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.
I do not know how many of my readers follow current affairs closely, though I follow them.
Are wars good for wildlife, or are they bad?
Unfortunately, it completely depends.
I suspect that on the whole, it depends on the wildlife in question. Several times during wars, it was thought that the European bison had been lost – due to soldiers having to camp in remote forests that they still survived. It is not surprising that soldiers with little to eat will take Bison that they encounter (one bison could feed a large number of soldiers). Indeed, it is certainly the case that many herbivores have been lost in this way.
Other species are different.
Mountain gorillas multiplied greatly during the period of the civil war. In similar ways, the Iron curtain that crossed Europe – along the edge of the Soviet Union, had a no mans land on either side of the barrier. This Green belt which ran for thousands of km across Europe, while not wide was never-the-less wide enough for animals to use. Indeed, it is thought that wolves and bears used this route as a highway – allowing them to recolonise land they had been exterminated from.
So, what do we think? Well, partly it depends on how long the war goes on. At the current time, it does not look like Russia will be able to last for long enough for this to have any big effect. If instead this was to go on for years, it might be a very different thing. This is because Ukraine lies between the Eastern Europe and the Carpathians, and the west. Should hunting in Ukraine cease for a few years, it is likely to accelerate the movement of wolves and bears and lynx from east to west. This process is likely to happen over time anyway, but a protracted war could accelerate it.
As I said above, though, it is highly likely that this conflict will not last long.
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.
Currently, 70% of the land in the UK is given over to agriculture. Of this, just 15% is used to grow crops for human consumption. A further 22% goes towards feeding livestock. The rest is given over to livestock grazing.
This means that we give over 44% of the country to livestock, and a further 15% of the country to feed the livestock.
If growing food in a lab does indeed take off, 59% of the UK would suddenly be freed up – lab grown meat done properly could have a near 0 carbon footprint, and can be created in close proximity to the shop that will sell it -further reducing or eliminating the transport carbon footprint of food.
Now, assuming that this is to happen we would still need to keep some livestock. This would be needed to harvest cells. Never the less, we could still see a reduction of more than 99% of the livestock and land required. I do not believe that I am the only person who would be far happier satisfying my desire for meat, without the climate implications or indeed the fact that animals have to die to satisfy it (I am not a vegetarian, but over the last few years we have made efforts to reduce our meat footprint).
This would free up more than 50% of the country. What could we do with this?
Well my argument is that this land could be given over to rewilding. With this amount of land, we could suck up vast amounts of carbon a year. 50% of the UK is roughly 120,000 square kilometres. Now roughly speaking, forest suck up 500g per square m per year, or 500 metric tonnes per square km. Therefore, the UK could suck up 60 million tonnes a year. Now it is true that this is not huge compared to our emissions and we might have some other uses, never-the-less I am sure that I am not the only person that is frustrated by the lack of wilderness in the UK. Even just 10% of the gained land being given over to rewilding could make great progress in returning wilderness to the UK.
In much of the Amazon rainforest destruction is in order to increase the amount of land that can be farmed.
Great areas are being deforested in order to grow crops.
The problem is, that the rainfall is largely caused by the rainforest. Therefore, by cutting down the rainforest you remove this rainfall.
Not only is rainforest destruction a dangerous thing for the community, but the land will be worthless within a short time of it being deforested.
I hope all the people reading this are aware of the intelligence of chimpanzees. Indeed, this intelligence has been known for some time. Altruistic acts have been recorded in studies – going back to Jane Goodall’s seminal first study in Gombe stream.
This time, scientists have observed chimpanzees in Gabon applying insects to each others wounds – in the same way that we would use medicine. Now while medicinal uses have been seen before this is the first use of this sort that has been seen.
Back in 1965 Jane Goodall started to see in her studies, the use of various plants as medicines. In this instance, there was a specific leaf that they would eat when not feeling well – importantly, the leaf was not chewed as is normal. when researchers did tests on the leaf, they found it contained a specific chemical which was capable of killing a range of bacteria, fungi, and nematodes
In a world where we are worried about global warming and carbon emissions, it is insanity that we are still cutting down trees. Recent research shows it even more insane – the carbon footprint of deforestation has been shown to have doubled in the last 2 decades.
Unfortunately, this problem is for simple reasons. Generalizing, the majority of people who are worried about global warming are in developed countries – few of these countries have an significant rainforest left, as they cut them down (often centuries ago).
In developing countries, people are less worried about global warming. Are the stupid? No, of course not. In the developed world, for the vast majority of people, we do not need to worry about where our next meal is coming from (sure there are varying levels of poverty, but on the whole dying from starvation in the west is rare). In developing countries, however, starvation is still a problem that occurs from time to time. Terrible famines have occurred within living memory, which means that the populations in these countries are more concerned with plans to stay alive, not with concerns over how difficult they are making their descendants lives.
The worlds forests contain more than a century of human carbon emissions (from fossil fuels). In other words, if we cut it all down we will blow past all possible safety points and will be well in to runaway global warming. We need to help the countries which still contain rainforest – even one off payments in the billions are not enough. The west needs to assist countries with large rainforests, particularly the Democratic republic of the Congo, Indonesia, and Brazil in growing both their economies and food production in the smallest amount of space possible, alongside significant regular payments for retaining their rainforests.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. There is also significant differences between concern from individuals on the ground and the government. If this site succeeds we will create a marketplace for those living by rainforest to benefit, however if the government decides to cut down the forest this will not matter.
What is clear is that not only do we need to end deforestation, but we need to reverse deforestation in many places. This is not only necessary for global warming, but also for rainfall and the whole host of other reasons that benefit local people.
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.
Orca are generally regarded as the apex predator in the sea. There are obviously others that are good contenders, such as the great white shark – but when orca are nearby, great white sharks go very quiet in an attempt to not draw attention.
It would seem that nothing is too big to be food. Coordinated female lead pods of orca have been documented ramming the whale, and then eating its tongue before it dies.
It is, I suppose, not something that should be remotely surprising. Orca have developed ways of feeding on all sorts of food that would at first glance be out of reach. From rushing in towards a beach, allowing them to aquaplane up onto the beach to grab sea lions, to stunning fish with their tale – stopping them darting away, there is a fascinating range of hunting techniques that they employ.
Continue reading “Orca have been documented killing and eating blue whales”In the coastal National park of Loango – Gabon, over the course of a study of a group of chimpanzees, 19 times chimpanzees were seen catching a spefic insect out of the air, chewing it, and then inserting it into injuries on wounded fellow members of the group.
A number of insects seem to have a positive impacts when applied to skin, and it is thought that these insects have an anti inflammatory effect, allowing the injury to heal faster.
The injuries are almost always as a result of fights between different groups of chimpanzees.
Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in
