Wildcat kittens born outside captivity in Cairngorms

Wildcats are native to the UK, but have been pushed to the brink of extinction by hybridisation with native cats – which come from the wildcats from places like Israel in the middle east. As a result of this, as well as trying to remove the feral domestic cats, and their descendants, they are trying to create pockets of Scotland, which would allow these cats to recover.

The natural behaviour of a British wildcat when meeting a feral cat, is to kill it. However, as these animals become rarer, even rare breeding events, can threaten the survival of the whole species. This behaviour also means that with careful planning, we should be able to reintroduce them into other parts of the country. There are a range of other wild predators lost over the last couple of millennia – and I hope to see the others return, but it is thrilling to know that a wildcat is once again living and breeding in its native habitat of the Scottish mountains.

These wildcats are thought to be the first born wild in Scotland for 5 years, after 19 wildcats bred in the Highland wildlife park, were released into the Cairngorms national park.

Could Bison allow the land to reduce air pollution? – Yes

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.

Continue reading “Could Bison allow the land to reduce air pollution? – Yes”

Analysis has found that 1/3 of land set aside for restoration is worse than before in Australia

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.

Continue reading “Analysis has found that 1/3 of land set aside for restoration is worse than before in Australia”

Beavers have been returned to the South-down national park after a 600 year absense

Having been released near Petersfield in the South of England, they will be tracked by a team of academics, to make sure that they survive and thrive.

These beavers will help with the rejuvenation of a wetland area on the river Meon. Currently, the area consists of a straight section of the river, with a sort of duck pond beside it, however, once the beavers get to work, this will change dramatically – turning the pond into a series of ponds, and making it suitable to house a wide variety of British wildlife.

As found elsewhere in the UK, the beavers are likely to have a rapid impact on water quality (for the better). A second pair were introduced to an estate near Basingstoke just last year (they had their first kits in September this year).

As in other parts of the country, these beavers will spread out from where they have been reintroduced (if allowed) and are likely to link up with other populations, such as the Devon beavers, within a small number of years – it seems likely that without a sustained attempt to remove the beaver once again, it is only a matter of time, before they spread to all parts of the UK.

Apart from the joy of knowing they are there, there are many positive impacts of their presence: they will reduce flooding (areas that they do flood with their dams, are places which we likely should not have built anyway), clean water and create habitats for many other creatures. Perversely, they have also been shown to help forests recover (by creating a mosaic of different habitats) and therefore should be a positive for the forestry industry in the UK, despite fears to the contrary.

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)

The smallest elephant in the world is in danger of being lost

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 becoming increasingly clear: humans are responsible for the loss of mega fauna that we can see in the past

The skeleton above is the closest we can get to a real mammoth, as a result of their extinction. However, it is not the only missing large species – indeed, the elephant family alone, is thought to have around 30 extinct members. Aside from these, there are 2 known extinct species of the woolly rhino, cave lions and sabre-toothed tigers, and various species of bear, among many others.

If you go back 50,000 years, there were 57 species of megaherbivores (herbivores weighing over a ton), yet just 11 of these survive today – these include the elephant species, the rhino species the hippo and the giraffe.

Continue reading “It is becoming increasingly clear: humans are responsible for the loss of mega fauna that we can see in the past”

It appears that humans have been transporting wildlife around to new places for longer than we thought

Marsupial bones have been found on islands hundreds of km from Australia. What is more astounding is that these moves appear to have occurred 42,000 years ago, and could not have taken place without humans. Found in some of the islands, which form a chain from Asia to the Australian continent (though there are still hundreds of kilometres between them.

Found within rock shelters within these islands, were a layer of sediment, which included signs of human presence. Amongst this layer, was also found bones of marsupials (there is no other evidence that these animals ever lived on the island). This island is over 150 miles from the nearest place that these animals could have been found, which is unlikely to have been survived for a crossing (though it should be noted, that animals are thought to have crossed from Africa to Madagascar on similar rafts, and this is 250 miles.

We continue to move species, and often in quite damaging ways. Still it is interesting to know how long we have been doing it.

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.

On the founding of Kahuzi-Biega National Park, locals were pushed out -they now have the right to return, what will happen

Kahuzi-Biega National Park was established in 1937 by the Belgium colonial rulers and then expanded in 1975. It now covers 6000 square km or 2300 square miles. Roughly 13000 Batwa were cleared out of the area to make way for the park (along with other people who had settled more recently).

Continue reading “On the founding of Kahuzi-Biega National Park, locals were pushed out -they now have the right to return, what will happen”
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