#elephants are endangered and we need captive breeding

[orcinus-veterinarius]

The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is a wonderful, amazing place but wow the comments on their social media make me uncomfortable.

[wandringaesthetic]

So a post I saw on here led me to look into how one might purchase human bones and the sourcing thereof, and:

There aren’t many laws restricting trade of human bones in the US. You can’t legally ship them to some states, but possessing them. Enh. It’s fine.

ETHICALLY, however.

Most human bones currently in, uh, circulation, came from India (which stopped exporting human bones in the 1980s) and China (which stopped exporting human bones in 2008). You can get bones relatively easily and legally, but they’re not generally going to be from the original source. There’s basically no way you can know whether any particular bone was acquired from the original owner with consent before their death.

The original post that led me down this rabbit hole had a twist ending regarding the resale of bones from dis-articulated Victorian medical skeletons. Which indeed might have been acquired through foul play or grave robbing or financial coercion. Who knows! But this line of thinking could conclude in a place where it’s rarely to never ethical to own human remains, which I’m not really comfortable with given this is why old-timey physicians sometimes engaged in a bit of grave robbing.

Gentle reader, I therefore ask you to question. These bones already exist with no practical way to trace and return them to their source. From where I’m standing you might as well sell human wrist bones to goths. Are you gonna steal em yourself and give these folks a proper burial? You don’t know what kind of rites the former bone-owner would have even wanted! I feel like it’s more respectful to use them for whatever witchy purpose or to carve them into earrings than it is to throw them in the trash.

Feel free to argue with me on this I don’t feel particularly strongly about it.

This reminds me of two things:

1) Buying and selling of feathers from most wild birds is illegal BECAUSE (I might be getting some details of this wrong) in the 1800s it was fashionable to decorate hats with feathers from songbirds which led to them being killed for said feathers and threatened/endangered. If there’s ever a huge market for human remains YES then this becomes an ethical issue. Because that incentivizes graverobbing OR outright killing people for their bones OR (more likely) pressure to sell ones’ remains pre-mortem.

2) Orcas in captivity. I agree that we shouldn’t be capturing any more. That’s appropriately illegal in most places in the world now. The vast majority of orcas currently in captivity were bred in captivity and attempts to release captive orcas into the wild have not been successful. I’m not sure about the ethics of breeding them in captivity, but.... If they need to be penned in order to survive, we might as well let people look at them until the ones in captivity die out? (I’ve seen proposals for some sort of sanctuary, a la elephants, but am unsure of the practicality of that. Also I’ve not seen the push to end elephants in zoos the way I’ve seen the push to end orca captivity, because..... ???)

[reidmania]

hey just wanted to talk about your recent post in regards to animals in captivity :3 im quite passionate ab this subject so i apologise if i come across kinda aggressive!!!! thats not my intention at all i just like talking ab this stuff :D

i did enjoy your fic because you’re right!!!!! places like seaworld, where animals are kept in much too small enclosures and forced to tricks, are a huge issue. i really appreciate what you had to say on that topic in particular!

but, i personally really dont like all the hate that zoos and aquariums get by association. there are definitely cases to be made for larger animals such as sharks/whales/elephants, but something that you have to remember is that zoos+aquariums are conservation efforts! most animals that are in captivity are either born there and have no concept of the outside world, or were injured in such a severe case that they can not be released. zoos and aquariums (at least repeatable ones) try their absolute hardest to meet every one of their animals needs, and rehabilitate them if possible.

not only this, but these institutions also have programs that work towards rebuilding endangered populations and reintroducing them into the wild!! an example of this would be the american black-footed ferret, which was successfully reintroduced, but there are programs happening right now for even more animals. without things like zoos & aquariums, we wouldn’t have all this amazing research and progress!

my final point is the education opportunities that these places bring :3 i adore animals and when i was younger, i went to a zoo camp program every summer! i learned so much about animals and ecological conservation that helped me become so passionate about it today !

sorry this ask is a little all over the place i have a lot of thoughts!!!! please know that i am not trying to tear you down for your story, it just got me excited and wanting to talk ! thank u so much for reading :3

do not apologise bc its a topic that definitely needs to be talked about!!

i agree with a lot of what you said, zoo’s and aquariums are definitely not all bad!!. if you look at my comments on the post i made before that fic i mention that i understand that these institutions need to make money in order to be able to continue helping & providing these animals with care, and they make that money by doing shows or by people paying to see them.

some places are really really great in the way they care for their animals, and i completely agree that they are a great way to learn and become more educated on animals and etc and im sure they are not all bad in anyway what so ever.

In saying that the whole point of the fic (which was mainly about orca’s) was that i got the idea for it after watching blackfish which was a documentary about how horrible these orca’s were treated — and at that point in time SeaWorld was not rescuing their animals, they were capturing these animals, stealing them away from their parents, and then putting them through the worst stuff and actively spreading misinformation about these animals, saying stuff like 25% of orcas have flopped over dorsal fins when in the wild its less then 1%.

also saying that they live 25-30 years. When in the wild they can live to over 100. they would act like these werent wild animals, & these animals were being used for shows, then isolated.

Also i think its mentioned in the fic but these orca’s all come from different families, and pods which means they all have completely different sets of vocalisations which is how they communicate with each other and because of that they wouldn’t understand each other so they were still isolated!! which is the case with a lot of places, they can say the animals r with their ‘family’ but a lot of the time its just the same species put together in a close proximity.

they were punished by being starved, males were used purely to breed and then those babies would be ripped away from their mothers & sold to some place else. and dolphins being used for shows back then, trainers standing on their noses as an act, when that can do sooo much damage to dolphins jaws.

i think rehabilitation & rehab centres are great for all animals, and zoo’s or aquariums who rescue and genuinely care for their animals are great. theres definitely multiple sides to it and a lot has definitely changed since the backfish documentary came out, it just had me very frustrated. the places that rescue their animas & then if those animals can be released (and would survive) and they release them, those places have my respect but this is definitely not the case for every place.

thank you for giving me something to yap about!!

[chaya-mga2022mi5019]

Green Hat : Creativity (Idea 03) | Developing Camouflage Techniques to Protect Endangered Species

I realized that camouflaged bandages do not in fact reduce bacterial visibility because bacterial colonization is primarily driven by chemical signals and environmental cues rather than visual perception. Therefore, I had to look into other topics. 

It was quite difficult to come up with an original idea for the Green Hat as we already use camouflaging techniques in a number of fields, ranging from military to outdoor camping. I first had to look at an issue that needs the solution of camouflaging, the reason being protecting itself from danger. All the while, this solution also has to be for a positive reason unlike using camouflaging in security systems which could be used against you in a scary way. 

.

.

These days, I’ve been seeing a lot of news reports of dead endangered species as a result of hunting. 

There are many species around the world that are currently considered endangered, which means they are at serious risk of extinction. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List, a comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of biological species.

It is essential to understand that the hunting of elephants is considered illegal in many countries and is highly regulated in others. The international trade in ivory has been banned since 1989 by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international agreement between governments. Despite this, illegal poaching and trade continue to pose a significant threat to elephant populations.

Unfortunately, the high value of rhino horns has led to intense poaching, driving rhinos to the brink of extinction as well. The illegal trade in rhino horn continues to thrive despite international efforts to stop it.

In many parts of the world, hunting of crocodiles is strictly regulated or outright illegal, especially without specific permits, due to the threat of extinction that many crocodile species face.

Bornean Orangutan, found in Borneo, are also critically endangered due to habitat loss from deforestation for palm oil plantations and illegal hunting.

.

I recognized this as an issue that might need the solution of camouflaging. Here, in this case, the endangered specie could be recognized as the “insect” in my concept, and the hunters could be recognized as the “predator”. 

Therefore, my Green Hat could be about how we could use camouflaging to protect endangered species from human activities and help their survival and preservation. The idea would involve equipping animals with a device that analyzes its surroundings and projects a holographic image around the animal, making it blend into its environment. 

This could make a herd of elephants look like an extension of a forest or a field. The aim would be to deceive hunters into thinking that there's nothing of interest in that area. By camouflaging these animals nearly invisible to hunters, we could effectively decrease the rate of illegal hunting and poaching. 

This system could offer a non-invasive means of protection, unlike other methods such as relocation or captive breeding programs. It allows animals to stay in their natural habitats without human interference. 

.

.

So far, I’m quite satisfied with this new idea. The only problem is that equipping these animals with devices could cause distress, and also equipping them with a device in the first place could be a pretty challenging task given that these are wild animals. For this, we can use different methods depending on the size and nature of the animal. 

The device could be lightweight, comfortable, and made from biocompatible materials to minimize the risk of harm or distress to the animal.

The animal will need to be safely captured to allow the device to be attached. This could involve the use of tranquilizer darts administered by trained professionals, or trapping methods for smaller animals. Tranquilizer darts are tools used by wildlife professionals, veterinarians, or conservation scientists to temporarily sedate or immobilize animals from a distance.

.

Despite some obstacles, the idea of protecting endangered species using an advanced form of camouflage is  still compelling. It is an exciting concept that merges technology with nature, all for the noble cause of wildlife preservation.

There's still a lot to be done as I have to find a way to visually convey this idea. For now, I am happy with the progress I've made. 

[doberbutts]

eclectus-mom @eclectus-mom​

@/vet-and-wild has been doing a lot of talking about exotic ownership regarding stuff like this. There's been a chart circulating that has so really good classification for tiers of exotics, and what kind of regulation might be practical for them.

Thank you! It wasn’t that exact post but something similar to it from another blog that got me all grumbly. @vet-and-wild​ has several other posts acknowledging the same points that I grump about whenever I see things like that, and especially how it’s a very subjective line to draw and will inevitably include ​“acceptable” exotics and domesticated animals in the “unacceptable” categories if a hard line is drawn, making it very difficult to really do anything besides try to educate and make things better for the animals.

I don’t personally think it’s okay to have certain animals in captivity at all. Animals with near-human, human-level, or even potentially above-human intelligence should not be kept in cages imo. This ranges from most primates and elephants, which most sensible people will agree with, to even things like large parrots and corvids and octupi, which most people will not agree with. Again, the line of “acceptable” vs “unacceptable” will always include something “harmless” or “unproblematic” within the parameters of “dangerous” and “cruel”.

I personally don’t think that a properly contained and cared for animal that poses no risk to others outside of the household/enclosure should be judged on danger factor. This is because large dogs kill and maim a lot of people and the majority of them are within the household and I don’t think dog ownership should be judged on a danger factor because usually something was wrong with the containment or care of said dog for it to kill someone. On the other hand, that means someone’s pet tiger or bear or giant snake, all species that have also killed people as pets, which also bares a huge danger risk would need proper containment or care in order to keep the danger level low.

I personally don’t think that a species potential damage to the environment in case of release- which btw is also illegal in most areas and literally never enforced- should be a factor in acceptability levels until we acknowledge the feral and outdoor cat problem as a country and start actually doing something about it besides fruitless TNR campaigns.

I personally don’t think species where it is nearly impossible to keep them well in captivity or not well studied should continue to remain in captivity in pet owner hands. This is why, despite my yearning to have a pet bat, I don’t have one and have made no move to get one. I love bats, but they frequently cannot be kept easily in captivity and it’s not fair to them to subject them to bad husbandry and improper care all because I’m not a zoo or a wildlife rehabber, so I don’t have a bat. I love paradise flying tree snakes and they are the species that got me interested in keeping snakes, but they commonly cannot be kept alive for very long by professional facilities and do not breed in captivity, so I do not have a paradise flying tree snake. I love monitor lizards and desperately want one and the easiest monitor to buy is a savannah monitor but we only just started getting CBB savs and many people still cannot agree on diet and enclosure and husbandry so I do not have savs.

I personally don’t have a problem with wild-caught animals existing in the trade, provided they are acquired as breeding stock to introduce new blood to existing captive bred populations, they have been caught/imported legally, and they are not from endangered species. My first choice will always be CBB, but I do not discount a WC animal especially in a species that does not have a lot of genetic variety as CBB just yet. I don’t think I’d ever buy a WC leo or ball python, and while I personally could consider a WC dwarf boa I would not currently buy one because they are not legal to import anymore due to threatened species status, but I have no problem having my LTC WC amazon sent to me. I want to breed amazons and a LTC is a good way to ensure good genetic variety (because reptile keepers rarely keep pedigrees) while circumventing things like parasites and disease from nature.

Where does that put me on the “for exotics” or “against exotics” scale? These lines are so subjective and I’m sure things I’m personally against are things others are personally in support of, and visa versa. 

[acti-veg]

Animals as Entertainment

Food and clothing are perhaps the most obvious ways in which we exploit animals, but they are certainly not the only instances. Vegans oppose not only eating animals or wearing their skin, but any exploitation of animals for human gain, including occasions where we use animals as entertainment. 

Perhaps the widest known and generally opposed animal entertainment industry is circuses. Animals used in circuses range from common birds, bears, foxes and snakes, to more exotic animals like lions, tigers and elephants. Most of these are sourced from private breeders, though some are purchased from zoos as ‘surplus animals.’ During performances, animals are often required to perform dangerous stunts, such as elephants balancing on balls, tigers jumping through fire, bears riding bicycles and large cats being ridden by handlers. These unnatural behaviours require intensive training, often involving the use of cruel practices such as whipping, hooks, electrocution and food deprivation.

Even when not performing, studies demonstrate that circus life causes significant harm to animals. The head researcher of one study noted:

“It’s no one single factor, whether it’s lack of space and exercise, or lack of social contact, all factors combined show it’s a poor quality of life compared with the wild.” This study suggested that on average, animals spend 1-9% of their time training, and the rest of the time they are confined to cages, wagons or small enclosures. Many circus animals display repetitive stress behaviours due to confinement and boredom. 

Several undercover investigations have revealed that abuse is widespread among handlers, one Asian elephant was filmed being struck with a metal pitchfork and kicked in the face, while held down by heavy metal chains. Animals who are too old or disobedient to be useful to circuses are sometimes properly retired, but they are often sold to zoos, roadside attractions, game farms, research laboratories or to private buyers. Many meet uncertain fates, disappearing from records and public consciousness completely.

While the public is turning away from events like circuses, there are other industries in which a great deal more work must be done, one of these being in aquariums and marine parks, with larger organisations like SeaWorld still attracting over 22,000 visitors per year. Marine parks remain the most divisive of the aquatic industries, and with documentaries like Blackfish (2013) the public are becoming increasingly aware of the poor treatment, diet, enclosures and the stress endured by large marine animals, especially orcas. Boredom and depression are often the result of the tiny, artificial enclosures, with many dolphins and whales exhibiting repetitive stress behaviours such as swaying, chewing walls, pacing and head bobbing. These behaviours clearly convey that animals are not happy in marine parks, and poor life expectancy reveals that even their physical needs are not being adequately met in captivity. John Hargrove, formerly the most senior trainer at SeaWorld, said: 

“I saw the psychological and physical trauma that results from captivity. A massive corporate entity is exploiting the hell out of the whales and the trainers.”

Even when marine animals are not performing tricks for the public, as is usually the case in public aquariums, the situation for animals is far from ideal. Due to the lack of success of aquarium breeding programs and poor life expectancy of captive species, many aquariums rely on wild caught animals. Many popular species, such as royal or regal blue tang, have been over-collected and are endangered in the wild. Some fish in the wild would range hundreds of miles and aquariums, regardless of how large they are, are ill-equipped to provide appropriate environments for captive fish who require so much space and stimulation. Though there is a serious lack of research in this area, it is hard to imagine that fish remain content and stimulated in such confined, artificial environments, exposed to electric lights and the noise of an almost constant stream of visitors.

Similar to aquariums, zoos have also spent the past few decades trying to distance themselves from the animal entertainment image of the past, and rebrand as conservation and education organisations. While conditions for animals have certainly improved, zoos are unable to provide anything even resembling an animal’s natural environment. While many zoos do contribute towards conservation efforts with their captive breeding programmes, the issue is that these programmes usually only conserve species for display in zoos, since most animals will never be reintroduced to the wild. Studies have also challenged the efficacy of captive breeding programmes, concluding that unless animals are protected in the wild, captive breeding will not make enough of a difference.

While zoos are keen to tout their conservation credentials, critics point out that relatively little of their efforts go towards that aim. David Hancocks, a former zoo director with 30 years of experience, estimates that less than 3% of the budgets of the 212 accredited zoos of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association goes towards conservation efforts. Similarly, Benjamin Beck, former associate of biological programmes at the National Zoo in Washington D.C, found that in the last century, only 16 out of 145 reintroduction programmes ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild.

At their hearts, most zoos remain animal entertainment industries. While they claim to educate the public on animal behaviour, captive animals demonstrate such vastly different behaviours than their wild counterparts that this seems ultimately fruitless. Like large marine animals in aquariums, many zoo animals exhibit repetitive stress behaviours and depression. This being the case, what can we possibly learn about wild animals by observing the behaviour of their unhappy, stressed and atypically behaved captive counterparts?

Animal entertainment industries capitalise on our deepest need to feel connected to animals and nature, but this comes at a great cost to the animals themselves. To view an animal in a zoo is to look at them on your terms entirely, in an artificial environment that will never adequately imitate their homes. They are trapped, helpless and unable to escape our glare. Authentic experiences come from animals who interact with us because they want to, because they have chosen to appear before us, not because we have paid for it. These animals do not exist for our consumption, they are not commodities and they are not amusements. We do not have the right to place these animals in cages for our own benefit.

-An extract from my free eBook: The Green Road - A Practical Guide to Veganism

[orcinus-ocean]

Western cultures have a serious problem with Asian elephant tourism. Within many circles, there is a continued outcry to stop all elephant riding, elephant bathing, and elephant shows, deeming them all inherently cruel. Indeed, if you ask many foreigners, they will passionately proclaim that all elephant tourism in Southeast Asia should be banned. But this mindset fails to give practical alternatives to the reality of endangered species conservation in developing and least developed nations. Nor does it acknowledge the conservation benefits that captive elephant management brings.

Concerns over elephant cruelty come from a good place; never before has action and awareness for species conservation been more essential in natural resource management. Activities that are harmful to elephants are fortunately being phased out at most tourism ventures. But the common concerns related to the impact tourism has on captive elephants have become misguided and inflated. Inexplicably, Western tourists and associated media only absorb a small percentage of the overall context when it comes to elephant-based tourism.

Nobody wants a captive elephant to suffer. Yet many Westerners have an unshakable inability to accept that riding an elephant is not torturous. The comparisons between riding a horse, camel, donkey, or elephant are rarely examined. The main difference in applied terms is the national and cultural contexts in which these animals are utilized. Camel riding in Broome is seen as good, romantic even. But all elephant riding in Thailand is bad. This is sadly the Western narrative that is continually perpetuated in the media.

In Australia, we grow up with pony rides offered at every local festival. Horseracing has been the national pastime since European settlement, even awarded its own public holiday (of course the questionable actions of the Australian racing industry have only recently come to light). “The Man from Snowy River” is a legendary Australian folktale of a man capturing and “breaking in” a wild horse. Yet this is viewed as a tale of Australian heroics, not a native savage ruthlessly destroying the spirit of a wild animal.

A horse and calf demonstration in Brisbane, Australia. Photo by Ingrid Suter. 

The point of this article isn’t to demonize Western values. International tourists have huge potential to help create wonderful change. But there is an unconscious bias and stubborn viewpoint that still exists within some foreign conversations: the assumption that people overseas cannot look after their elephants. The longstanding historical and religious interrelationship between elephants and many Asian cultures is not relatable. We simply do not have the same spiritual and religious connection to another species within in our own cultures.

The stereotype of all captive elephants being mistreated is continually propped up by animal rights groups, citing old reports and images that are never critically analyzed by journalists, despite often being factually incorrect. Of course, there are sadly mahouts that harm elephants. There are over 10,000 captive Asian elephants; there will be awful individuals that inflict damage. These mahouts should be fired immediately as they bring the entire elephant community into disrepute. Individual cases of animal cruelty should be viewed as just that, as they are in other countries. But logic and reasoning are not afforded to the bulk of staff that caringly manage captive elephants on a daily basis. Western perceptions of Asian elephants compartmentalize elephants into two positions: No elephant belongs in tourism and all elephants should go back to the wild.

Again, the desire to release elephants into the wild comes from a compassionate position. But it is clear that the vast majority of captive elephants cannot currently just be set free from tourism, nor can they be returned to the wild. In reality, Asian elephant numbers in the wild are in decline. Poaching is rampant; agricultural and plantation concessions continue to encroach on the boundaries of protected areas. Human-elephant conflict is an ongoing threat to wild elephants and local communities. So why are Westerners calling for elephants to be released? Where they will all go and how their safety will be guaranteed? No one has answers for those questions. Returning the majority of captive elephants to the wild would be a death sentence.

Successful captive elephant management on the other hand, supports breeding programs, educates the masses, facilitates research into disease eradication, and provides jobs and opportunities for impoverished communities who may otherwise face poverty. Some mahouts hire security guards to watch over their elephants at night, keeping them safe from poachers. The notion that all elephants are better off in the wild is sadly ignorant of the current realities of life. It is an irresponsible and short-sighted position to be maintaining.

In the future, elephant habitat may be restored and afforded stronger protection. Communities may not be as agrarian; human-elephant conflict and poaching may decline, and elephants can be successfully reintroduced into the wild. This is the long-term goal that all conservationists aspire to achieve. But until that time, it is critical that we protect and conserve to the best of our abilities the individual animals that we have right now. And that means supporting elephant tourism through the continued improvement of elephant welfare at elephant camps.

Western tourists should absolutely care about elephant welfare. But acknowledgment and support is needed for the positive changes that are currently occurring. Showing concern for elephants can be redirected into choosing a quality elephant camp, rather than boycotting all elephant camps. Tourists should support camps that meet stringent, proven elephant welfare criteria. Support camps that have captive breeding programs and good environmental enrichment for their elephants. Encourage the camps that improve education rates and provide ongoing training for their mahouts.  Support camps that pay their staff a living wage and employ people from local villages. Western tourists should show the local government support for their conservation efforts, and believe in their abilities to create positive change and industry reform. Because simply saying that all elephants shouldn’t engage in tourism and should be returned to the wild achieves nothing.

Dr. Ingrid Suter, Ph.D., is the co-founder of Asian Captive Elephant Standards, an organization that assesses and audits elephant camps to ensure they are operating at the highest standard. She has worked in and studied captive Asian elephant management for over 10 years.

[worldelephantday]

Giants on the Move

Written by Patricia Sims, Co-Founder, World Elephant Day

Each year for World Elephant Day we put a lot of our elephant conservation attention toward the ivory poaching crisis threatening African elephants, and the tourism and captivity issues that the endangered Asian elephants face. Yet the larger conservation challenge of habitat loss for both African and Asian elephants is looming. Our increasing encroachment on elephant habitat throughout Africa and Asia is putting elephants at greater risk, resulting in human-elephant conflict issues, and the demise of elephant populations and the ecosystems that they, as a keystone species, maintain.

So what are the solutions?  Can moving elephants – from one location where there isn’t enough space for them –  to another location where there aren’t enough elephants,  help solve this issue? At the heart of this critical elephant conservation conundrum is a partnership between the De Beers Group –  the world’s leading diamond company – and Peace Parks Foundation, a leading not-for-profit organization focused on the preservation of large cross-border ecosystems.  They have just completed the first phase of the largest and longest translocation of elephants ever recorded in South Africa. This translocation project is called “Moving Giants.”

23 July 2018. Elephant Relocation from Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve (South Africa) to Zinave Reserve (Mozambique). Picture: JAMES OATWAY

Over the course of several weeks between mid-July and early August 2018, forty-eight elephants were moved 1,700 km between the Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve (VLNR), a conservation area owned by the De Beers Group in South Africa, to Mozambique’s Zinave National Park.  The reason for this translocation was to address the issue of too many elephants living in the VLNR, which is 32,000 hectares and only has the carrying capacity for approximately sixty elephants.  Yet, as of July 2018, VLNR had a population of approximately 270 elephants, which far exceeds what this region can support, and which negatively impacts its ecological health.  By comparison, the 400,000 hectare Zinave National Park, which at the beginning of this year only had eight elephants, would benefit greatly with more elephants to help replenish its ecosystem. As Bernard van Lente, Peace Parks Foundation’s Project Manager in Zinave National Park explains, “The normal processes that elephants drive – recycling vegetation, pushing over trees which creates different opportunities for insect life, hiding places for small animals – these processes driven by elephants are not taking place in Zinave.  Disturbance stimulates diversity – we don’t have these processes without elephants”.

As a solution to these two conservation problems the Moving Giants project was undertaken with the intention to create a win-win for both the elephants and their habitats.  This initiative is the first phase in the translocation process, with second phase plans to move the remaining 150 elephants next year. It is an ambitious project, and a positive step forward for elephant conservation.  But it is not without risks.

23 July 2018. Elephant Relocation from Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve (South Africa) to Zinave Reserve (Mozambique). Picture: JAMES OATWAY

One of the world’s leading experts in elephant translocation strategies, Kester Vickery, Co-Founder of Conservation Solutions, was enlisted to oversee and strategize this logistically complex undertaking.  The operation involved an array of technology ranging from helicopters, all-terrain vehicles, transport trucks, GPS monitoring, a series of tranquilizing medications for the elephants, and a team of veterinarians – all brought together to ensure the elephants’ safety remained a top priority.  Yet even with all these safety measures in place, Kester says, “In short, it is risky for the elephants and the crew.  A lot of this risk is mitigated by having an experienced crew doing the capture, having efficient recovery equipment to limit the time that the elephants are under the immobilization procedure, and planning border crossings and logistical concerns before the operation starts.   To put this in context you need to weigh up the translocation risks versus the outcome of other means of population control like culling”. 

23 July 2018. Elephant Relocation from Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve (South Africa) to Zinave Reserve (Mozambique). Picture: JAMES OATWAY

Ironically the over-population issue that elephants face in South Africa due to limited habitat puts them at risk on many fronts, whether it be culling, human-elephant conflict, trophy hunting, or poaching.  In the first phase of the Moving Giants project fifty-two elephants, which made up seven breeding herds, were selected for translocation.   Although four elephants unfortunately did not survive the translocation process, the forty-eight elephants that are now successfully living in Zinave have the opportunity to thrive in a new habitat that offers a better future for them and the new ecosystem they inhabit.

As difficult as it is to justify the tragic loss of these four elephants, it is important to recognize the costs of action versus the costs of inaction, which are ultimately greater.

Piet Oosthuizen, De Beers Group’s Senior Ecology Manager states that “People around the world need to recognize that Africa has unique challenges.  In South Africa, we are seriously challenged by excess elephant populations”.  With not enough habitat in South Africa for these elephants to live in, contraception vaccines are darted into the elephants from helicopters as a method of birth control.  The Moving Giants project creates a new opportunity for elephants that would otherwise be subjected to contraception. Now they can continue their natural reproductive process that will ensure growth in elephant populations in the African countries where their numbers are declining.

The question of how and if the elephants will be protected from poachers in Zinave is addressed by the well-established anti-poaching squad of over fifty trained rangers that operates within its 400,000 hectare boundaries.  Zinave is co-managed through a formal agreement between Mozambique’s National Administration for Conservation Areas and Peace Parks Foundation.  Peace Park Foundation will carry out ongoing monitoring of the elephant’s health and numbers and ensure that they remain protected.   

30 July 2018. Elephant Relocation from Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve (South Africa) to Zinave Reserve (Mozambique). Picture: JAMES OATWAY

The Zinave National Park has reportedly not had any cases of elephant poaching for more than three years.  To provide additional anti-poaching support, the De Beers Group is providing US$500,000 over the next five years to Peace Park Foundation for support to Zinave and other areas in Mozambique where the elephants will be translocated in the second phase of the Moving Giants project.

Large corporations such as De Beers that have had a negative environmental footprint due to their mining operations are in the position to step up responsibly and reciprocate with funds and positive action to help solve conservation problems. More corporations would do well to follow suit with similar conservation commitments to protect habitat and ensure a future for elephants in Africa.

To learn more about the Moving Giants translocation programme and follow its progress through articles, social media and its upcoming web series, please visit MovingGiants.org.

[oupacademic]

September 4th is National Wildlife Day. This day is meant to encourage people to stand up for and speak out on behalf of animals. In honor of wildlife that needs our support and advocacy, we’ve put together this list of facts about nine different endangered species.

Pygmy Hippo - Today there are less than 2,500 pygmy hippos remaining in the world. The main threat pygmy hippos face is loss of habitat caused by rainforest destruction and an inconsistency in government enforced protection of national parks.

Panda – In order to increase breeding success in captivity, pandas are often swapped between different pens. This allows pandas to become exposed to one another’s scent and to send important messages about competitive status and reproductive maturity.

Blue Whale – While blue whales use their larynxes to sing, they do not have vocal cords, so we don’t know how they create these songs. Whale songs are low-pitched, distinctly tonal, and (like many birdcalls), they tend to follow a set key signature.

Kakapo - The kakapo is a critically-endangered, large, flightless bird, which, thankfully, in recent years, has seen strong efforts to try and reverse population declines. This was achieved by feeding mothers specially-formulated, nutrient-rich pellets, which led to female kakapos laying more eggs than those who did not have the additional pellets in their diet.

Cheetah – Male cheetahs have been known to form long-lasting groups or “coalitions”. This is a rarity in the cat family - the only other species to form male coalitions is the lion. All other male cats are solitary.

Przewalski’s Horse – Thanks to conservation breeding programs, some species such as the Przewalski’s wild horse have had their threat level reduced. These breeding programs, along with reintroduction programs and hunting restrictions, have been the most effective conservation actions for mammals.

Orangutan -  Orangutans almost never descend to the forest floor (with the exception of adult Bornean males, which may spend up to 5% of their time on the ground). When they do walk on the ground, orangutans keep their hands and feet curled up since they are incapable of knuckle-walking like the African apes.

Snail Darter - In the 1970s, a lawsuit citing the Endangered Species Act was brought before the Supreme Court and halted the construction of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee in order to protect the snail darter, an endangered fish.

Elephant – While reducing the illegal trade of ivory continues to remain a necessary conservation effort for both African and Asian species, increases in human population and the subsequent reduction in wilderness for elephants is likely to ensure a steady long-term decline in their numbers.

Image: pygmy-hippos-744885 by skeeze. CC0 Public Domain via Pixabay. 

[sciencespies]

What Elephants Teach Us About Consumption and Extinction

https://sciencespies.com/history/what-elephants-teach-us-about-consumption-and-extinction/

What Elephants Teach Us About Consumption and Extinction

In a way, our modern understanding of extinction starts with the elephant.

It was while studying fossilized teeth of two different elephant ancestors, the mammoth and the mastodon, that scientists first became aware of the fact that species could die out and become forever extinct. In 1796, French naturalist George Cuvier compared mastodon and mammoth tooth fossils to the teeth of modern African and Asian elephants, positing that the teeth belonged to species that were “lost” in the past. This was a bold, new revelation—one that stood in stark contrast to attitudes of the time. The massive consumption of ivory in the 1800s was unprecedented; with delicate fans, billiard balls, hair combs and ivory veneer piano keys being made of the tusks elephants use as tools for eating, drinking and breathing.

In a Connecticut newspaper, published the same year as Cuvier’s hypothesis, one observer wrote:

The Elephant is the largest, the strongest, the most sagacious, and the longest-lived of all brute creation. The species is numerous, does not decrease, and is dispersed over all of the southern parts of Asia and Africa.

Elephants were indeed seen as innumerous. By 1850, American manufacturers were killing the animals in droves. A billiard ball company boasted it had brought down 1,140 elephants.

But at the same time, the burgeoning American conservation movement was gaining momentum. One champion, President Teddy Roosevelt, designated five national parks during his eight years as commander-in-chief. In February 1909, Roosevelt convened the North American Conservation Conference, the first ever international meeting on conservation policy.

Dubbed the “conservation president,” despite his reputation as an avid hunter, Roosevelt “embodied the dilemma of how to both use and preserve nature,” advances a new exhibition “Elephants and Us: Considering Extinction,” now on view in the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

If fact in March 1909, just one month after the conservation conference, Roosevelt led a Smithsonian Institution expedition to Kenya, killing 512 animals, including eight elephants, as part of an effort to bring taxonomic specimens to a new Smithsonian museum, known today as the National Museum of Natural History, which opened its doors June 20, 1911. The practice of displaying taxonomy in museums to help the public understand the need to preserve these species was just taking shape.

Ernst Moore, a Connecticut ivory trader, poses among Arab and Indian merchants and African caravan tusk porters in Zanzibar around 1900.

(Pratt, Read Corporation Records, Archives Center, NMAH)

By the 1950s, nearly 250 elephants were killed every day. In 1973, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was signed. The international agreement was made to regulate wildlife trade in order to ensure the survival of a species. By 1978, African elephants would be protected under CITES, however, it would later be found that the legislation was inadequately protecting the now endangered species.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the African Elephant Conservation Act into law, banning the importation into the U.S. of all elephant ivory, with the exception of hunting trophies. Within the first days of the law’s implementation, under President George H.W. Bush in 1989, more than a dozen countries followed suit, introducing similar bans.

The document—and many other historic goods and artifacts that represent the history of elephant conservation and ivory consumption—are on now view in the show.

“This exhibition places the human-elephant relationship in the context of American history,” says the show’s curator Carlene Stephens. “Within a timespan of about 150 years, Americans transitioned from being mass consumers of ivory goods to enacting legal measures aimed at supporting elephant conservation. Yet these recent efforts may not be enough to counter centuries of consuming ivory.”

In the last century, the African elephant population has decreased by almost 90 percent, with an estimated 415,000 remaining as of 2016. They are considered vulnerable under the IUCN’s Red List.

The worldwide demand for ivory goods, however, remains high, and efforts to stop poaching and protect elephants continue. The illegal ivory trade is bolstered, in part, by the very thing meant to protect it because it is still legal to sell ivory if it can be shown that an item preceded the African Elephant Conservation Act. It is no simple task to discern manufacturing dates, however. Still, conservationists and world leaders are sending a clear message: there is zero tolerance for harvesting these creatures for their tusks.

In 2013, 2015 and 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service crushed tons of ivory goods seized from tourists, illegal traders and smugglers. Their intent was to devalue black market ivory. The practice drew criticism from museum curators who remain concerned about preserving the cultural heritage of indigenous artisans, who have been carving ivory for centuries. In 2015, two museum curators including one from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African Art were asked to examine confiscated ivory and found two intricately carved African side flutes among the loot. One they suspected was the handiwork of a specific Nigerian tribe. In a 2015 interview with Smithsonianmag.com senior curator Bryna Freyer compared the experience to deciphering the puzzle of cultural history to a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle.

“When this stuff is lost, we lose a chance at better understanding the people who made the object,” she said. “You think OK, we’ll get rid of [these pieces]. It’s not going to make a difference, because there are 498 other pieces. But you never know which is the piece that’s going to really help you understand.”

Illegal ivory trade is just one adversary in the modern fight for elephant preservation. But habitat destruction, poaching and climate change all threaten the charismatic megafauna’s survival, even at a time when scientists are still working to understand their natural history and biology. In some places, elephants are dying faster than they can reproduce; an African elephant’s gestation period is almost two years long.

That’s one reason why researchers at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo are closely studying elephant reproduction. In an effort to think about elephant preservation in a new way, they are essentially asking: How do we make more elephants? As well as, how do we keep the ones we have?

The forward-looking research is highlighted in the new exhibition with the display of enrichment toys used at the Zoo to keep the elephants active. In previous work, they found that stress is a major reason for failed breeding in captive populations. One way to lessen their stress is to engage them in activities that stimulate their minds and ultimately, keep them happy.

So, yes, our understanding of extinction may have begun with elephants and their ancestors, but as we fight to save this species, they are powering our understanding of conservation success.

“Elephants and Us: Considering Extinction” is on view in the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

#History

[monkey-land-blog]

The Danger of Zoos

(Header photo by Travel Lushes)

Zoos are a place for people to come and enjoy themselves while getting to see their favorite wild animals and even learn a bit while they’re there. However, what a lot of people don’t know is how harmful zoos really are for these animals.

Animals in zoos are caged for life. They have no control over what they eat, the size of the enclosure, how exposed it is to humans and how many other animals they share the enclosure with. A lot of zoos also aren’t required to do much more than feed and provide shelter for the animals and because of this, the enclosures they are kept in often do not resemble their natural habitat and lack the vegetation the animals need to thrive.  Often, animals that are more social get deprived of this by being put alone while animals that prefer solitude get put in groups. Additionally, many of the animals found in zoos, such as lions and elephants, are typically found in habitats that allow them to roam for kilometers on end while in zoos they are confined to small enclosures leaving them bored and restless, often leading to something called “zoochosis”.

Many animals can feel stressed, restless or threatened because of their undesirable enclosures and the exposure to humans and have no way of escaping it. This stress is what causes the animals to form neurotic behaviors (zoochosis) such as pacing back and forth, eating their own excrement, rocking, swaying side to side and self-mutilation. A study in the United States conducted by the Captive Animals’ Protection Society found that in 90% of the public aquariums they researched had animals that showed signs of zoochosis. Zoochosis is rarely observed in the wild and is a clear sign that keeping animals captive is unhealthy and causes them to suffer.

Zoos claim that they exist to educate and entertain as well as breed, raise and enclose endangered animals. However, the way zoos are set up now makes it apparent that they prioritize visitors over animals. The majority of the animals in zoos are not considered endangered species and those who are rarely get released back into the wild. Instead, zoos keep breeding these animals in captivity in order to maintain their stock as well as have a competitive advantage to attract visitors. When the animals get sick, old or they have too many, rather than providing a lifetime of proper care, zoos prioritize whatever makes their zoo more appealing and will often trade, sell and lend the animals to other zoos or even to circuses or hunters. This is done despite knowing that certain animals have formed strong group bonds that are essential for their long-term happiness and that readjustment is disruptive and stressful.  

Additionally, the education that zoos offer is contradictory to what needs to be shown. It is contradictory as a lot of things zoos do, such as place animals in cages that are too small or placing them near predators is what causes the animals to feel stressed and reduce their quality of life. Zoos teach people that it is ok to cage animals and to keep them in conditions that are clearly making them stressed. Animals are not here solely for our entertainment and should be respected.

Thankfully, there are sanctuaries all over that stand up for animal welfare and aim to raise awareness and educate people about the many different forms of animal cruelty that is happening around the world. These sanctuaries rescue animals that have lost their homes in the wild and provide them with a new home that closely resembles their natural habitat. Monkeyland is one example of such a sanctuary and we aim to create awareness about the plight of the world’s wildlife and to show that with a greater understanding for wildlife and nature we can all live in harmony.

For more information and sources used:

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/zoos/

http://www.animalequality.net/entertainment/zoos

[wolveria]

Zoos and Aquariums do more to protect species in the wild than any other program, and once a wild habitat is gone it's GONE. Captivity is often their only hope until we can rehabilitate them somewhere. Why do so many people who call themselves vegan have zero understanding of how any of this works? : /

Hi, alumni from the Conservation Biology and Ecology program at Arizona State University here. Let me break it down for you from an evidence-based perspective, since my being vegan leads you to believe I’m just talking out of my ass or something.

In not one of my classes was it ever stated that zoos are fundamental to wildlife conservation. In fact, my biology conservation professor said captivity in zoos is very antithetical to the physical and mental health of large land mammals, especially elephants and big cats.

Animals, especially far-roaming species, exhibit stereotypical behavior in order to cope with their cramped, unnatural living conditions (i.e. bar biting, circling, pacing).

Rehabilitation programs only work when endangered species have an environment to return to (in many cases, they do not), and the most successful programs I have seen are in closed facilities - not zoos open to the public.

Human beings are causing the sixth mass extinction event, and zoos are not going to help stop global warming, deforestation, ocean acidification, or poaching. Zoos aren’t even a temporary stop-gap solution. It’s a feel-good option for people who want to stare at wild animals in an artificial environment.

Unlike wildlife sanctuaries, which put the animals’ welfare first and foremost, zoos place a large amount of importance on giftshop and ticket sales, and that prioritizes species that are easily identifiable to the public - not animals who are the most threatened.

Captive-breeding in zoos will only go so far, and it is estimated that relying on captive-bred animals only (and not capturing more from the wild) will only allow 100-years of breeding before the species becomes so inbred they are no longer genetically viable.

Zoos have been known to kill “surplus” animals.

The vast majority of zoos DO NOT release animals back into the wild.

Sometimes zoos sell “surplus” animals to circuses, canned hunting facilities, or the exotic pet trade.

Chances are, many of you have seen Blackfish and boycott SeaWorld. While that is admirable, zoos are simply an extension of the captive animal entertainment industry. Some zoos even make their animals perform tricks to the detriment of the animals.

Do Zoos Really Teach Visitors Anything?

Zoos teach young children, as well as adults, that it is acceptable to keep animals in cages and pens for the rest of their lives, rather than live in their natural habitats.

Zoos are inherently cruel because profits come first, and animals cannot consent to captivity.

The fact of the matter is, you don’t need a BS in Conservation Biology to understand how placing wild animals in pens for us to pay money to look at sounds dubious and suspect. We need to use our critical thinking skills and stop being dogmatically worshipful of these institutions that profit from the captivity of sentient, living beings.

[theleafyqueen]

Some aspects of veganism are idiotic. The zoo is fine. You do realize that many zoos take care of those endangered animals? Oh and I'm for animal testing. I'd rather test medication on an animal before a human

I think youre either gross or very uneducated about this.

Zoos:From an animal rights standpoint, we do not have a right to breed, capture and confine other animals, even if they are endangered. They are also endangered BECAUSE OF US. We can’t help them without locking them in cages and putting them on display for large quantities of money? Being a member of an endangered species doesn’t mean the individual animals have fewer rights. Animals in captivity suffer from stress, boredom and confinement. Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals get sold or traded to other zoos, and no pen or even drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild. Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses, canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter. Some zoos just kill their surplus animal outright.The vast majority of captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring are forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and exotic pet trade that buy, sell and barter animals among themselves and exploit animals. Ned the Asian elephant was born at an accredited zoo, but later confiscated from an abusive circus trainer and finally sent to a sanctuary. Removing individuals from the wild will further endanger the wild population because the remaining individuals will be LESS genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding mates. If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. A TRUE sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild. If zoos are teaching children anything, it’s that imprisoning animals for our own entertainment is acceptable. The argument that children will have more compassion animals they can see live does not hold water. Not one of today’s children has ever seen a dinosaur, yet kids are crazy about them.

At least one study has shown that elephants kept in zoos do not live as long as elephants in the wild.The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.“ Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, will not free the animals.Sanctuaries also rehabilitate wildlife and take in unwanted exotic pets, without breeding, buying and selling animals like zoos do.Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. There have even been incidents of zoo animals eating other zoo animals. Im done ranting about that one, I used multiple sources.

As for testing on animals, no dude.

The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests FAIL in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in tests on animals.Humans are much different than people. We dont need to be making beagles blind or bunnies without limbs. Taking healthy beings from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that they would never normally contract, keeping them in an unnatural and stressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best. Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species (and even within a species). Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. And morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses. Further, animals in laboratories typically display behavior indicating extreme psychological distress, and experimenters acknowledge that the use of these stressed-out animals jeopardizes the validity of the data produced.

Every year in the U.S., animal experimentation gobbles up billions of dollars (including 40 percent of all research funding from the National Institutes of Health), and nearly $3 trillion is spent on health care. While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U.S. still ranks 42nd in the world in life expectancy and has a high infant mortality rate compared to other developed countries. A 2014 review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health. It concluded that “if research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.”

The most significant trend in modern research is the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals. Advanced microchips that use real human cells and tissues to construct fully functioning postage stamp–size organs allow researchers to study diseases and also develop and test new drugs to treat them. Progressive scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain,” which can be used to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissues (e.g., MatTek’s EpiDermTM), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits.

Experimentation using animals persists not because it’s the best science but because of archaic habits, resistance to change, and a lack of outreach and education.

In other words

WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER OPTIONS THAT WORK BETTER AND COST LESS.

Now go do some reading and when you know more about shit, you can argue with me. This was pitiful.

This shit shouldn’t just have to be an aspect of veganism. You dont have to vegan to not be barbaric.

[photographerguide-blog]

Top 30 Most Stunning Photos From The National Geographic Instagram Photography Contest

New Post has been published on https://photographyguideto.com/must-see/top-30-most-stunning-photos-from-the-national-geographic-instagram-photography-contest/

Top 30 Most Stunning Photos From The National Geographic Instagram Photography Contest

National Geographic has made a name for themselves with their earth-shattering photographs, so it was no surprise that they made Instagram history as the first brand to reach 100 million followers (those are almost Kim Kardashian numbers). To celebrate in true Nat Geo fashion, they opened up a photography contest across the photo-sharing platform – using the hashtag #natgeo100contest. In the 24-hour contest window, the magazine received more than 94,000 photograph submissions. The photo editors and photographers at Nat Geo went through the entries and narrowed them down to the top 10 most stunning images and then let their 10 million followers vote on who would be the grand prize winner. Below you can view the contest winning photo, the top finalists along with some other gorgeous entries that didn’t make the cut but are still just as mind-blowing. Voting for #natgeo100contest may be over but don’t forget to upvote your favs for Bored Panda!

#1 André Musgrove

Looking down from above, like a satellite orbiting around the earth, my camera’s view finder presses against my mask, this is one of the most memorable views from My World. Pushing through the strong currents, low visibility and rough waves this day was most definitely worth it. 

For the grand prize, winner Ketan Khambhatta, won Nat Geo photo safari to Tanzania. While the other top 10 finalists received National Geographic photo books signed by their photographers along with having their winning images posted to @NatGeo throughout the week.

#2 Grand Prize Winner Ketan Khambhatta

In the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, zebras search for crocodiles while wildebeest run across the river. Photographer Muhammed Muheisen: The image is so dynamic, with a powerful depth that keeps me looking. A moment well captured.

#3 Sebastien Nagy

Always prefer the focus on a single tower but yes… there is another one right next

#4 Anuroop Krishnan

A giraffe family at sunrise

#5 Chaitanya Deshpande

‘Here Comes The Sun’

#6 Finalist Adam Kiefer

National Park Ranger Matthieu Shamavu embraces Matabishi, an orphaned juvenile mountain gorilla, at the Senkwekwe Center, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Senkwekwe is the only rehabilitation center for mountain gorillas in the world. Photographer Ami Vitale: The image is sublime because we immediately understand that it’s a metaphor for unspeakable brutality but also great tenderness. This image illustrates our complex bond with the natural world.

#7 Brent Stirton

I was totally privileged to spend time with the world’s best pangolin care-givers at the Tikki Hywood Trust for an upcoming natgeo magazine story. I witnessed an extraordinary relationship unfold as these men helped rescued, traumatized pangolin to find ants and termites to eat and kept them safe from predators and poachers. Pangolins are the world’s most trafficked animal in the illegal wildlife trade and are extraordinarily endangered. The Tikki Hywood Trust undertakes public awareness campaigns, trains law enforcement and judiciary personnel, conducts research, and rehabilitates pangolins that have been confiscated from the illegal trade. They operate with partners across Africa and advise in Asia. A recently opened extension Tikki Hywood Trust Foundation cameroon is doing great work in the epicenter of the illegal pangolin world. Founder Lisa Hywood is seen as a global expert on how to care for Pangolins in captivity and along with partner Ellen Connelly, they represent an extraordinary example of how to care for animals. The trust also engages with other organizations and governments throughout Africa to highlight the plight of pangolins, raising awareness of their conservation status and educating them as to the need for conserving pangolins, as well as implementing conservation actions. Many of their activities are not covered by research grants and they rely on sponsors and donations to continue their work. It is estimated that over a million pangolin have been lost in the last ten years, this is from a population that we have never counted, we have no idea how many remain, and we know it is not possible to breed these animals in captivity. We are losing these extraordinary animals so quickly to the illegal Asian market that they may disappear before we can truly appreciate them

#8 Yuri Choufour

Sashimi anyone?

Black bears enjoy a varied diet, but these omnivores greatly depend on protein rich salmon to build up reserves as they prepare to hibernate in winter.

#9 Finalist Frank Haluska

Great Egrets appear serene and still in wetlands, but they are also vicious hunters, who eat anything they can catch—including this bullfrog, who appears to be fighting hard for survival. Photographer Cory Richards: This moment is so bizarre and confusing that I had to zoom in to make sure another animal’s foot wasn’t sticking straight out of the water to block the distressed frog from certain death.

#10 Finalist Sandra Cattaneo Adorno

On a day when the sea was unusually rough and the undertow dangerously strong, bathers on Ipanema beach, in Rio de Janeiro, appear hesitant to take the plunge. Photographer Michaela Skovranova: A surreal scene—this image highlights an eclectic mix of light, human impact, and the power of the environment. It’s as if the heat of the Earth and the humans is radiating off the sand, creating their own micro climate.

#11 Maxime Israel Collier

Look at those eyes

#12 Nicholas Parker

Following one of the worst winter storms in Hawaii’s recent history, large swells wiped out the beaches of western Maui. The next day, large pieces of coral were scattered throughout the beach.. I picked through the most colorful and beautiful pieces and found this composition of the island of Moloka’i. The wave action reminds me of fingers from the sea coming to reclaim the coral back 

#13 Finalist Matt Potenski

Whale sharks have personalities. This one was bold and curious, approaching the boat anytime we came near. Whale sharks are huge, so large they resemble living reefs. No other terrestrial animal can match their size, power, and grace. Photographer Cristina Mittermeier: I have done a lot of swimming with whale sharks, and you never get to see an absolutely beautiful moment like this that exemplifies the abundance of healthy oceans.

#14 Devon Fox

Can you see the sea horse? This photo was taken in Page, AZ during our last road trip. Strange shapes start to appear in the layers carved into these slot canyons

#15 Sebastian Scheichl

Starting my pictures from the Faroes with a sheep, probably the first thing that comes to your mind when thinking about these islands

#16 Majed Sultan Alza’abi

Drinking time

#17 Nicholas Parker

The weather here lately is snow joke. Another day in single digits with howling wind

#18 Finalist Francisco J. Perez

A summer thunderstorm rolls over the Grand Canyon. This image is a combination of three consecutive long exposure photos of the storm. Photographer Charlie Hamilton James: This is an exceptional image of lightning striking the Grand Canyon. It is muddy, dramatic and demonstrates excellent technical ability.

#19 Jacintha Verdegaal

I still have a lot of Thailand photos to share, but this – spending the day with 4 rescued elephants – was definitely one of the highlights of 2019 so far

#20 Finalist Chris O’bryan

Galahs, a species of cockatoo, scour the parched Outback for water in Western Australia. Here, waterholes are the vital source of life. Photographer Wayne Lawrence: Of all of the images of wildlife, this one seems less clichéd and stood out because of the masterly use of color and composition.

#21 Juan Quinteros

One from the “sharks in the sandstorm” series

#22 Finalist Khatia Nikabadze

A pair of lambs stare out a car window at a livestock market in Marneuli, Georgia. Photographer David Guttenfelder: This photograph wasn’t made in the wild, yet the picture, in one moment, tells the seemingly bittersweet story of the young lambs.

#23 Finalist Sara Stein

This image depicts the frantic momentum of wildebeest crossing the Mara River in Tanzania. Photographer Tasneem Alsultan: I enjoy photos that aren’t that obvious. Is it wasps of hair? Or shards of wood? The mass of horns rushing my way seem lethal, and yet the photographer made us see the image from an artistic view.

#24 Andri Laukas

Always looking for new perspectives at these famous places

#25 Ulla Lohmann

Another one of my all time favorite images: Munganau walks home. The erupting Tavurvur volcano has destroyed beautiful Rabaul town. The people showed amazing resilience against the odds of nature and stayed with the hope, that their paradise will one day return. Fingers crossed that the volcano stays quiet! .

#26 Shivam

Madness is somewhere between chaos and having a dream.

#27 Caine Delacy

This is probably my most favorite shot

#28 Ken Geiger

it’s time for breakfast! Backlit by the early morning sun a southern yellow-billed hornbill snags a grasshopper for a snack.

#29 Arvind Patwal

“NAGA “. Believes that the twinkle in her eye may be the reflection off her lost marbles.

#30 Finalist Felice Simon

Families glide on an ice rink in Brooklyn, New York’s Prospect Park on an unseasonably warm January day. Photographer Maggie Steber: This photograph of skaters large and small somehow reminds me of a memory from childhood. The way the pristine light shoots across the ice creating long shadows feels symbolic of how we have to stay the challenging course of raising our children, always being there to catch them if they fall.

Read more: http://www.boredpanda.com/

[ezatluba]

Smoke from a fire in Griffith Park rises over the Los Angeles Zoo, which initiated emergency procedures to protect its animals.

How zoos protect—and evacuate—animals during wildfires

Not all animals can be safely evacuated. With fires in the West becoming increasingly common, zoos must prepare for disaster.

BY MARAYA CORNELL

Early on Friday morning, a brush fire broke out near the Los Angeles Zoo. It was November 9, and Southern California’s fire crews were already battling one record-breaking blaze. Northeast of Los Angeles, the Woolsey Fire had jumped the 101 Freeway earlier that morning and was burning south. Just seven hours later, it would roar through Malibu to the beach, leaving a swath of charred ruins.

Situated in the northeast side of the city’s 4,210-acre Griffith Park, the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens is home to more than 1,400 mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles—many of them endangered species. The zoo’s lush green property is backed by hills covered in oily chaparral shrubs, parched by the long dry season, and the ubiquitous invasive grasses which, by summer’s end, had dehydrated to crisp yellow patches of straw—the source of California’s famous “golden hills.”

As global warming increases the frequency of fires, floods, and hurricanes, zoos across the country are ramping up their plans to protect their animals from catastrophe. Julie Barnes, the director of animal care and health at the Santa Barbara Zoo says that emergency and disaster preparedness has been “a very hot topic” in last five years. “Earthquake is always a risk, so that’s been talked about forever,” she says. “But with climate change, we are seeing these extreme weather events, and we’re feeling the effects of them.”

A wildlife in Griffith Park, near the Los Angeles Zoo, began early in the morning on November 9. Because of the terrain, fire engines couldn't reach the blaze.

DJ Shubert, a biologist with the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, agrees. “Back in 2005, Hurricane Katrina really started the discussion about animals and natural disasters” and the need for contingency plans, he says. “It was about pets, but also zoo animals and other animals in captivity.”

By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to receive news, offers, and information from National Geographic Partners and our partners. Click here to visit our Privacy Policy. Easy unsubscribe links are provided in every email.

In California, the trend toward catastrophic, year-round wildfires has put planning for fire emergencies at the forefront.

Plans and Drills

By 7:10 a.m., the Los Angeles Fire Department was outside the zoo. Crews couldn’t see the fire itself, but the smoke billowing into the sky suggested it was just a few hills away from the northern end of the zoo’s property and inaccessible to fire engines. Firefighters hiked up the steep grade on foot.

At 7:16 a.m., staff at the zoo initiated emergency procedures.

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums requires its accredited members (of which the Los Angeles Zoo is one) to have a written procedure for fire as well as three other categories of emergency: injury of visitors or staff, an animal escape, and environmental emergencies specific to the zoo’s region, such as earthquakes.

Staff at accredited zoos must run through at least one live-action emergency drill—a pre-planned simulation—each year for each category of emergency.

Staff at the Los Angeles Zoo move birds into an indoor classroom to protect their sensitive lungs from the smoke of the wildfire nearby.

Citing time constraints, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Zoo on Wednesday declined to discuss the zoo’s emergency response procedures but said in an email that the zoo’s contingency plans are reviewed annually and “updated as necessary.”

In a prepared statement, communications director April Spurlock wrote that “staff takes precautionary measures such as brush clearance, utilizing sprinkler systems throughout the zoo, and strategically placing fire extinguishers throughout the property, which staff has been trained to use.” Drills run regularly “enable staff to be ready to act at a moment’s notice to protect the animals, employees, and patrons.”

Prioritizing

Because fire is such a significant risk in Southern California, the Santa Barbara Zoo has different levels of plans for responding, depending on how a firs is progressing and the circumstances, Barnes says.

When the 2017 record-breaking Thomas fire broke out in Ventura, south of Santa Barbara, staff started preparing to evacuate. They got out the transport crates they had stored on site and put them out by the animal exhibits and their holding areas.

Firefighters work to control a house fire caught in the Woolsey Fire in West Hills, California on November 9.

The zoo has a list of priority animals—those that are highly endangered, genetically very valuable for breeding programs, or are the type of “ambassador animals” that bring in visitors. Those are the animals they attend to first in an emergency.

The California condors were the first animals to evacuate, several days before the fire got close. “They are highly valuable from a conservation perspective, and we wanted to make sure those birds were absolutely safe,” says Barnes. The condors and several large vulture species were sent to the L.A. Zoo. Both zoos are involved in a recovery program that’s brought the California condor back from the brink of extinction.

Evacuate or Shelter in Place?

Besides the priority of the animal, Barnes says, staff must consider how practical it is to transport the animals and whether they can cope with the stress of being crated and moved.

Condors are easily moveable. Giraffe and elephants, not so much. They’re not trained to go into crates, like birds or small mammals, and moving such big animals is a logistical nightmare, particularly in a hurry. “The crates and trailers you’d need are huge,” Barnes says. Instead, the plan is to keep the animals at the zoo and have staff defend them there.

And what if the fire arrives before there’s time to evacuate any animals at all? “We would start to consolidate them into areas we could defend from the fire,” Barnes says. “We would move them to our safest buildings—concrete buildings, cinder block buildings, and the spaces where we could more easily defend them from the fire.”

This king vulture is one of the LA Zoo's more than 1,400 animals that was potentially at risk from the fire in Griffith Park.

As the Thomas fire moved closer, mandatory human evacuations and road closures made it difficult for staff to get to work. The air grew smokier. A baby anteater that needed bottle-feeding and round-the-clock care was sent to the Fresno Zoo. One night, the fire progressed 13 miles. Staff evacuated some reindeer they had on loan. They took the farmyard animals to the barn stalls at the Santa Barbara showgrounds. They put small animals and birds into transport crates, keeping them in the building with the best ventilation system until they might need to load them onto truck beds for safekeeping at other zoos. They put crates in holding areas and had plans in place for each one; dangerous animals would be sent to the San Diego Zoo.

A crew stayed the night at the zoo to be ready to go if the situation got worse. Direct contact with the flames wouldn’t be the only danger they’d have to fend off. All animals, humans included, are susceptible to harm and death from smoke inhalation, says Barnes. Intense heat can damage respiratory systems, too. And even if animals are protected from fire and smoke, there’s the danger of getting burned by the hot surface of a crate or enclosure. (Read about what it's like to fight deadly wildfires.)

"Anything Goes"

According to the its website, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums “has a verifiable track record of enforcing its standards,” and its member institutions are “required to repeat the entire accreditation process every five years.” (The association’s communications office did not respond by Thursday afternoon to phone and email requests for comment.)

However, not all zoos are accredited by the AZA. And for those that are not, there is little oversight of emergency response plans.

In December 2012, the USDA amended the Animal Welfare Act regulations to requirezoos (as well as other organizations that exhibit animals) to conduct “contingency planning” and “training of personnel.”

DJ Shubert, the wildlife biologist, believes the rule is grossly inadequate. He points out that facilities aren’t required to submit their plans for review, nor is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service required to evaluate how well the plans worked after a disaster. The reality, he says, is that “anything goes.”

“Anteater Therapy”

By 7:53 a.m. last Friday, Los Angeles fire crews had located the fire in Griffith Park and estimated it to be two or three acres. Luckily, the ferocious Santa Ana winds fueling fires elsewhere in Southern California were not present here. Still, engines weren’t able to reach the fire because of the terrain. (Read more: Why California's wildlfires are so hard to fight.)

What are wildfires and how do they start? Learn how we can prevent destructive wildfires, and how we can manage wildfires to improve the health of forests.

Zoo staff relocated their trained birds and some small primates to the parking lot, which was more sheltered from the smoke, and they hosed down hillsides to keep flying embers from igniting.

By 9:29 a.m., the fire had grown to 30 acres. More than 125 firefighters worked to get it under control, and water-dropping aircraft were circling above. At 10:24, crews had stopped the fire’s advance, and by 2 p.m., it was 60 percent contained. The immediate danger was over, but crews and three engines kept vigil throughout the night, watching for flare-ups.

In Santa Barbara last year, the Thomas fire was finally halted two or three miles from the zoo. The staff stayed on high alert until they were sure the containment lines would hold. In the end, they’d only had to evacuate a few animals, but they’d been ready for much worse.

The animals coped with the whole situation quite well, says Barnes. But the fire (and the deadly mudslides that followed) took a real toll on the staff. The contingency plans hadn’t considered the fatigue of constantly being evacuated from their homes, the difficulty of getting to work in a disaster zone, working in poor air quality, the death and destruction in their communities.

On New Year’s Day, Nancy the baby anteater returned. Born a twin to a species of mother that can only raise one baby, Nancy had been hand-reared and was very friendly and cuddly, says Barnes. “People who were feeling depressed would want to come in and give her cuddles. So we joked that she was providing anteater therapy to those who needed it.”

Meanwhile, Barnes and the other animal care staff, and the safety and security staff, got to work refining their fire emergency procedures based on the lessons they’d learned from Thomas. They’ll be better practiced for when—not if—another fire breaks out.

[fineasswisdom]

IN VIETNAM, Kate Brooks is posing as a tourist looking to buy wildlife products. On the dealer’s counter there is a poster featuring a cartoon of a baby rhino, part of a campaign to spread awareness about the animals’ looming extinction. Oblivious to the irony, the salesman presents pictures of his rhino-horn bracelets on his phone, placing the device atop the poster. It is one of many shocking moments in “The Last Animals”, an urgent and beautifully shot film about the world’s largest land mammals and the people fighting to prevent their extinction. During its making, 100,000 elephants and 5,000 rhinos were killed for their tusks and horns, used in ornaments, jewellery and traditional medicines. The problem is not new and this documentary is not the first to highlight it, but Ms Brooks’s five years of work, uncovering the lesser-known sides of the story, has resulted in an impressive and far-reaching film. Ms Brooks, a photojournalist turned film-maker, previously worked in the Middle East and is no stranger to conflict zones. She makes clear that the frontline in the fight to protect endangered animals is no different to any other. Poachers—funded by criminal networks, enabled by corrupt politicians and often linked to terrorist organisations—are now armed with automatic weapons, night-vision goggles and helicopters. After drugs, weapons and human trafficking, it is the fourth most lucrative transnational crime. “The Last Animals” is an ode to the “unsung heroes” who every day risk, and frequently lose, their lives protecting animals. Early on, it shows a Congolese community in mourning for a ranger. His colleagues must put their grief aside to continue their training, led by Jacques Lusengo, a colonel in the armed forces, and Patrick Duboscq, a French ex-policeman who laments their shoddy equipment. They are later ambushed while on patrol in Garamba National Park, leading to a shoot-out; the footage of poachers riddled with bullets, one of them dying on camera, is horrific to watch. Later the viewer learns that the rangers’ helicopter was gunned down, killing the colonel and three of his team. It is hard to reconcile these tragic deaths, both animal and human, with the demand for trinkets and ineffectual potions. Indeed, despite official estimates that elephants and rhinos may become extinct in the next ten to 20 years, Ms Brooks says “the reality is that localised extinction is happening now”. At the start of filming, there were seven northern white rhinos left in the world but this figure quickly decreased to five. In zoos in San Diego and the Czech Republic, and in Ol Pejeta conservancy in Kenya, the animals are named individuals, making it all the more shocking when they die—Nola, Nabire, then Sudan, the last male, until there are only two. They die of various natural causes while in captivity; interventions to make them breed have failed. According to Ms Brooks, it is a cautionary tale of what happens when humans try too little too late. There is nothing left to do but watch an extinction taking place. Yet there are some glimmers of hope in “The Last Animals”. Scientists hope to be able to create a northern white rhino using stem-cell and in-vitro fertilisation technology. Gene mapping can trace ivory’s origins, revealing poaching hotspots and the paths of criminal networks. Conservationists and international activists are making progress in changing attitudes and legislation. Further campaigning is needed, Ms Brooks says, given the scale of the problem. She asks her audience to petition to stop the legal trade of ivory and rhino horn (as people cannot differentiate between antique, farmed or poached animal products without impractical and costly tests). The film’s website provides a portal to do so. It is a dire situation, and worsening. On October 29th China partially reversed a ban to allow sales of rhino products and tiger bones in “special circumstances”. Countries including Australia, Canada and New Zealand are yet to implement comprehensive bans; ivory continues to be sold in 41 states in America. The EU is one of the largest exporters of legal ivory in the world. A recent report from the WWF says that population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% globally between 1970 and 2014. It lends an extra weight to the closing lines of the film: “if we don’t stop the killing, it will eventually be just us humans as the last animals”.

The Economist, Nov 7th 2018by I.M.