US has tightened African elephant trophy import rules but stops short of banning

Elephants hunting used to be a common activity. This was banned in Kenya in 1973 and in Botswana in 2014. The trade in Elephant parts was banned in 1989.

For many years, however, conservationists have called for rich countries to ban imports of hunting trophies on a country by country basis. This is for a simple reason – a reserve like the Kruger, has a real issue with a growing elephant population, yet at the same time Nigeria has only 400 elephants left. Tanzania has seen a reduction of elephants of 63%, while Mozambique has seen a reduction of 34%.

This new ruling suggests that imports are only allowed from populations which are large enough to support the loss. Now, I would be interested as to how this is worked out. For instance, could I buy a tiny parcel of land, on the edge of a large reserve, and allow any elephants that step on my land to be hunted?

  • Somewhere like the Selous game reserve, would in theory be acceptable for elephant hunting. If we go back to the 1976 there were approaching 109,000 elephants. However that population is now thought to be around 13,000 – hunting should be banned until the population has recovered. If a hunting reserve cannot afford to police well enough to eliminate poaching, it should not be allowed to hunt (the number of poached and hunted elephants must be below safety levels.
  • The Serengeti ecosystem also does not have a large elephant populatino so cannot allow hunting
  • The African forest elephant is considered critically endangered, so none of these elephants should be hunted

 

Continue reading

EJC has ruled against Austria on wolf hunting

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)

Our behaviour may be still pushing the Northern right whale to extinction – entanglements may use as much energy as rearing all young

The Northern right whale was hunted to the brink of extinction – with less than 500 left when hunting ended. To put this in perspective, only 300 Southern right whales were left when hunting stopped, it is thought that there are now 3000-4000 Southern right whales.

Now, it is true that historically the Southern right whale is thought to have numbered as 55,000-70,000 individuals, suggesting that the current population is 3-5% of historic numbers.

However, the current estimate for the Northern right whale population is 386. While has the Southern right whale population grown over 1000%, and in the same time, the northern right whale population declined?

What is different?

Continue reading “Our behaviour may be still pushing the Northern right whale to extinction – entanglements may use as much energy as rearing all young”

America is following in Europe’s footsteps, with their recovering brown bears – now they are moving into human areas

This is a video of one of the clashes that I am talking about. The Grizzley bear population in 1975 ( in the lower 48 states) was just 700-800 (this excludes Alaska, where the current figure is 30,000) . The lower 48 states population has grown to around 1000 or an almost 50% increase.

There is a problem with this. Both in and out of Alaska (as well as Canada) these bears need space, and so are colonizing land that they previously roamed. Unfortunately, people rapidly forget how to live with animals like grizzly bears, so it is taking some significant work to live alongside these large animals once again.

The problem is, that when those encounters spike, generally authorities panic, and this generally leads to them looking to allow hunting once again. THIS IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POPULATION IS NO-WHERE NEAR RECOVERED AT THE CURRENT TIME.

Continue reading “America is following in Europe’s footsteps, with their recovering brown bears – now they are moving into human areas”

Great white sharks separated into 3 district populations 200,000 years ago – and have Orca stopped hunting the South African population?

These 3 groups do not intermix, and only very seldom, interbreed. These populations are found in the Southern Pacific, Northern Pacific and the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.

This naturally means that the great white sharp is far more at risk of extinction, than if all the great white sharks in the worlds oceans could interbreed.

These areas appear to be bounded by great ocean currents, which are rarely crossed. This is a problem, as if an individual population is lost, it makes it far more likely that distinct genetic information could be lost with it – take the Mediterranean great while shark population, which has seen a dramatic population decline from historic numbers, estimated at between 52% and 96% (areas like the Maramara sea, are known to have lost 96% of their population) depending on which study you read.

This makes local conservation far more essential, and we need to be careful to not loose any individual populations. There has been a great deal of worry for the great white shark population around South Africa, as they pretty much vanished in 2017, but appear to have returned in 2024. The disappearance of the great white was attributed to 2 orca which had become expert in hunting and killing these sharks – it should be remembered, that while great whites are often at the top of the food chain, they are hunted for food by orca. Whether these orca have gone back to eating something else, hence the great white shark return, is a question that does not appear to have been answered as yet.

Could the recovery of the Goshawk save the red squirrel?

European Goshawks were extinct in Britain at the end of the 19th century (and remained rare for over half a century) but in the last 50 years have made an incredible comeback. In the new forest, in the south of England, there are thought to be hundreds of pairs living wild.

In Thetford forest in Norfolk, an estimated 52% of the goshawks diet was grey squirrel. While it is true that they will also take red squirrels, these are generally better at escaping. More importantly, it is thought that Goshawks could be used to stop the grey squirrels population from growing any further.

As I have written before, the pine marten is also important for the recovery of the red squirrel, as it is far more successful at hunting grey squirrels, and they generally do not cohabit in any part of the country.

This will likely not eliminate the direct need for grey squirrel population to be culled by humans, far from it, but may well help towards the idea of giving red squirrels breathing room.

Continue reading “Could the recovery of the Goshawk save the red squirrel?”

The livestock lobby is fighting against lab-grown meat this is why we must not let them win

Livestock takes up roughly 20% of the worlds land, or around 50% of the worlds agricultural land. Astoundingly, around 1.3 billion people around the world are involved in the livestock industry.

The worlds remaining land wilderness, takes up just 25% of the worlds land – should we move toa system of growing meat in labs, we could almost double the amount of space for wildlife, which would allow many of the worlds endangered species to recover.

Apart form saving so much of the worlds wilderness, and wildlife, why should we do this? Well, firstly, the fact that people want things to stay as they are, is not new. Every new invention has lead to a change in the lives of many people – before farming came into existence, all the healthy men of each village (and in places, many of the healthy women) would have spent the majority of their time hunting. Looking at the natural world, animals like lion and leopard split their time between hunting and resting, with little else (apart from reproduction) being thought of.

As electric cars started to appear, the vast majority of car companies tried to stop their progress. Indeed, many spent their time buying inventions and smaller companies, just to kill their electric car program. This was not because they were intrinsically afraid of the electric car, but because they were afraid that if adopted, they might have a smaller market share than they did with the internal combustion engine car. As tends to happen in this situation, however, many of these companies are thought likely to go out of business in the next 2 decades (and it took a start-up, Tesla to fully make electric cars work – even now, many are still trying to go back). The same can be said for the factory production line, and many many others.

The problem is that livestock farming is only second to the fossil fuel industry, in terms of its contribution to climate change, so if humanity is to survive, it needs to change dramatically.

Why should we be worried about saving the worlds wildernesses? I think that a great deal of the population feels that we should save them for their own intrinsic value, but there is more than that. Rainforests around the world are the engine that supplies much of these areas rain, and without the rainforest often the area will collapse into desert.

Some suggest that we should all go to a plant-based diet, and certainly this would do what we want (though it should be noted, that this leaves the livestock industry in the same place – indeed, the livestock industry as it currently is, must have its days numbered, as humanity cannot afford its carbon footprint or it will continue our descent into climate breakdown). The only alternative to this is to produce the dairy and meat through other means; and these means are multiplying around the world, as it is recognized that there is a lot of money available for those who solve it early.

These range from growing meat on a scaffold from cells taken from a live animal. This idea is rapidly growing in popularity, though some think that this is a dead end, and instead a lot of people are looking at brewing microbes, which can be made to have a taste and texture that will make them indistinguishable from the real thing. This would also allow the unhealthy parts like fat to be not grown. It avoids the need for a lot of land, needs no fertilizer and greatly reduces the amount of fresh water needed (some can use salt water).

Protectionism is not restricted to farmers, with many governments getting in on the act, and in the EU a new group is pushing for a continent wide ban.

I think that these things will be developed somewhere, and we will miss out, if this happens in places like China (they have a great incentive, as their population eats little real meat, but as the wealth of people are increasing, they are demanding to eat a diet more like the west. For most of us, we are going to be watching from the sidelines, in terms of what happens next, but we can write to our representatives, and make sure that livestock owners are not the only voices that they hear.

Sweden decides to kill 20% of its bears in its annual hunt

Wild bears in Sweden

Just under 500 permits have been granted for bear hunting, which would drop the countries population under 2000 across the whole country. This is 40% under the population that existed in 2008. This number of licenses gives the game away, it is a give away to the trophy hunting industry, and is not about controlling the population.

While many bear hunters are pleased, there are a significant number who are concerned. Anders Nilsson a hunter in north Sweden said “There are those within the hunting community that are concerned about too many bears being killed off”. This is well above the annual replacement rate, and it is predicted that if this level was sustained into next year, the number of bears would fall below the minimum level of 1400, that is thought that is needed to retain a healthy population within the country.

Bears are a protected species in Europe, and as such “deliberate hunting or killing of strictly protect species is prohibited” with this only being lifted as a “last resort” to protect public safety, crops or natural flora and fauna.

It is feared that the bear is heading in the same direction as the moose, with a population having fallen 60% in the 21st century – having killed too many moose, the hunters are now blaming the bears for killing too many of what is left, and leaving too small a share for trophy hunters in the country. Culls of both wolves (there are currently roughly 450 wolves in the country, considered above carrying capacity, but only because they compete with humans, there is little supported science in working out carrying capacity at this level) and lynx have been increasing (lynx have a population of around 1450, though this is also heavily depressed on what would occur naturally – lynx also rarely target domestic livestock, though in Sweden this is more complex, as reindeer in northern Sweden are semi domestic, being allowed to roam free but owned).

This cull is well above what should be allowed, and is clearly not in line with European rules. It is also highly dangerous, as it risks Sweden’s bear watching industry. 9.2% of the economy comes from tourism, and many of these will spend time in rural areas, trying to see the bears. While it is hard to find numbers for how much money the bear culling brings in, it is certainly lower than the ecotourism potential of each living bear.

I have been lucky enough to see both bear and wolf in Sweden, from a bear hide. Well worth a visit, though, you may feel it worth waiting till the country starts culling fewer. Having said this, visiting to see the bears may instead show the government the value of leaving more bears alive. We have a bear hide on our books in the country click here to see more, or to book your visit, which is likely to be a memory that stays with you for a long time.

The end of Whaling in Iceland, end of an era, or sensible financial move

Whaling went on for centuries, in many parts of the world. One of these was Iceland, where due to the latitude, it is often hard to grow much food. Iceland did not end whaling when it was banned by the international community, and since then have hunted and killed around 1800. They returned to hunting fin whales last year, but what is clear, is that not only do the Icelandic people not want to eat the whale meat, but there is little hunger for it elsewhere in the world. Indeed, whaling is incredibly expensive, and has only stayed afloat through government support.

Whales are essential to the worlds oceans, both through their fertilization through their waste, and the vast amounts of carbon that they sequester over their lives. For the foreseeable time we need every living whale we can have, in the fight against the damage which humans are doing to the planet.

Reversing extinction: Marwell zoo and the scimitar-horned oryx

Declared extinct in the wild back in 2000, this species is now not only re-established in the wild, but has a big enough population to now only be listed as endangered (down from critically endangered).

Apart from supplying individuals for the reintroduction, Marwell zoo also helped with strategy.

The video below is just 2 minutes long. While it talks about Marwells other work as well, it shows a number of these animals living wild back in Africa.

This has got to become the reason for zoos. What ever else they do, there are many species at risk of extinction in the wild, these need to have enough captive individuals to re-establish wild populations, should the current conservation fail.

Of course, zoos have many other roles, from education, to fostering a love of wildlife in the next generation.

One thing that they should not be, is a curio house- many zoos are far to worried about displaying albino or melanistic individuals. Now while these individuals are fascinating and can be used as ambassadors for the species, their genetic health should be looked after (all white tigers are descended from one female, and closely related individuals are regularly bred togerther to ensure this trait is passed down. Indeed, as a result of this, white tigers are often not of good health.

The majority of zoos are now like Marwell – while like many, it started as the private zoo of wealthy owners it has turned into an important place of conservation and science. Another of their successes, is the cooperative breeding that occurs as standard in current times, across Europe. Regular loaning of animals is essential, so that we can treat all of the zoo animals in Europe as one single population, thereby  making sure that all animals in the system are healthy.

There are many hundreds of zoos across Europe (some claim as many as 2000, though around 1500 is the estimated worldwide number suggesting that this is a rather large exaggeration. It is likely that around half of the worlds zoos are in Europe, and by cooperative breeding, we can make sure that healthy populations remain in captivity, so that should a population be lost from the wild, it can be returned, when the wild situation improves.

Almost all predictions about human population are expected to peak in the coming decades, and then decline after that. If this pattern is followed, it should be expected that we will need to re-establish wilderness in the future. 

Scimitar-horned oryx have been returned to the wild in Tunisia, and Chad and there are plans to return them to the wild in Niger, in the near future.

Extinction was caused by a variety of features, but the primary one was over-hunting. This has virtually been eliminated, after a ban on hunting of this species was put into effect in 2013. Should this species be allowed to fully recover. In 1985, there was a population of at least 500 of this species living in the wild, so it took only 15 years for it to disappear, as such what is clearly essential is a regular assessment on how this species is faring, allowing earlier interventions.

Saving the natural world, may require this kind of success to be a regular feature.

See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers