Captive Breeding endangered species

All over the world zoos use captive breeding of endangered species as one of the justifications for keeping animals in captivity. Personally I do not have any great objections to animals in captivity, provided they are well housed, and kept humanely. I believe that seeing animals in zoos can have very positive educational benefits. I certainly had my love of wildlife greatly encouraged by regular visits to zoos, and by keeping animals myself. But for over a quarter of a century, I have been questioning the validity of captive breeding as a justification for zoos.

During my last visit to India I visited the Madras Crocodile Bank, and here was a clear demonstration of the dilemma that faces those involved in captive breeding. The Crocodile Bank has been so successful in breeding almost all the species it keeps, that most are now separated into single sex enclosures to prevent further breeding. There simply is nowhere else to release them into the wild. Surplus animals are sent to other zoos, and no doubt some of those zoos keeping endangered crocodiles will use them to justify themselves. But clearly there is no need for them to be kept on conservation grounds. What conservation really needs is some more habitat to be purchased and conserved.

One of the areas the WLT is hoping to assist the Wildlife Trust of India is in the purchase of mangroves and regeneration of mangroves in coastal areas. It would be very nice to be able to acquire a large enough area to reintroduce crocodiles -- but somehow I doubt we will be able to. Crocodiles are, unfortunately large predators, and humans often form part of their natural prey, so a very large are of habitat would be needed if they are not to come into conflict with human population. But if someone gave us a couple of hundred thousand pounds or more -- it could be done, as the land is available, and the crocodiles are waiting.

And more to the point, this is one of the reasons the WLT is working closely with the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums -- our Wild Spaces programme will compliment the work of zoos, providing opportunities for in situ conservation.

US$1 MILLION ALCAN PRIZE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2006 SHORTLIST ANNOUNCED

According to their website "Alcan created the Alcan Prize for Sustainability to recognize outstanding contributions to the goal of economic, environmental, and social sustainability by not-for-profit, non-governmental, and civil society organizations." On the surface this appears a worthy cause, and Chairman of the Adjudication Panel is Dave Runnalls, a widely respected environmentalist. So imagine my surprise when I saw that among the finalists was the Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA), from Canada. I checked their website to see if these particular Mennonites were trying to change the ways of their brother and sister Mennonites but there was no obvious evidence of that. Now Mennonites are well known as peaceful, rather introsective, deeply religious farmers (the Amish are among the best-known sects). But in places like Belize and Paraguay, they are also known as among the most efficient destroyers of natural habitats. Many of the the lands around the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA) in Belize (which the WLT helped save) were cleared by Mennonites, and they are still actively clearing the Gran Chaco of Paraguay. There is no question that they are efficient farmers, but in terms of wildlife and the natural environment, they are a disaster in many parts of the world.

I emailed both Alcan and Dave Runnals asking how they justified this shortlisting -- but answer came there none..... It would be interesting to know just how many thousands of acres of rainforests and other habitats the Mennonites have destroyed over the years. Does anyone out there in cyberspace have any data? I have no objection to Mennonites farming or buying land -- but why can't they buy existing farmlands, why do they have to destroy the world's last remaining wilderness? And why should such a sect deserve a prize for sustainability? Answers by email or on the usual postcard please.....

more about Soya beans and wildlife

July 26, 2006 - By Reuters
SAO PAULO, Brazil - Brazilian soy crushers and exporters will stop buying soybeans grown in the Amazon basin for the time being, industry groups said Monday, bowing to pressure from activist groups trying to preserve the rain forest.

The moratorium, which will last for two years, will apply to soybeans planted as of October 2006 in newly deforested areas of the Amazon, the world's largest rain forest.

I wrote about soya beans in March, and in July I flew along the border between Brazil and Paraguay again, so the report from Reuters came as good news. But it is certainly not enough. All that will happen is that demand for Soya beans will shift to Argentina and Paraguay and other countries. It may not be Amazon rainforests that will be threatened, but Chaco and other equally important habitats (but less glamorous, in the public eye) will be ploughed up and destroyed. As so often is the case, we are missing the main point. The main point is that not only are there too many people, there are too many people in the affluent north, demanding more and more resources -- such as soya beans for cattle feed.

In 1961 Brazil produced just over a quarter of a million metric tonnes of Soya bean, but by 2005 was producing over 50 million metric tonnes. In the same period the US production had gone from 18 million to over 82 million tonnes, and Argentina, which had an insignificant production in 1961, was producing over 38 million tonnes. So the real culprit is the increased demand for Soya. And the real question is why does the world suddenly need so much? Unless the demand for Soya is curtailed more and more lands, such as the Gran Chaco of Paraguay, the Pampas of Argentina, and other relatively arid, fragile habitats will be lost to Soya. The paradoxical fact is that Soya features in so many 'healthy alternative' foods. And if one suggests that Soya may not be environmentally friendly, the response is often 'But I don't eat/drink Soya from Brazil/rainforest areas' - ignoring the fact that this simply shifts the demand, and someone else will still be consuming that Soya. And while the argument that soya is used as cattle feed is a valid criticism, if it is organic soya, it can be used to feed organic cattle. The unpalatable fact is that until we reduce the overall demand for Soya, huge areas of the natural world will continue to be gobbled up. It comes back to the fact that eating locally is the best way of thinking globally, as I wrote back in March.

Labour party research.......

If you type "Buy Rainforest" into Google, at the top, or near the top, the World Land Trust website pops up. Yet Frank Field has apparently persuaded David Miliband, Secretary for Environment, that what is needed is a new initiative to "promote the idea of a worldwide trust which would allow individuals and companies to buy up chunks of tropical rainforest and save it from destruction" (Guardian, 2 October).

According to the Telegraph (2 Oct)"The plan is the brainchild of Frank Field, the Labour MP and former minister. It appeals to the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband, according to their officials, because it would "capture the imagination of the world" and "bring the international community together".

But both emphasise the idea is at an early stage and admit that there would be "sovereignty issues" involving the government of Brazil, which is home to almost all the Amazon rainforest."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/01/namazon01.xml

Perhaps someone who knows messrs Miliband or Field could point out that the WLT has been doing just what they propose for 17 years, and are only hampered by lack of funding. And even the sovereignty issues have been sorted by the WLT.

Population and HIV

My friend (but unrelated) Bob Burton sent a comment to one of my blogs, which I think deserves much more careful inspection -- and shouldn't be buried among the responses to past blogs. He wrote:

A recent news report on the G8 meeting said that HIV/AIDS is the top of the agenda. Population control did not appear.

It's odd that the problem was at being discussed 30 years ago. Now that the world population is so much greater and the problems so much more obvious, it has disappeared from debate.

It really is quite bizarre how the population problem has fallen off the edge of the conference table. Many of the problems confronting the environment, and ultimately the survival of the human species, are anthropogenic. And the more humans there are, the bigger the problems become. Mosre wilderness is cleared, more forests are felled, more pollution is created, more CO2 is emmitted, more water is used etc.etc.etc And the greater the risks of pandemics and epidemics. So dealing with HIV/AIDS in isolation from population growth is potentially like pouring petrol on the fuse of the time bomb that has already been lit.

Why the WLT does not own land

I am often asked why the WLT does not own the land itself, and I think the following news item, goes a long way towards explaining why:

BUENOS AIRES (EFE). A project to expropriate land in the north east of Argentina, which was acquired by a magnate from the United States, Douglas Tompkins, and the Chilean firm Forestal Andina yesterday triggered controversy between those driving and those affected by the plan.

The idea was created by the argentine sub-secretary of Land for Social Habitat, Luis D'Elía, who proposed to expropriate 296,000 hectares in the Esteros de Iberá, a region of marshland in the Corrientes Province, in order to create a national park.

Local people from the area have resorted to the justice system against the decision of Tompkins and Andina to fence off large extensions of land leaving several neighbours with small and practically isolated properties.

A week ago, D'Elía lead a protest made by the affected neighbours, mostly farmers, and broke into the ranch, "El Tránsito", owned by Tompkins.

"If I see again another social route or path wired off by a foreign millionaire who ignores the Argentine laws and who holds in contempt the judgments of the Argentine courts, like Mr Tompkins, we will return to cut wires", D'Elía said yesterday in a declaration given to Radio América de Buenos Aires.

The idea of the official was translated into a project of expropriation that was presented to the Argentine Parliament by Araceli Méndez de Ferreyra, with the endorsement of forty other members of parliament. Sofía Heinonen, environmental adviser of Tompkins projects, said yesterday that "to expropriate is not the way to create a national park" and that it "should be negotiated with the owners" of the land.

"We draw attention to the speed with which this happened, without consultation of the Corrientes Province which is the landlord of these natural resources and who must first cede jurisdiction", she said.

The Esteros de Iberá, one of the principal aquatic reserves in the world, covers an area of 1.3 million hectares of which 700,000 are in private hands.

Tompkins, previously a textiles businessman from New York, has dedicated his time for years to the purchase of large extensions of land for conversion into natural conservation areas through his foundation Land Trust.

In contrast to Tomkins (and other wealthy owners) the WLT simply funds the acquistion, always through a locally controlled and managed NGO. We strongly believe that foreign ownership of such areas is usually counterproductive to the long-term and sustainable conservation objectives. The actual title deeds are vested in the local NGO and all the day to day management is vested in them. The WLT will provide technical support (if asked) and will also encourage international tourism and scientific research when appropriate. We also ensure that we work with local NGOs that will encourage community participation.

This extract was translated in office from an article that can be found at yahoo brazil

Endangered Jaguars

The IUCN Red List continues to list the Jaguar as simply "Near Threatened". Not Vulnerable, not Endangered, simply "Near Threatened". To my mind this makes a mockery of the whole classification of degrees of threat. The species is completely extinct in many countries within its range, and even in those countries where it still exists, it is almost always listed as Endangered or Vulnerable. While there is little statistical data, there is ample anecdotal information, almost all of which points to ongoing declines. So why are conservationists so "conservative"?

Back in the early 1980s I suggested that the African Lion ought to be considered for inclusion in the Red Lists, but was laughed at. In 2004, it was included as Vulnerable. All big cats are incompatible with human populations, which are expanding everywhere. So how can the Jaguar, considered Vulnerable and continuing to decline throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s now be considered only Low Risk/Near Threatened?

To quote the IUCN Red List itself: "Its stronghold is in the rainforest of the Amazon Basin , but it is declining in most other habitats. The Jaguar has been virtually eliminated from much of the drier northern parts of its range, as well as the pampas scrub grasslands of Argentina and throughout Uruguay. The most urgent conservation problem for the Jaguar throughout much of its range is the current intolerance of ranchers. The vulnerability of the Jaguar to persecution is demonstrated by its disappearance in the mid-1900s from the southwestern US and northern Mexico".

If its stronghold, the Amazon basin was not disappearing at an alarming rate there might be some justification for IUCN's assessment, but it and the Jaguar are disappearing. By not highlighting the threatened nature of Jaguars, we are fiddling while the Amazon burns.