopulating both Spain and France.
In short? No, there is not too many wolves in France. This is patently absurd. It is true that many people believe that wolves have no place in France. In the UK, while I cannot see any UK government doing something sensible and returning them, there are many benefits. There are likely over 200,000 red deer, and 500,000 roe deer within the French nation. As such, predators are important, and with careful monitoring, the downsides are small.
With care, wolf watching could develop as a significant market within France
The Chinese government has introduced a carbon neutral policy, in an attempt to mitigate and reduce the impact of climate change. Under the expected model for what is going to happen to the climate (at the current time) the North Chinaleopard will gain in range, However, with the increase in carbon emissions, this territory is also expected to the reduction, migration, and fragmentation of the suitable habitat distribution of the North China leopard. It should be noted, that under genetic analysis, some authorities merged the north China leopard with the Amur leopard. Many disagree with this.
Havin said this, carbon neutrality policies can protect suitable wild habitats when carefully planned. In the future, the impact of carbon neutrality policies on future wildlife habitat protection should be carried out in depth to effectively promote the construction of wildlife protection projects – for instance, by making sure that planted woodland matches native woodland, and therefore adds to existing ecosystems. In many parts of the world, trees planted for carbon sequestration are often picked for how fast they grow – and thus eucalyptus trees have often been used. The problem with this, is that they are often impossible of supporting local wildlife, from insects to birds and even mammals. This was seen clearly in the UK, where a pine plantation replaced an oak woodland, the number of species supported, dropped from 200 to just 4.
The North China leopard is considered critically endangered, with the population definitely under 400 (given its remote habitat, a clear count is hard to get. It is undeniable that the North China Leopard and the Amur Leopard are genetically close, and quite conceivably closer than they should be for 2 subspecies. Should these 2 subspecies be recognized as one, it would allow us to greatly expand the genetic makeup of both populations. This would likely have a huge impact on both areas, and allow each population to expand rapidly.
It is essential, that as we grow huge areas of forest, to soak up as much of our carbon emissions as possible, that these fit into their ecosystems and are a positive addition. Apart from this appearing to be common sense (why would you not boost endangered species around the world, if we have to plant these forests anyway) but also, should you plant fast growing trees from elsewhere, very often they die, or cause serious issues elsewhere.
The right climate mitigation will have a bigger and longer term impact, something that is essential.
There is a serious problem in Borneo, that appears to be largely flying under the radar.
A survey of villages found that 30% of villages had evidence of orangutan killiing in the last 5-10 years. This is despite a taboo on killing the species.
The number of Borneo Orangutans is falling, and it is thought that the wild population will have fallen below 100,000 in recent years.
