Richard Conniff's Blog, page 65

Spectacular New Dolphin Species Discovered

This new species somehow managed to go unnoticed.

Just the other week I was talking about how giant species unknown to science keeping turning up, and now a pretty one–and a pretty big one, at that–has turned up in sight of land, off the coast of Australia.

Here’s the press release from the Wildlife Conservation Society, and also check out a few more lovely photos below:

A species of humpback dolphin previously unknown to science is swimming in the waters off northern Australia, according to a team of researchers working for the Wildlife Conservation Society, the American Museum of Natural History, and numerous other groups that contributed to the study.

To determine the number of distinct species in the family of humpback dolphins (animals named for a peculiar hump just below the dorsal fin), the research team examined the evolutionary history of this family of marine mammals using both physical features and genetic data. While the Atlantic humpback dolphin is a recognized species, this work provides the best evidence to date to split the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin into three species, one of which is completely new to science.

“Based on the findings of our combined morphological and genetic analyses, we can suggest that the humpback dolphin genus includes at least four member species,” said Dr. Martin Mendez, Assistant Director of WCS’s Latin America and the Caribbean Program and lead author of the study. “This discovery helps our understanding of the evolutionary history of this group and informs conservation policies to help safeguard each of the species.”

The authors propose recognition of at least four species in the humpback dolphin family: the Atlantic humpback dolphin (Sousa teuszii), which occurs in the eastern Atlantic off West Africa; the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa plumbea), which ranges from the central to the western Indian Ocean; another species of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis), which inhabits the eastern Indian and western Pacific Oceans; and a fourth Sousa species found off northern Australia yet to be named (the formal adjustment of the naming and number of species occurs through a separate and complementary process based on these findings).

“New information about distinct species across the entire range of humpback dolphins will increase the number of recognized species, and provides the needed scientific evidence for management decisions aimed at protecting their unique genetic diversity and associated important habitats,” said Dr. Howard Rosenbaum, Director of WCS’s Ocean Giants Program and senior author on the paper.

Working to bring taxonomic clarity to a widespread yet poorly known group of dolphins, the authors assembled a large collection of physical data gathered mostly from beached dolphins and museum specimens. Specifically, the team examined features from 180 skulls covering most of the distribution area of the group in order to compare morphological characters across this region.

The researchers also collected 235 tissue samples from animals in the same areas, stretching from the eastern Atlantic to the western Pacific Oceans, analyzing both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA for significant variations between populations.

The study appears in the latest edition of Molecular Ecology. The authors are: Martin Mendez and Howard C. Rosenbaum of the Wildlife Conservation Society and American Museum of Natural History; Thomas J. Jefferson of Clymene Enterprises, Lakeside, California; Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis of Fordham University; Michael Krützen of the University of Zurich, Switzerland; Guido J. Parra of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia; Tim Collins of the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Environment Society of Oman; Giana Minton of the Environment Society of Oman and the University Malaysia Sarawak; Robert Baldwin of the Environment Society of Oman; Per Berggren of Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom; Anna Särnblad of Stockholm University, Sweden; Omar A. Amir of the University of Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, Tanzania; Vic M. Peddemors of the School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, Durban, South Africa and the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, Australia; Leszek Karczmarkski of the University of Hong Kong; Almeida Guissamulo of the Museu de Historia Natural, Mozambique; Brian Smith of the Wildlife Conservation Society; Dipani Sutaria of James Cook University, Australia; and George Amato of the American Museum of Natural History.

The humpback dolphin grows up to 8 feet in length and ranges from dark gray to pink and/or white in color. The species generally inhabits coastal waters, deltas, estuaries, and occurs throughout the Indian and Pacific oceans to the coasts of Australia. The Atlantic humpback dolphin is considered “Vulnerable” according to the IUCN Red List, whereas the Indo-Pacific dolphin species Sousa chinensis is listed as “Near Threatened.” Humpback dolphins are threatened by habitat loss and fishing activity. 

Ready for its closeup.

 

 

 

 

Richard Conniff Speaks Redneck

Yep, it really is a strange world out there. Someone has actually translated my story from today’s New York Times into redneck and in the interest of reaching a broad readership, I am reprinting it below.

Da New York Times web site also has a Gangsa edition, and I am sorely disappointed not to be translated there.

This translation doesn’t use ma byline, or nothin’ I reknize as mine. But I hain’t complainin none ’bout dat.

Da Gran Animal Costume Partee
Published October 25, 2013 | By T’ Neck Hizzelf

IT’S ever travel’r’s lil dreem.

Earlee thishere year, Rohit Geerge wuz a’stayin at a hostel n’ da citee o’Shillong n’ nerdaastern India, wen he encounteret whut appeeret ta be a large, hairy spid’r n’ da torlett. Lat’r, he spottid anodar one at seemt ta perch un its orange laigs atop someone’s lawndry. O.K., ever travel’r’s lil nightmare.

Fer Mr. Geerge, tho, it rilly wuz a dreem, becawz da spid’r turnt out ta be a moth. Eve bett’r, it mite jes be a new specees’ n’ da genus Siamusotima, which speshulizes n’ scaryun’ da wits out o’potenshul predaters by imitatyun’ spiders. Thems eiite orange laigs wuz ackshly jes a patturn un its wings, un evolutyunree byperduct o’a'livin ferever amungst moth-eatin predaters.

Mr. Geerge, who likes ta photograph inseects, postid his’n pictures un iNaturalist, a site whar innyone a’ken put up photos fer experts ta idantify. (Y’all a’ken try it wit whutever strange hairy thangs turn up n’ yer torlett.) The he sat back as da kudos kum rolleeun’ n’.

Da strategy o’pertendin ta be sumthin odar thun whut y’all rilly air is o’corse common, an’ nairy jes fer humans. N’ my backyard n’ Cunectikut, fer instunts, da caterpillar o’da swallowtail butterflee Papilio troilus duz a brilleeint imitashun o’bird poop, ta avoid bein ett by birds. Lat’r n’ its development, it turns gree an’ produces eyespots so it a’ken pertend ta be a snake.

Thishere sort o’trickery is callt Batesiun mimicry, an’ no, it’s nairy namet aft’r Nermun Bates n’ “Psycho.” (Pertendin ta be sumthin milt’r an’ mer innosent thun y’all rilly air? At’s Mertensiun mimicry.) Mimicry n’ da natcherul worl wuz furst describet n’ da 1860s by Henry Walt’r Bates, da greet Amazoniun naturalist. He saw whut’s noe knowed as Batesiun mimicry n’ sartin colerfil butterflies, an’ da eggzamples he providet became crucial suppertyun’ evidence fer Charles Darwin’s daery o’evolushun by natcherul seeleckshun.

Bates knew at one group o’butterflies should be easy targets fer predaters, becawz day flee by day, dawdleeun’ along la-lala-lala n’ plane siite. But he wuz also puzzlet ta notice at dase butterflies dresst damselves up n’ flashy colers, as if’n ta advertise dair vulnerabilitee. He evantuallee eyesd at thems flashy colers matchet da colers o’anodar specees’ n’ da nayburhood. And thishere model specees’ turnt out ta taste so plum repulsif’ at predaters quicklee larnt ta leeve dam alone. Da mimics, un da odar han’, tastid jes fine. But dair disguise trickt birds, lizards, dragonflies, robb’r flies an’ odar predaters into leevin dam unmolestid.

Masters o’Batesiun mimicry abound n’ da natcherul worl. Fer instunts, da mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) a’ken’t deliv’r a venomyus bite er styun’. But it changes its shape ta mimic dangeryus sea snakes an’ lyunfish, which a’ken. Aardwulves air harmless an’ solitree inseect eaters un da Afrikan pluns, but day wear da same stripes as dair fierce pack-huntin naybors, da hyenas, which mite discourage predaters. Cuckoos also put un stripes, mer aggressivelee. Thay lif’ by trickyun’ odar birds into reeryun’ dair yung, an’ at meens slippyun’ un egg into its fost’r trayler undetectid. So day mimic sparroe hawks ta skeer off da future fost’r parnts. And meek lil moths, beetles an’ hoverflies do un almos purrfeck imitashun o’common wasps.

Modes o’disguise also tend ta be repeeted frum place ta place. If’n a disguise wurks n’ one place, it is highlee probabull at specees’ elsewhere will have tride it, too. (Scyintists call thishere convergent evolushun.) Mr. Geerge sez dare’s anodar bird poop mimic, a moth, near his’n trayler n’ Bangalere, India. (He recognizet it onlee becawz he wuz puzzlet one day ta notice acoupla perzackly idantical bird poops side by side un a leaf.) N’ Malaysia, a spectacular adult moth, Macrocilix maia, one-ups da poop mimics by mimickyun’ bird poop un its bodee, an’ acoupla flies feedin un da poop un its wings.

And n’ Costa Rica, metalmark moths n’ da genus Branthia flare out dair wings at a sliite angle above da bodee ta imitate jumpin spiders. A’lookin at photografs, I don’t quite see da resemblance. But it wurks well enough, accerdyun’ ta a 2006 study n’ da jurnl PLoS One, at predatery jumpin spiders almos always leeve dam alone — an’ sumtimes run away screamin into da nite.

All thishere is jes Batesiun mimicry. We’re nairy eve goin ta talk about Mülleriun, Wasmunniun er Bakeriun mimicry. Er da kine o’mimicry at happens onlee by sound er smell. Oh, an’ dun dare’s intersaxual mimicry — at is, cross-dressin. (Good monin’, Mr. Cuttlefish, luv da skirt.)

Da bottom line is at wen folks hed out ta trick er treet thishere Hallowee, eve at Miley Cyrus costume will nairy rate as da strangest an’ scariest disguise n’ da nayburhood. A Tet Cruz costume, un da odar han’, jes mite be a contend’r.

Da auther o’“Da Specees’ Seekers: Heroes, Fools, an’ da Mad Pursuit o’Life un Earth.”

The Grand Animal Costume Party

Macrocilix maia: Mimicking bird poop and two flies?

My latest, for The New York TImes:

IT’S every traveler’s little dream.

Early this year, Rohit George was staying at a hostel in the city of Shillong in northeastern India, when he encountered what appeared to be a large, hairy spider in the bathroom. Later, he spotted another one that seemed to perch on its orange legs atop someone’s laundry. O.K., every traveler’s little nightmare.

For Mr. George, though, it really was a dream, because the spider turned out to be a moth. Even better, it might just be a new species in the genus Siamusotima, which specializes in scaring the wits out of potential predators by imitating spiders. Those eight orange legs were actually just a pattern on its wings, an evolutionary byproduct of living forever among moth-eating predators.

Mr. George, who likes to photograph insects, posted his pictures on iNaturalist, a site where anyone can put up photos for experts to identify. (You can try it with whatever strange hairy things turn up in your bathroom.) Then he sat back as the kudos came rolling in.

The strategy of pretending to be something other than what you really are is of course common, and not just for humans. In my backyard in Connecticut, for instance, the caterpillar of the swallowtail butterfly Papilio troilus does a brilliant imitation of bird poop, to avoid being eaten by birds. Later in its development, it turns green and produces eyespots so it can pretend to be a snake.

This sort of trickery is called Batesian mimicry, and no, it’s not named after Norman Bates in “Psycho.” (Pretending to be something milder and more innocent than you really are? That’s Mertensian mimicry.) Mimicry in the natural world was first described in the 1860s by Henry Walter Bates, the great Amazonian naturalist. He saw what’s now known as Batesian mimicry in certain colorful butterflies, and the examples he provided became crucial supporting evidence for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

Bates knew that one group of butterflies should be easy targets for predators, because they fly by day, dawdling along la-lala-lala in plain sight. But he was also puzzled to notice that these butterflies dressed themselves up in flashy colors, as if to advertise their vulnerability. He eventually realized that those flashy colors matched the colors of another species in the neighborhood. And this model species turned out to taste so thoroughly repulsive that predators quickly learned to leave them alone. The mimics, on the other hand, tasted just fine. But their disguise tricked birds, lizards, dragonflies, robber flies and other predators into leaving them unmolested.

Masters of Batesian mimicry abound in the natural world. For instance, the mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) can’t deliver a venomous bite or sting. But it changes its shape to mimic dangerous sea snakes and lionfish, which can. Aardwolves are harmless and solitary insect eaters on the African plains, but they wear the same stripes as their fierce pack-hunting neighbors, the hyenas, which might discourage predators. Cuckoos also put on stripes, more aggressively. They live by tricking other birds into rearing their young, and that means slipping an egg into its foster home undetected. So they mimic sparrow hawks to scare off the future foster parents. And meek little moths, beetles and hoverflies do an almost perfect imitation of common wasps.

Modes of disguise also tend to be repeated from place to place. If a disguise works in one place, it is highly probable that species elsewhere will have tried it, too. (Scientists call this convergent evolution.) Mr. George says there’s another bird poop mimic, a moth, near his home in Bangalore, India. (He recognized it only because he was puzzled one day to notice two exactly identical bird poops side by side on a leaf.) In Malaysia, a spectacular adult moth, Macrocilix maia, one-ups the poop mimics by mimicking bird poop on its body, and two flies feeding on the poop on its wings.

And in Costa Rica, metalmark moths in the genus Brenthia flare out their wings at a slight angle above the body to imitate jumping spiders. Looking at photographs, I don’t quite see the resemblance. But it works well enough, according to a 2006 study in the journal PLoS One, that predatory jumping spiders almost always leave them alone — and sometimes run away screaming into the night.

All this is just Batesian mimicry. We’re not even going to talk about Müllerian, Wasmannian or Bakerian mimicry. Or the kind of mimicry that happens only by sound or smell. Oh, and then there’s intersexual mimicry — that is, cross-dressing. (Good morning, Mr. Cuttlefish, love the skirt.)

The bottom line is that when folks head out to trick or treat this Halloween, even that Miley Cyrus costume will not rate as the strangest and scariest disguise in the neighborhood. A Ted Cruz costume, on the other hand, just might be a contender.

The Surprising Fallout From Hunting Top Predators

 

My latest, for TakePart:

Humans have probably been hunting big, scary predators for as long as we have been human, and for the obvious reasons: They are big. They are scary. And they are competition. The fear goes deep in our culture— the Big Bad Wolf was appearing in folk tales in the early middle ages. When I spent a little time on foot in lion habitat a few years ago, the fear felt even more deeply rooted, down somewhere in my gut. Hunting helps restore our precious illusion of control.

Even today, and even among people who may privately loathe the practice, trophy hunting of top predators can seem like a useful tool. The theory is that trophy fees—$10,000 for a lion, say—help pay to protect habitat and keep out poachers. These fees can also provide economic benefits to local communities. In theory, that increases tolerance among people who still live with large, dangerous animals outside their garden gates. Hunting some species may thus serve as the means to increase their numbers— killing predators in order to save them.

But a new study in the journal Biological Conservation asks whether what’s actually happening is the opposite: These methods may be saving large carnivores numerically, but altering their role as apex predators. A top predator that must constantly “look over its shoulder” for fear of human hunters, Andrés Ordiz and his co-authors suggest, may not be a top predator any more. And the effects of that subtle shift can reverberate through entire ecosystems.

As hunters tend to know too well, even white-tailed deer or Canada geese know what to do and where to avoid when hunting season starts. It’s the same for predators, according to the new study: Brown bears tend to shift their daily foraging and resting routines when human hunters arrive. So do lions. Wolves may actually relocate their breeding sites.

These animals’ natural ecological function as predators is to instill “the landscape of fear” in their prey. But they become victims of that landscape instead, spending more time and energy being vigilant, and less out hunting. That means they may not be as effective at controlling numbers of prey species like moose or elk, according to Ordiz and his co-authors. And that can lead in turn to overgrazing and a cascade of other effects on the habitat.

Over the long-term, persistent hunting may also make the predators themselves less big and bad. The long history of hunting and persecution in Europe may be one reason, the study suggests, that European brown bears are not nearly as fierce as grizzlies in North America, though they are the same species, Ursus arctos. “Long-term, human-caused selection may explain the reduced aggression of brown bears towards people, their nocturnal behavior, and their higher investment in reproduction,” the authors write.

When I reached him by phone at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ordiz said that hunters’ preference for large male trophies can have dramatic and destructive social effects, too. When a big brown bear is shot, for instance, infanticide increases over the next two years as other males move in to court the female.

The same thing happens with lions, Craig Packer of the University of Minnesota’s Lion Research Center told me several years ago, when I interviewed him about his research in Tanzania. A young male may take the place of a hunting victim long enough to begin a new litter, said Packer, who is not connected to the study. That new father then needs to stick around to protect those cubs for another two years. But a lot of younger males lack the moxie to hold off challengers. Social upheaval often ensues, with one male after another fathering cubs, but faltering as their protector, and none of the litters ever reaching maturity.

The new paper does not advocate a hunting ban. Controlled, licensed hunting of predators may still be a better alternative than leaving a habitat open to poachers, said Ordiz. (He also noted that his two co-authors have at times been hunters, though of prey species, not predators.) Instead, the paper urges conservationists to start thinking beyond mere predator numbers, to larger ecological effects.

The authors also make recommendations for managing large predators more thoughtfully. Among them: Establish core areas or large-carnivore reserves where predators can be predators, without fear of hunting. In places where hunting is allowed, limit it by space and season to minimize the ecological effects. And end or limit trophy hunting based on traits like the lion’s mane or the Kodiak bear’s size.

These traits—status symbols, social dominance, size, and a little raw ferocity—are the very things that enable these animals to function as big, scary predators in the first place.

Saying Yes to the Monarch-For-a-Day Dress

I don’t normally do fashion, but this one caught my eye.  Most designers pretty much stick to leopard spots and reptile skins when they draw from the natural world.  But this one is different, and nicely autumnal.  O.k., modelling a dress on a monarch butterfly raises questions about the wearer:  Does she migrate?  Is she a toxic female? If you go out on a date, will she be happy eating milkweed?

Sorry to say, I don’t remember where I spotted this, but the artist has signed it Jon Hamilton-Ford, I think. Oh, wait, here’s the link and, um, still sorry to say, he seems to be hawking “fine art” prints on the internet.

Why A Legal Rhino Horn Trade Won’t Help

The killing of rhinos for their horns has become so widespread that some people are predicting rhinos will vanish from much of Africa in five years.  South Africa has already lost 700 rhinos this year, as of the end of September.  Game ranchers there, who have decades of experience breeding rhinos, have argued for a legalized trade in horn, as a way to end the illegal killing.

This analysis by the web site Annamiticus systematically kicks that idea in the ass.  It’s long and I don’t agree with all of it.  (For instance, it treats the idea that “commercial interests” are behind the idea as automatically a bad thing.  But commercial interests are also behind ecotourism and organic gardening.  Criminal interests, or poorly regulated commercial interests, on the other hand, are a serious issue.)

Still, it’s worth a look for anyone cares about the future of wildlife:

Do the arguments in favor of a legalized trade in rhino horn stand up to basic scrutiny?

Let’s take a look at the nine most common myths perpetuated by rhino horn trade advocates.

Myth #1. “A legal trade in rhino horn is the ‘rhino poaching’ solution.”

In 1996, a total of six rhinos were killed illegally in South Africa, down from ten the prior year. At the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 1997, South Africa sought to expand its Southern white rhino trade from “international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies” to include rhinoceros “parts and derivatives”.

However — even at a time when illegal killing numbers were declining (the total was four in 1997, then one in 1998 and 1999) respectively — the Parties determined that South Africa lacked “adequate control mechanisms” for a legal trade.

Today, evidence suggests that South Africa’s “control mechanisms” have declined even further. Since 2003, unscrupulous members of South Africa’s private rhino community have been implicated in rhino horn trafficking. Even more troubling, is that very few of these game farmers, professional hunters and safari operators have been convicted. Pseudo-hunts continued unabated with the apparent knowledge of provincial authorities, while hundreds of rhino horns and trophies were exported to Vietnam and Laos with the approval of South Africa’s CITES authorities. Following negative international publicity about the Vietnamese pseudo-hunts and Julian Rademeyer’s ground-breaking book Killing for Profit, South African trafficking networks apparently attempted to use connections in the Czech Republic.

Mary Rice, executive director of Environmental Investigation Agency’s London office, explains that “commercial interests” are behind South Africa’s pro-trade rhino policies.

Powerful commercial interests in South Africa are seeking to cash in on their stockpiled horn at the expense of the conservation and survival of South Africa’s rhinos. Legalizing rhino horn trade will reward the criminal kingpins behind the poaching, pushing rhinos inside and outside of South Africa ever closer to extinction.

It doesn’t matter if there is a “poaching crisis” or not: Rhino horn trade advocates have been pushing a self-serving agenda — not a solution — for decades.

Myth #2. “The trade ban has failed to save rhinos.”

Although international trade in rhino horn was banned in 1976, domestic trade in rhino horn was still allowed in China. Meanwhile, Yemen (the world’s largest importer of rhino horn in the 1970s) was not yet a member of CITES. So it seems that between 1976 and 1993, rhino horn trade was still “legal” in the two main markets for rhino horn. During this time, Africa’s black rhino population was decimated to a low of about 2,300 in 1993.

In 1993, the Chinese government finally removed rhino horn from the Chinese pharmacopeia, thus making domestic trade in rhino horn illegal. Yemen joined CITES in 1997 and a government-supported public awareness campaign helped close down its rhino horn market. By 2001, Esmond Martin and Lucy Vigne reported that “Rhino horn traders complained that the government ban on rhino horn imports had harshly affected their business”, and that educational materials on the plight of the rhino were disseminated in schools and public places in Sanaa.

“Among the pictures on these posters was a copy of the photograph of the religious edict or fatwa written by the grand mufti, which stated that killing rhinos was against the will of God.”

Since 1993, overall black and white rhino numbers on the African continent (and greater one-horned rhinos in India and Nepal) have increased — and continue to increase today, thanks to being protected from trade in rhino horn. The trade ban is more crucial than ever to the recovery of Asian rhino populations; this point is clearly stated in the Bandar Lampung Declaration, signed in October 2013 by senior government representatives from the Asian rhino range states (Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Malaysia).

“The CITES ban in the international trade of all rhino products needs to be maintained and enforced, including by those countries where rhino products are used, any countries that act as intermediate points in the trade, and all rhino range states.”

Myth #3. “A legal trade in farmed rhinos will save wild rhinos.”

Wildlife trade experts agree that commercial farming of tigers and bears have contributed nothing to the conservation of these species in the wild — and in fact, have hastened their demise.

Research published in February 2013 by the Environmental Investigation Agency revealed that at the time China began its so-called “conservation breeding” of tigers in 1986, the number of wild tigers in Asia was around 8,000. Today, there are a mere 3,200 tigers left in the wild, while the number of tigers held in China’s commercial breeding facilities has increased to at least 6,000.

“The Government of China allows legal domestic trade in the parts and products of captive-bred tigers, creating confusion among consumers, stimulating demand and driving the poaching of wild tigers and other Asian big cats.”

The Environmental Investigation Agency found that China has no clear system in place to distinguish captive-bred tiger skins from illegally sourced wild tiger skins, and that no information is available regarding how many tigers skins have been “registered and sold”.

Additionally, research such as Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China, published in 2008, repeatedly indicates that consumers of wildlife products prefer what they perceive is the “real thing”, not farmed.

“[T]he clear preference for products from wild caught tigers shows that even if the demand for tiger products could be met from farmed tigers, a demand for wild caught tigers would remain. This is a critical point because the opening up of a legal trade would make it significantly more difficult to police the illegal trade as wild caught tigers and their products could be laundered through legal establishments.”

In a briefing prepared for the 2009 Global Tiger Workshop in Kathamandu, the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC said that consumers in China and Vietnam prefer wild tiger products over those from captive-bred tigers, and that they continue to use tiger products, knowing it is illegal. The studies showed that consumers of tiger products are apparently “motivated by the belief that wild animals are ‘unpolluted’ and ‘precious’, as well as having nutritional and curative properties”.

Asia’s “bear farms” — supposedly a way to “sustainably harvest” bile from living bears — have proven to be a miserable failure for conserving wild bears. International trade in bear bile is prohibited, while domestic trade is still legal in China. Illegal bear bile facilities are operating throughout Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam. Across Asia, approximately 12,000 bears live in “crush cages”, many with a tube permanently inserted into the gallbladder to drain the bile. A healthy bear’s life expectancy is 25 — 30 years, but the average life span of these bears is only five years. Since these bile-production facilities do not actually breed bears, wild bears are continually captured in order to replenish bile-producing stocks.

The industry’s surplus of farmed bear bile dispels the common belief that “flooding the market will save the species”: Dr. Chris Shepherd of TRAFFIC Southeast Asia explained via Mongabay.com that “the surplus of farm-produced bile has led to the use of bear bile in more products, thereby potentially generating more consumers and increasing demand.” Despite the abundance of farmed bear bile in China and other Asian markets, wild bears are still killed for their gallbladders throughout Asia and North America.

Commercial farming has not saved wild tigers or wild bears. There is no evidence to suggest this approach would protect wild rhinos.

Myth #4. “The rhino/vicuña comparison.”

This claim appears to be based on little more than “fiber and horn can both be harvested”, followed by “sustainable use” saved the vicuña from extinction while “alleviating poverty”. But does this comparison hold up to closer examination?

The pro-trade camp’s celebration of a supposed rhino horn and vicuña fibre parallel does not mention that the “poverty alleviation” hoped for in the vicuña model in reality “remains elusive” or that captive breeding (farming) of vicuña “fails to provide benefits for vicuña conservation”.

In 2010, Dr. Gabriela Lichtenstein, Chair of the South American Camelid Specialist Group (GECS), made the following points in the report Vicuña conservation and poverty alleviation? Andean communities and international fibre markets:

The impact of the commercialization of vicuña fibre on the economic development of the Andean communities who are responsible for its management has proved to be very limited across the whole region;

The large extent and promotion of the captive breeding programmes not only fail to provide benefits for vicuña conservation but are also threatening to lead (yet again) to the domestication of this wild species;

Most of the benefits are captured not by local producers but by traders and international textile companies;

The commitment for managing vicuñas in the wild under common property seems the best strategy for managing this common-pool resource.

Dr. Lichtenstein later warned in April 2012 that, “The economic value derived from the use of a wild species could be an opportunity for its conservation, but it could also pose an important threat.”

And vicuña shearing has not stopped illegal activities.

“Vicuña poaching is problematic in all four countries. The difficulty of controlling is related to the vast extent of the Puna, its topography and the existence of long international borders. Limited human, economic and technical resources make control ineffective.”

It is worth noting that trade in rhino horn raises certain ethical issues that trade in vicuña fiber does not: Rhino horn traders peddle their wares as a “cancer cure”, encouraging desperate people to consume rhino horn rather than seeking medical treatment for serious illnesses.

Myth #5. “The Chinese/Vietnamese/centuries-old tradition of using rhino horn will never change.”

History tells us a different story. Dr. Ron Orenstein, a zoologist, lawyer, and author of Ivory, Horn, and Blood: Behind the Elephant and Rhinoceros Poaching Crisis, speaks from 25 years of experience in this arena.

“A combination of strong and effective enforcement on the ground and effective regulation of the market, including demand reduction programs, has indeed worked in the past, and worked very well. During the 1990s, it was believed by many conservationists that rhinoceros conservation was on an upward trend as a result of such efforts in both Africa and Asia.”

Asian attitudes about wildlife consumption are changing: Southeast Asia and China are currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of public support for wildlife conservation. Recognizing the link between rhino horn use and rhino killings, the President of the American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ACTCM) and Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM) released a statement in 2011 opposing the use of rhino horn in medicines.

Vietnam — identified as the primary destination for rhino horn from South Africa — has in fact joined the global community in several noteworthy demand reduction campaigns.

Education for Nature-Vietnam — a Vietnamese NGO — has released a powerful and innovative public service announcement which calls rhino horn users “ignorant, foolish, backward, cruel, and evil”. The video was launched during CITES CoP16 and ENV hopes the PSA “will help send a strong message to rhino horn consumers that this behavior is socially unacceptable, and the effects of this kind of consumption are being felt across the world”.

“Tiêu thụ sừng tê giác là hành động đáng lên án!” is the first in a new series of PSAs targeting rhino horn consumers to be released this year, and is part of ENV’s rapidly expanding rhino awareness campaign.

Humane Society International and the government of Vietnam launched a demand reduction campaign by distributing the book “I’m a Little Rhino,” to hundreds of Vietnamese children.

“Four hundred copies of the book were distributed to children at the mid-Autumn Festival organised by the Youth Union of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Another 700 copies have been given to children at Viet Bun Kindergarten School in Hai Ba Trung district and children at Le Quy Don primary school in My Dinh district in Hanoi.”

Vietnam’s CITES Management Authority and HSI are planning a series of rhino-related events over the coming months.

WWF and TRAFFIC joined forces with Ogilvy & Mather Vietnam to design an innovative visual campaign which aims to educate consumers that rhino horn is made up of keratin — the same as fingernails and toenails.

The adverts are being displayed in public areas and through many different communication channels, including newspapers, television, and social media platforms.

Myth #6. “Nothing is working/everything has been tried.”

Pseudo-hunts, stockpiling horns, exporting rhinos under questionable circumstances, and arrests of well-known members of South Africa’s wildlife industry suggest that perhaps the “solution” to South Africa’s rhino problem lies within its own borders.

Pro-trade advocates argue that South Africa has “tried everything”, yet high-profile rhino horn syndicate suspects Groenewald, Steyl, and Saaiman are still conducting business. Where are the meaningful prosecutions? Regarding the pseudo-hunts, where is the follow-up on the provincial players who authorized exports of rhino horns to Vietnam, again and again and again?

Mozambican “poachers” and Vietnamese couriers receive jail sentences for rhino crimes. In contrast, South African “game industry white guys” implicated in rhino crimes (charges often include money laundering and racketeering) receive postponements, pay paltry fines, and stay in business. Perhaps auditing the CITES documentation for rhino horn and trophy exports from South Africa from 2003 — 2012 would yield helpful clues regarding the South African safari hunt operators who supported these schemes.

“Corruption, collusion and sheer complacency are really the obstacles that stand in the way of effective enforcement,” says Dr. Chris Shepherd.

Ofir Drori, founder of Cameroon-based Last Great Apes Organization (LAGA) and author of The Last Great Ape: A Journey Through Africa and A Fight for the Heart of the Continent challenges claims made in September 2013 by IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group chairman Mike Knight that South Africa had done an “immense amount” to combat its rhino situation.

Drori candidly points out that, “No attempt has been taken to curb corruption and complicity of wildlife officials in the trafficking. Many traffickers go unpunished and are still ‘protected’, and the South African Government gives a lifeline to the criminal business other governments are trying to break by negotiating sales of rhino horns.” He urges South Africa to “start dismantling the organized criminal networks.”

At CITES CoP16 in Bangkok, I asked the South African delegation about encouraging its private rhino owners to join international efforts to reduce demand for rhino horn and support educational and public awareness campaigns in consumer countries. My question, unsurprisingly, went unanswered.

I also asked about the ethical implications of facilitating the sale of a bogus medicine to sick people. The answer indicates a disappointing lack of concern and responsibility. “As long as somebody believes it cures cancer, the demand should be met,” said Minister Molewa.

Until South Africa addresses the enforcement inconsistencies within its private wildlife sector, the claim that “everything has been tried” falls flat.

Myth #7. “The South African government banned domestic trade of rhino horn in 2009 and poaching increased after that.”

This willingness of the pro-trade camp to incriminate itself by admitting the facilitation of transnational criminal activity by supplying rhino horns destined for illegal markets in Southeast Asia and China is almost amusing.

Sadly, it suggests little, if any, sense of accountability regarding the global impact of “domestic” trade.

Myth #8. “Economics will save the rhino.”

As we learned in the bear bile example above, availability and affordability are unlikely to create market conditions favorable to protecting rhinos on a global scale. Rather, the abundance of affordable bear bile has created additional opportunities for bear bile facilities to expand operations by adding bile to shampoos, soaps and other non-traditional goods. The result? More bears captured from the wild in order to “produce” more bile — and a declining population of wild bears in Asia.

On the demand side, if “consumers will buy a good more frequently and in larger quantities as its price decreases”, then the availability of “affordable farmed rhino horn” may very well result in an increased demand for rhino horn — a disastrous outcome by any measure. There is further risk of increased demand if rhino horn consumption becomes “legal and unacceptable” instead of “illegal and unacceptable”.

Even if we cast ethical considerations aside (rhino horn has no proven medicinal properties!) for a moment, rhino horn stockpiles are finite — and so are the world’s rhinos.

Disturbingly, certain market players may already be “banking on extinction” by stockpiling wildlife parts, according to an economic study published in the Spring 2012 issue of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy . Legalizing rhino horn trade for one species, the authors argue, could create opportunities for laundering horns from other rhino species, noting that the extinction strategy is “particularly worrisome in cases where the extinct species is similar to surviving species” (the black and white rhino are used as an example).

While the authors of the report consider farmed rhinos as an alternative supply of horn — theoretically reducing pressure on wild rhinos — they also point out that owning a “renewable resource” makes the scarcity (and ultimate extinction) of the species in the wild even more desirable for farmers and speculators.

“Bear (or tiger) farming implies that speculators ‘own’ a renewable resource, rather than an exhaustible stockpile of a commodity such as rhino horn or ivory. This implies that they are able to enjoy monopoly rents for a longer, indeed potentially infinite, period, which enhances the profitability of banking on extinction.”

And speaking of stockpiles, South Africa has announced plans to seek approval to sell its government stockpile of rhino horns, seemingly oblivious to the deadly connection between the 2008 ivory stockpile sale, increased demand for ivory, and the current massacre of 30,000 African elephants annually.

But this insular decision comes as no surprise. During a press conference held at CITES CoP16, the South African delegation was questioned about the potential risk of trading in rhino horn, citing the example of the ivory sale and elephant killings. The response was simply that elephants were not being killed in South Africa.

Myth #9. “Emotion will not save the rhino.”

This statement is generally fired off as an insult to anyone who opposes the rhino horn trade. So, what motivates rangers and forest guards to protect wildlife? Hint: It isn’t a paycheck. “Emotion will not save the rhino” is a tremendous insult to the heroes who risk their lives every day on the front lines, motivated by hearts and minds — not wallets.

Let us consider that it is in fact emotion and its close relative — passion — that have propelled some of our most beloved leaders to change the world for the better.

Sources:

Environmental Investigation Agency (2013) Hidden in Plain Sight: China’s Clandestine Tiger Trade. London.

Gratwicke B, Mills J, Dutton A, Gabriel G, Long B, et al. (2008) Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002544

Foley, K.E., Stengel, C.J., and Shepherd, C. R. (2011). Pills, Powders Vials and Flakes: the bear bile trade in Asia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

Charles F. Mason, Erwin H. Bulte, and Richard D. Horan. Banking on extinction: endangered species and speculation Oxf Rev Econ Policy (2012) 28(1): 180-192 doi:10.1093/oxrep/grs006

Lichtenstein, G. Vicuña conservation and poverty alleviation? Andean communities and international fibre markets. International Journal of the Commons, North America, 4, sep. 2009.

Lichtenstein, G. Vicuñas: Does population recovery mean a success for sustainable use? SULiNews: Issue 2 (August 2012)

Herbicide Sets Up Frogs for Killer Fungus

A common herbicide implicated in frog die-off (Photo philip kinsey/Fotolia)

Atrazine is the most widely used herbicide in the United States, for corn and other major crops.

It has widely contaminated drinking water, and some researchers have implicated it as an endocrine disruptor with a possible role in human birth defects and menstrual disorders.

The European Union has banned its use, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently cleared it of any adverse effects in amphibians.

Now a new study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences says that early exposure to commonplace doses of atrazine may set up young frogs for subsequent death from chytrid fungus, the notorious pathogen now wiping out amphibian populations around the world.

Here’s the the press release:

The combination of the herbicide atrazine and a fungal disease is particularly deadly to frogs, shows new research from a University of South Florida laboratory, which has been investigating the global demise of amphibian populations.

USF Biologist Jason Rohr said the new findings show that early-life exposure to atrazine increases frog mortality but only when the frogs were challenged with a chytrid fungus, a pathogen implicated in worldwide amphibian declines. The research is published in the new edition of Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“Understanding how stressors cause enduring health effects is important because these stressors might then be avoided or mitigated during formative developmental stages to prevent lasting increases in disease susceptibility,” Rohr said.

The study was conducted by Rohr and Lynn Martin, Associate Professors of USF’s Department of Integrative Biology; USF researchers Taegan McMahon and Neal Halstead; and colleagues at the University of Florida, Oakland University, and Archbold Biological Station.

Their experiments showed that a six-day exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine, one of the most common herbicides in the world, increased frog mortality 46 days after the atrazine exposure, but only when frogs were challenged with the chytrid fungus. This increase in mortality was driven by a reduction in the frogs’ tolerance of the infection.

Moreover, the researchers found no evidence of recovery from the atrazine exposure and the atrazine-induced increase in disease susceptibility was independent of when the atrazine exposure occurred during tadpole development.

“These findings are important because they suggest that amphibians might need to be exposed only to atrazine briefly as larvae for atrazine to cause persistent increases in their risk of chytri-induced mortality,” Rohr said. “Our findings suggest that reducing early-life exposure of amphibians to atrazine could reduce lasting increases in the risk of mortality from a disease associated with worldwide amphibian declines.”

Until this study, scientists knew little about how early-life exposure to stressors affected the risk of infectious diseases for amphibians later in life.

“Identifying which, when, and how stressors cause enduring effects on disease risk could facilitate disease prevention in wildlife and humans, an approach that is often more cost-effective and efficient than reactive medicine,” Rohr said.

The findings are also the latest chapter in research Rohr and his lab has conducted on the impact of atrazine on amphibians. These findings are consistent with earlier studies that concluded that, while the chemical typically does not directly kill amphibians and fish, there is consistent scientific evidence that it negatively impacts their biology by affecting their growth and immune and endocrine systems.

Strange (and Sweet) Primate Behaviors

A bonobo consoles a distraught pal (Photo: Clay & DeWaal)

One of the persistent myths about the natural world is that animals live in a constant state of aggression, confrontation, and even open combat.  But even relatively brutal chimpanzees spend only about five percent of their day in aggressive encounters–and 20 percent grooming social allies.

The truth is that the social and emotional lives of other primates are in many ways a lot like our own, and two new studies add to the growing evidence.  In the first, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, the researchers found that chimpanzees, like humans, typically form friendships with individuals who have similar personalities. Researchers Jorg J. M. Massen and Sonja E. Koski spent hundreds of hours observing chimpanzee troops at two European zoos, paying particular attention to individuals who liked to sit together.  These friends turned out to be similar in sociability based on how much time they spent grooming, and whether they liked to hang out in a crowd, or off on the periphery.  They also resembled each other in boldness—that is, the willingness to mob an apparent threat, like an artificial snake.

That suggests why friendships may matter as much to chimps as to humans: They make it more likely that individuals will find a mate, reproduce, keep the kids alive, and stay well themselves.  Friends also support each other in conflicts.  For chimps, as for humans, having friends is natural and necessary. These are social creatures, never meant to live in isolation.

The other study, just out in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at the emotional lives of bonobos, a separate chimp species thought to be even more closely related to humans. Researchers from Emory University studied bonobos rescued from the bushmeat and pet trades, at a forested sanctuary on the outskirts of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The emotional life of non-human primates is “still rather a taboo subject in animal behavior,” co-author Zanna Clay told TakePart, in an email.  Old School researchers suspect it as a form of anthropomorphism—that is, projecting human feelings onto animals.

But Clay and co-author Frans de Waal became interested in the topic when they noticed striking differences in how individuals behaved.  “Some juveniles were real social stars, they were always dashing about keen to play and groom with everyone,” said Clay. She was particularly impressed by Pole (pronounced Po-lay), ”a brave and very sociable young male, with lots of friends and lots of energy.”

Despite the oversexed reputation of bonobos, their lives are not a perpetual love-in.  Conflict is normal, and the celebrated “bonobo handshake” can alternate at times with the bonobo slap in the face.  When another bonobo “gave him a whack,” said Clay, Pole shrugged it off.  When the same thing happened to less resilient individuals, though, they often worked themselves into a screaming fit.  That caused other bonobos to move away.

Pole moved closer instead, even if the victim was “still too worked up to accept the comforting touch,” said Clay.  He risked getting whacked again.  But he often stuck around to hold the victim in a comforting embrace for minutes afterwards[RC3] . Pole was clearly a master at regulating emotional response to distress, both his own and that of other bonobos.  And that fit the overall pattern: “It seemed to be that the best consolers were also the best ones at regulating social and emotional events overall.”

The two researchers realized they were witnessing a phenomenon already well documented in human children:  Individuals who are better at regulating their own internal emotions are also better at empathizing with others.

As in humans, what happened to the individual early in life also made a critical difference. Individuals who had lost their mothers “at the hands of illegal bush-meat hunters in the forest” suffered a sharp emotional setback.  The Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary  provided a loving caretaker to help rehabilitate each orphan. But “there are still some things that only the actual mother is able to provide,” said Clay. These orphans were less likely to recovery quickly from stress or console others, and they tended to be more anxious.  For instance, they scratched themselves more often, a common means of distracting themselves from stress.

But the researchers also found cause for hope in the way the orphans made an effort at re-building normal social lives.  “Our results,” Clay and de Waal write, “demonstrate the striking resilience of these bonobo orphans.  The fact that they were able at all to reconcile conflicts, console others, and engage in … play and grooming, suggests that they were managing reasonably in their social world.”

Clay is now deep in the forests of the Congo beginning research to find out if the same emotional patterns also play out in the lives of bonobos in the wild.

Bears Make Like Kanye West, Smack Paparazzo

So here is a great case study, from the Andes in Bolivia. It shows why camera traps that use flash are just too crass for a bear to take:

Amur Tigers Succumb to Canine Disease

A week or two ago, I wrote about how feral dogs kill wildlife by direct attack, by stealing prey, and by spreading disease.  Now a report on the BBC says canine distemper is killing critically endangered Amur tigers in the Russian Far East.

The article quotes one author of a new paper in mBio on the epidemic:  “When you’re talking about four to five hundred animals and you’re losing reproductive females and their offspring, the overall impact on populations ishuge.”

Another virologist comments: “Because they are such tiny populations even relatively small mortality events can seriously harm their genetic  diversity and this might just be enough to push them over the edge.”

The BBC story by virologist Jonathan Bell also fills in some of the history of wildlife outbreaks caused by feral dogs:

Canine distemper virus (CDV), a relative of the human measles virus, was first described in dogs, and infection causes fatal pneumonia and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).

But this virus is incredibly promiscuous and can infect jump into a variety of different animals – usually with catastrophic effects.

Two suspected CDV outbreaks, the first in 1988 and a second in 2000, killed thousands of Baikal then Caspian seals.

The virus has also ripped through Africa, with fatal outbreaks in silver-backed jackals and bat-eared foxes and catastrophic die-offs in wild dog populations that continue to this day.For years, cats were thought resistant to CDV. Yes, domestic cats could be infected in the laboratory, but this was inefficient and the virus was unable to pass from one animal to another.

A massive demise in 1994 of African lions living in the Serengeti national park in Tanzania showed that this was fallacy. This population of closely monitored lions succumbed to CDV. Whilst only 34 lion deaths were documented during the outbreak, this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Before CDV struck, the lion population numbered 3,000, but afterwards this had fallen by a third. In the same outbreak, countless hyenas, bat-eared foxes and leopards also perished.

Add to this the recent report of infection of large numbers of South American jaguar and it is evident that this virus has little, if any respect for the so-called species barrier – the unique inherent host factors and properties that prevent viruses from jumping from one species to another.