The words ‘encouraging’ and ‘whale hunting’ are usually never spoken in the same sentence. When we think of whale hunting, most of us believe it to be a highly unsustainable practice which belongs in the 18^th century and has no place in the modern age. The desire to light Victorian era city streets with whale oil lamps led to sharp decline in whale populations due to their long lifecycles and low reproductive rate^[1]. We generally accept that whaling activity is indisputably unsustainable, but upon further inspection, the issue may not be so black and white. A remote island community in Lamalera, Indonesia highlights a moral grey area where the relationship between whaling, sustainability and human well-being may question our beliefs on whaling.

For the Lamalera, whaling has been the primary source of food and income for hundreds of years. In a normal year, they usually catch about 6 sperm whales during the migratory season using traditional fishing methods (Figure 1). Whaling and it’s products are a core part of their tradition and livelihood, with the main part of their diet being whale meat. When the hunters are successful, the whale is brought back to land where villagers all share the arduous task of dealing with the animal (Figure 2), and that one whale will feed the entire village ². Left over whale products are prepared and traded with the inland mountain tribes in exchange for agricultural products. Because of this system, both Lamalera and the mountain tribes are entirely dependent on the whale for their livelihood, and the loss of whale populations could have negative implications for the people ^[2,3]. Despite this long-term whaling activity, their fishing ground is still being maintained, and as a result of this, they are considered one of the few peoples to practice sustainable whaling. Their relationship to the whale is almost spiritual, with deep superstitions surrounding the act of whale hunting.

This close and dependent relationship between people and whale hunting isn’t usually what comes to mind when we think of whaling, however, banning whaling will force a difficult choice between the protection of whales and the livelihood and culture of the people. Well-meaning officials are attempting to turn the Lamalera fishing grounds into a Marine Protected Area (MPA), and although it would protect these animals from harm, this would threaten the Lamalera way of life. This policy would put both the Lamalera and mountain villages at risk from displacement, loss of culture, and tradition. Conservation actions such as this have already caused traditional degradation in Japan, Africa and Indonesia ^[4-6]. Although whaling is a sustainability concern, the negative impacts on the people may outweigh the positives of conserving whale populations. In this case, perhaps the best measure to take would be to encourage the Lamalera people to continue their whaling practices to preserve their culture, tradition and livelihood.

References

1. Perry , Simona L. and DeMaster, Douglas P. and Silber , Gregory K. (1999) The Great Whales: History and Status of Six Species Listed as Endangered Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.Marine Fisheries Review, 61(1), pp. 1-74.
2. Egami, T. & Kojima, K. Traditional Whaling Culture and Social Change in Lamalera, Indonesia: An Analysis of Catch-Record Whaling 1994-2010. Stud. Whal. 84, 155-179 (2013)
3. Barnes, R. H. & Barnes, R. Barter and Money in an Indonesian Village Economy. Man 24, 399 (1989).
4. Mattes, S. Save the Whale? Ecological Memory and the Human-Whale Bond in Japan’s Small Coastal Villages 67-81 Springer (2017)
5. Shetler, J.B. Imaging Serengeti: a history of landscape memory in Tanzania from earlier times to the present. Ohio University Press (2007).
6. Ingold, T. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling & amp; skill. Routledge (2000).
7. Batafor, A. Help from the village . [image] Available at: http://photovoice.com [Accessed 16 Nov] (2008).
8. Site View-Tourism. Whale Hunting. [image] Available at” http://viewtourism.wordpress.com [Accessed 16 Nov] (2011).

By Sara

Golf is a sport known for wealthy businessmen, manicured courses, and most recently, Donald Trump. Donald Trump himself, who owns at least 17 golf courses, and is one of the most famous contributors to the sport (Trump.com), has made comments denying climate change. The sport is not often associated with environmentalism, or conservation. But is this sport secretly an untapped resource for conservation, and is Donald Trump the next David Attenborough?

At the 2017 conservation science conference, many scientists presented their groundbreaking research on conservation hot topics. One interesting presentation that poses possible solutions to issues like biodiversity loss is the use of golf courses in conservation.

In the UK, many courses operate in a “heathland” environment. These courses tend to be more open and less manicured than traditional links courses. In fact the St. Andrews “Old Course,” where golf was played for the first time in the 15^th century, is a heathland course. The shrubs that surround the course easily blend with the grass on the green, and it overlooks a body of water with its own unique ecosystem.

Golf courses in the UK, therefore, are unique in their potential for biodiversity. Golf courses serve as a niche environment for many species, create corridors for animals that need space to live, allow natural land use in areas that would otherwise be used for urban environments, and allow for a space where people can feel connected to nature.

In several studies, golf courses have proven positive for biodiversity, especially in bird species. In one study, in comparison with farmland, birds and insect taxa showed a higher species richness and abundance on golf course land, with no difference in diversity of herbaceous plant species (Tanner et al, 2004). From studies like these, it is easy to conclude that golf courses not only act as niche environments for species, but are also significantly better uses of land than other options like urban, degraded, or farm landscapes.

Further, Golf courses allow for people to experience the outdoors, often in largely urban areas. In some areas in the UK, up to 2.82% of all land is used for golf courses (Castella, 2013). This significant amount of land, paired with the popularity of the sport, allows for people who would not otherwise, to explore nature and connect with a diverse ecosystem.

Breakdown of land used for Golf Courses in the UK, highlighting three high-use areas. (Castella, 2013)

Shown by the interesting research at this conference, golf courses in the UK can be a positive force for conservation. However, this solution to biodiversity may not work everywhere in the world. In the USA, for example, links courses are constantly bombarded by fertilizers, deforestation, forced removal of wildlife, and widespread irrigation. (Throssell et al, 2009). While in the US Donald Trump and his golf courses are not a hole-in-one solution, in the UK this could a key to conservation.

References

Bailosky , Brad. Golf Course Bird. Naples, Florida , 2011.

Castella , Tom. “How Much of the UK Is Covered in Golf Course?” BBC News Magazine, 24 Dec. 2013.

Henderson , Chip. Oxford, North Carolina , 2017.

Tanner, R A, and A C Gange. “Effects of Golf Courses on Local Biodiversity.”Landscape and Urban Planning , vol. 71, 2005, pp. 137–146.

Throssell, Clark S, et al. “Golf Course Environmental Profile Measures Water Use, Source, Cost, Quality, Management and Conservation Strategies.” American Society of Agronomy , vol. 6, no. 1, 6 Jan. 2009.

“Trump Golf.” Trump Golf | Trump Organization Golf Clubs | Trump Hotel Collection, http://www.trump.com/golf/.

By Sara

In the depths of our concrete jungle today we often forget how important it is to keep a natural environment close by.  We are constantly surrounded by biodiversity, even in the depths of the biggest cities. In fact, some urban areas may be described as biodiversity hotspots. From the Super Trees of Singapore; an iconic take on green space in the urban ‘jungle’, to New York’s Central Park; green spaces are often ‘must-see’ attractions in any city. In a recent conservation science conference, undergraduate Tyler Souza presented the topical arguments supporting urban conservation, as well as the controversies surrounding these ideals.

Super Trees in Singapore. Photo by Ilya Genkin (www.genkin.org)

Historically, cities are located in areas which were rich in biodiversity before settlement (1), and so green spaces and parks can sometimes act as a remnant of a once bountiful environment, surrounded by a mayhem of concrete. Urban land area has been, and will continue to increase at a rate much faster than urban populations, sprawling into the natural environment, and devastating innumerable species and habitats as it does(2). The future of green spaces within cities is under threat, as the creeping urban jungle engulfs more land. Conserving these spaces for future generations to enjoy is essential for the well-being of the planet, as well as humanity.

Urban green spaces, understandably, are much smaller than natural wild areas, and so there isn’t enough room for predators to roam. This results in a safe haven for many species of both flora and fauna. Protected by the barrier of the urban jungle, species can flourish, and in some cases survive better in the city than their natural environment (3). In fact, in the USA, 22% of all threatened species are found within the 40 biggest cities(4), and in South Africa, the city of Cape Town is home to half of the country’s endangered species(4). Holyrood Park, Edinburgh, is the only known location of several different endangered species. Conserving these areas, and others like them is necessary for maintaining biodiversity in today’s Urban Jungle.

Holyrood Park, Edinburgh. Photos by Fourtheye (www.fourtheye.co.uk).

There are innumerable benefits of conserving green spaces in the urban environment, with improvements in human well-being, as well as profits for the entire natural environment. Numerous ecosystem services are provided through urban green spaces. Air is filtered, and pollution removed to improve air-quality for all city dwellers. Cities can be referred to as Heat Islands, due to the warming effects of the mass of concrete. Green spaces have the capacity to reduce this warming, and cool the surrounding area ⁽⁴⁾. The trees in Central Park have been estimated to contribute $10million worth of cooling to New York City. This occurs from the shade cast by leafy canopies, and plants release water into the air by evapotranspiration. With the ever expanding problem of increasing global temperatures, it’s important that conservation of urban green spaces continues in an attempt to mitigate the problem.

Relaxation in Central Park, New York. Photo by Marcio Jose Bastos Silva (Shutterstock.com).

Maintaining greenery within cities has also been found to improve human well-being. Many city dwellers use parks as an escape from the stress of an urban lifestyle ⁽²⁾. Green areas encourage physical exercise; reducing the risk of disease, and improving overall health. They also provide the opportunity for rest, relaxation and recreation, which are essential to our mental health; reducing the occurrence of anxiety and depression, and improving our overall well-being.

Humans value biodiversity for many reasons. Maintaining this biodiversity, even in the depths of the world’s largest city, is important for the benefit of humans, plants and animals. The jungles in the ever expanding ‘urban jungle’, are a source of happiness and a glimmer of colour in the monotony of today’s city life.

More information on the importance of conserving green spaces in cities, a useful publication can be found at: http://leaf.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/LEAF_benefits_of_urban_green_space_2015_upd.pdf

References:

• McDonald, R. (2015). The Value of Biodiversity in Cities. Conservation for Cities.
• Dearborn, D. and Kark, S. (2010). Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(2).
• Ives, C., Lentini, P., Threlfall, C., Ikin, K., Shanahan, D., Garrard, G., Bekessy, S., Fuller, R., Mumaw, L., Rayner, L., Rowe, R., Valentine, L. and Kendal, D. (2015). Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25(1).
• Convention on Biodiversity (2012). Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. A Global Assessment of the Links between Action and Policy Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. [online] pp.22-28. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017].

By Sarah

The Hunters

No place on earth seems to be safe from human exploitation, including the ocean! It has been estimated that during our history, humans have caught about 1,400 different marine species, including big marine mammals such as whales, dolphins, seals, dugongs, walruses and sea lions ¹.

Extraction of the ocean’s resources by humans range from large-scale practices such as mining, industrial drilling and modern fishing to others that seem relatively harmless – such as traditional fishing methods in Sri Lanka and Burma. In one way or another, human activities have been affecting the balance of life in oceans all around the world, throughout our long history. 

No Take Zone in Marine Conservation

At the Conservation Science Conference, Ruby presented the issues in marine conservation related to No Take Zone (NTZ) in a Marine Protected Areas. A NTZ is a marine protected area where all potentially-destructive human activities are prohibited, such as fishing, extraction of natural materials, dumping, dredging, and construction.

Many conservationists think that nature should be left untouched to flourish and recover on its own². Ruby supported this idea and suggested that to be able to optimally conserve marine biodiversity, NTZs are crucial. However, the implementation of NTZs can be precarious as stakeholders are often concerned with the potential loss of revenue caused by NTZ policies. She also highlighted that sensitive implementation and management of NTZ is an important factor in determining the success of the conservation efforts. Despite facing opposition from many of the stakeholders, many countries have implemented NTZs within their Marine Protected Areas, which ended up benefitting not only the marine biodiversity but also the local fishermen ³. It is important to note that the size of NTZ and time of protection played particularly important roles in influencing the success of biodiversity recovery ³.

Ruby’s presentation triggered my curiosity about the implementation of any NTZs set up in Indonesia, especially since its location within the Coral Triangle. In August 2017, I visited the Raja Ampat Islands (West Papua) and was mesmerised by its underwater beauty. I had never before seen such richness and scale of corals and other marine life on a single dive (e.g. Green Turtles, Barracuda, Blacktip reef sharks, Parrot fish, Trigger Fish and the iconic Tasselled Wobeggong Shark). While interacting with the indigenous people who live spread amongst these islands, I realised how dependent they are on the ocean’s resources and wondered how this pristine environment is coping with population growth in the area. Have any restrictions been imposed by the local government to try and control the extraction of resources?

My research about NTZs in the region led me to the Misool Marine Reserve, which I was very pleased to find and to learn more about. In 2005, a lease agreement was signed between the local community and the Misool Foundation to establish a No Take Zone called the Misool Marine Reserve. No extraction activities are permitted within this area, including fishing, shark finning, harvesting of turtle eggs and collecting shellfish. In a promising development, the dedicated area was expanded in 2010 and now covers an area of 1200 km². The Misool Foundation’s approach to conservation is not only on safeguarding the environment but also covering other sectors such as education and other social issues, by providing workshops, training, and early childhood education.

As cautioned by Ruby, while NTZs have proven to be effective in conserving marine life around the world, careful management and continuous monitoring are required. The same goes for the Misool Marine Reserve, so in order to ensure the protection of the marine life within the NTZ, 15 permanent rangers patrol the area regularly using drones, boat patrol and radar. It is a rigorous and demanding process, but the hard work has shown positive results. According to scientific surveys conducted by the foundation, over a period of just six years these conservation efforts have shown a 250% increase in Biomass and a similar rise in Giant Oceanic Manta sightings.

Despite the differing perspectives from the scientists, local communities, government, and other stakeholders in many countries, I think NTZs can be used as one of the marine biodiversity conservation methods. However, its detailed policies and implementation should be tailored according to the specific conservation zone and local social conditions. I do hope that the   underwater richness we have today will exist for many generations to come and I believe that NTZs have an important role to play in the process.

Further Reading

Check Misool Foundation’s website –  if you are interested in other conservation projects by Misool Foundation

No Take Zone in other countries – Lamnash Bay (Scotland), Channel Island Marine Sanctuary (US)

References

1. Costello MJ, Scott Baker C. Who eats sea meat? Expanding human consumption of marine mammals. Biol Conserv. 2011;144:2745-2746. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.015.
2. Colchester M. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environ Sci Policy. 2004;7:145-153. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.02.004.
3. Vandeperre F, Higgins RM, Sánchez-Meca J, et al. Effects of no-take area size and age of marine protected areas on fisheries yields: A meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish. 2011;12(4):412-426. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00401.x.

By Anning

By Rebecca

New Zealand (NZ) provides a home to some of the most interesting birdlife in the world. This is because NZ is an island, which means it has allowed for unusual evolutionary processes. Humans only arrived on the island about 800 years ago. So, birds have been able to reproduce and evolve to their surroundings without human influence and without land animals trying to eat them! Since NZ is made up of island and not attached to large landmasses, the species that evolved there are only found in NZ. This makes them all the more special and important. Native birds still hold particular significance to the Māori people (first people to inhabit NZ) due to their significance in kōrero tuku iho (legends/mythology). In this present day, many of these native birds have become extinct or are now in danger of extinction due to human arrival on the islands.

Extinct bird species can be explored at http://terranature.org/extinctbirds.htm . Find out more about current living species in New Zealand at http://terranature.org/nativebirds_list.htm .

The laughing owl, now extinct, photographed some time between 1889 and 1910. Photo: Henry Charles Clare Wright, via wikipedia.com.

The Kea, a native bird of New Zealand, which is now classed as ‘vulnerable’. Photo: David Spiegel, adventurecloud.com

Humans introduced mammals on purpose and also by accident to NZ. This is one of the biggest threats to the native bird species of NZ (PCE, 2011). Ships coming from other countries brought rats by accident, the brushtail possum as well as stoats made it to the island and began to reproduce and spread. When the mammals came, the birds were unprepared, as they have been used to living their lives without these predatory mammals. It has been estimated that 60% of all kiwi chicks are eaten by stoats (PCE, 2011). The NZ government decided something must be done to stop the decline of native bird species.

The ‘Predator Free New Zealand 2050’ action plan has been put into effect, aiming to remove the three main predators (rats, possum and stoats) from NZ by 2050. The main method of doing this is to distribute a poison called sodium fluroacetate, also known as 1080, over target areas in the hope that the predators will eat the poison (PCE, 2011). Planes currently drop the poison over these areas with little or no aim. This poison is not a specific poison for these mammals; it affects almost all breathing organisms.

This is the cheapest way of controlling the pests but the numbers of native bird species are still in decline. 1080 has been able to decrease possum numbers by 99.5% in one area (Greene et.al, 2013). However, it is difficult to know how 1080 is affecting the wider ecosystem and if the deaths of non-target species outweigh the benefits of reducing the number of target species. It has been argued that the birds will be unable to recover from the significant declines in non-target species. A disturbance of this scale has the potential to decrease the endangered birds likelihood of thriving (Greene et.al. 2013).

The reality of distributing 1080 poison. Cartoon: Al Nisbet, 2008. Alexander Turnbull Library. NZ Cartoon Archive. DCDL-0007273. Via stuff.co.nz. 

There are multiple questions that need to be addressed when making decisions to continue distributing 1080. It is still unknown how the poison is affecting soils, plants and nutrients. These would be classed as ‘sub-lethal’ harms, which have not yet been investigated (Weaver, 2006). Everything in the ecosystem is interconnected and so it is essential that the sub-lethal effects of 1080 be further investigated to understand how it will affect the ecosystem as a whole. In addition to this native people of New Zealand (Māori people) rely on the bush for many reasons, one being medicine from Te Rongoā plants. It is impossible to know the effects 1080 will have on these plants in the future.

The cost of distribution would almost double if 1080 was to be distributed by the land rather than by aerial drop (PCE, 2011). However, this method would allow for a reduction in non-target species death. Unfortunately, the reduced cost and the ease of distributing 1080 by aerial drop are currently outweighing the benefits of this option for the decision makers.

The points outlined in this blog aim to communicate the significant number of discrepancies found in the thinking behind distributing 1080 across NZ. It is essential to understand how 1080 is going to affect the ecosystem as a whole, which could directly affect the lives of Māori people that rely on the services such as medicine from the bush.  Until the effects are fully understood, all distribution of the poison should be halted. The release of such a toxic substance with such little knowledge of the true effects is reckless and could worsen the situation it is aiming to better.

For further reading please see the following:

Socolar, S. and Wilcove, D. (2016). “Threatened Birds” Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Second Edition addresses the wider scope of threatened bird species and so gives an overview of other issues bird communities are facing as well as ways of preventing these declines.

The New Zealand Department for Conservation webpage on 1080 poison.

1080: the facts offers some different views on the issue.

References

1. Greene, T.C., Dilks, P.J, Westbrooke, I.M, Pryde, M.A. (2013). Monitoring selected forest bird species through aerial application of 1080 baits, Waitutu, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, Vol.37, No.1
2. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, PCE. (2011). Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forest. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Dr. Jan Wright) Report. Accessed online: www.pce.parliament.nz
3. Weaver, S. (2006). Chronic Toxicity of 1080 and its Implications for Conservation Management: A New Zealand Case Study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(4), 367-389

By Heather

2016: A tragic year for coral reefs.

The Great Barrier Reef experienced its worst ever coral bleaching event to date (1). Corals worldwide are declining along with the sea creature communities they support. Many will have heard of the phenomenon of coral bleaching. It occurs when corals become stressed and expel their algae (the organisms they live and interact with which give them their colour). It comes as no surprise that humans are the source of this issue; both directly, through harvesting and disturbing these areas, or indirectly, through climate change, which is warming the oceans to a temperature that the many corals can no longer handle (2).

Humans are also their own victims of this underwater catastrophe. Not only do we benefit economically from the biodiversity of reefs, they offer coastline protection, food, medicine and recreation (3). Vast areas which, not long ago, were vibrant, colourful undersea communities supporting around one third of marine species have transformed into desolate, grey dead zones. Further, 75% of remaining reefs are under threat (2).

Bleaching process of a coral reef near American Samoa. Photo: XL Caitlin Seaview Survey, via the Huffington Post

There is no escaping this grim reality. But all hope for reefs has not yet vanished entirely.  Actions are being taken to repair the damage.

During the 2016 Conservation Science Conference, Amy Kerr introduced us to a conservation tool that has been used for several years: Artificial Reefs. However, their effectiveness is currently being questioned.

At first glance, ‘faking it’ is surely a plausible solution to this problem. If humans have caused the loss of these magnificent structures, surely they can utilise their resources to aid their recovery.

Several types of artificial reef are currently in place:

1. Manmade reefs are specifically designed to attempt to accurately reflect real coral reefs. Below is a ‘reef ball’, widely considered to be a successful at recolonising marine communities. However these present dangers to humans and may be disruptive to the surrounding environment (4).

Photo: TA Marine Science

2. Discarded structures such as ships or tires are a popular form of artificial reef, which are known to become home to a diverse community to organisms. Environmentalists, however, have concerns that these structures can leach toxic substances into the water, and therefore do more harm than good to marine life (5).

Photo: Richard Whitcombe, Shutterstock

3.Underwater Art Museums are a recent concept. They are manufactured to attract corals thereby combining culture with conservation. If these are successful, it is a possibility that it could raise awareness and dissuade divers from disturbing natural reefs. Take a look at this stunning video displaying exhibition by English Artist Jason DeCaires Taylor, who uses the human form to try and strengthen the connection between humans and the environment (6).

Photo: http://www.underwatersculpture.com/

But…Is there a limit to how well we can replicate the intricacy of nature? Should we focus precious marine conservation funding on this somewhat idealistic concept? Artificial reef opponents believe it is a waste of resources. There are concerns they will fail to develop new communities of marine organisms and instead attract and displace fish from other areas. These new structures may also attract fishing in areas which already suffer from depleted stocks (7).

Amy remains optimistic and convincingly concluded that research into creating the most effective designs of reefs is crucial and focus must be placed on enhancing their long term success. In order to succeed, she suggested that regulations must be put in place in terms of fishing, water use and materials used to construct these reefs.

Time is running out, and if this is not done carefully and efficiently, the days for our remaining coral reefs will be numbered.

“It is the worst of times but it is the best of times because we still have a chance.”– Sylvia Earle, Marine Biologist

References

1. Authority GB. Interim report: 2016 coral bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef.
2. Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A. Reefs at risk revisited. 2011.
3. Brander LM, Van Beukering P, Cesar HS. The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. 2007 Jun 15;63(1):209-18.
4. Proposal for Reef Ball Submerged Breakwater [Internet]. Artificialreefs.org. 2016 [cited 17 November 2016]. Available from: http://www.artificialreefs.org/ScientificReports/bigplacesmallcaribbeanisland.htm
5. Sherman RL, Spieler RE. Tires: unstable materials for artificial reef construction. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 2006;88:215-23.
6. Underwater Sculpture by Jason deCaires Taylor [Internet]. Underwater Sculpture by Jason deCaires Taylor. 2016 [cited 17 November 2016]. Available from: http://www.underwatersculpture.com/
7. Abelson A. Artificial reefs vs coral transplantation as restoration tools for mitigating coral reef deterioration: benefits, concerns, and proposed guidelines. Bulletin of Marine Science. 2006 Jan 1;78(1):151-9.

By Beth Hanlon

We all remember Cecil the Lion, and the debate that erupted about trophy hunting upon his death. In July 2015 Walter Palmer shot and killed Cecil with a bow and arrow, after paying $54,000 for a hunting permit in Zimbabwe. There was worldwide anger over his death, with celebrities and wildlife organisations protesting his death and the practice of trophy hunting. The controversy caused some countries to change their hunting laws, and some airlines to ban the transportation of hunting trophies.

Walter Palmer (left) shot Cecil with a bow and arrow. Photograph: Rex Shutterstock, via the Guardian.

Trophy hunting is the practice of hunting wild animals for recreation, and keeping a part of the animal as a sign of the success of the hunt. Regardless of the moral aspect of trophy hunting, there is fierce debate around the conservation benefits hunting provides.

The benefits and consequences of trophy hunting for conservation were recently evaluated by Justin Rogers during the midterm conservation science conference. Justin weighed the pros and cons of trophy hunting in Africa and its impact on conservation.

Trophy hunting is practiced in many African countries and in sub-Saharan Africa there are positive and negative examples of the effect of trophy hunting on conservation.

Trophy hunting provides benefits for communities in areas such as education, employment, income, and meat provisioning. A 2006 paper estimated gross revenues of $201 million from hunting in sub-Saharan Africa.  This financial incentive can increase wildlife conservation, as long as hunting quotas are set correctly and adhered to. One study found that rigorous management of trophy hunting areas can make them valuable conservation zones for large herbivores.

Trophy hunting generates higher revenues and has a lower environmental impact than photo-tourism. If this money makes it into the community then locals will not have to supplement their income through illegal poaching, thus helping conserve the wildlife. Hunting can be the only viable land-use in vast areas, and can preserve the ecosystem when other forms of tourism, such as photo-tourism, cannot.

Other than the obvious ethical issues of killing large animals for fun, there are other arguments against trophy hunting. The benefits from hunting for local communities do not always materialise, or are not always shared equitably among the community. In areas with poor management, and quotas that are not set properly, hunting can be unsustainable and damaging to the animal populations. Under current hunting rates in southern Africa trophy bull elephants will be removed from the population in less than 10 years.

Hunting selective individuals of a population (usually the largest) can result in undesirable evolutionary consequences, and changing population demographics. Trophy hunting has been shown to change the entire evolutionary path of bighorn sheep, which are hunted in North America for their large horns. Over time, ram body weight and horn size has declined significantly. There is a lack of research and data about the impact of trophy hunting, on which assessments can be made to inform management strategies.

Photo-tourism can generate high revenues and promote wildlife conservation. Photograph: Ralph Lee Hopkins, National Geographic Stock

Justin states that trophy hunting should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that the management should be guided by the total benefit for conservation. In an African context this conservation benefit is the net benefit of trophy hunting on wildlife populations, ecosystems, biodiversity, and local communities. If trophy hunting has a larger net benefit than photo-tourism, then a management plan should be devised to maximise this benefit. If photo-tourism has a higher net benefit, then trophy hunting can be avoided.

Hopefully, with proper management of trophy hunting areas, wild animal populations can be conserved for future generations to enjoy, and for the Earth to remain a little bit wilder.

By Joe

Considering the ragged state of Scottish forests¹, many people point the finger at deer^2-3. While human activity and overharvest shrunk Scotland’s forest cover, deer have prevented much of it from recovering⁴. The last British wolf was killed in the 17th century⁴, and since then deer have lacked natural predators, only being eaten as venison. With populations no longer kept in check, their numbers have exploded⁵, and our forests are feeling the impact.

Deer are flexible herbivores who eat all kinds of vegetation, and lots of deer need lots of food. Deer stop forests from regenerating because they eat the youngest shoots, which can’t then mature into adult trees tough enough to protect themselves. With few deer, enough seedlings escape to continue the forest, but with too many deer almost every shoot is eaten. The future of Scottish forests lies in deer control, and stalking alone isn’t enough.

The least intensively managed way to control deer, and invigorate our forests, would be to rectify the mistakes of medieval hunters and reintroduce our large predators. One predator which could be reintroduced to current forests is the lynx, and the Lynx UK Trust have developed a proposal for exactly that⁶.

They plan to release and monitor twelve adult lynx, to see whether the environmental effects are what we expect. The plan has been opposed by farmers, who worry about lynx predating livestock, as happens in Norway, but this is largely due to negligent Norwegian shepherds grazing sheep in the forest⁷, banned under UK farming subsidy.

(Photo: Lynx UK Trust)

Lynx predate mostly on roe deer, one of the Scotland’s most common species⁵, but also take fallow and sika. Sika deer are non-native and particularly hard to stalk as they prefer particularly dense woodland. Only red deer are too large for lynx, but these are the most sought-after for meat and stalking, so can be viably controlled otherwise until larger predators are reintroduced.

If lynx reintroduction is successful in the UK, it paves the way for other reintroductions. With these, we may eventually attain a self-regulating ecosystem containing some aspect of the rich flora and fauna our ancestors cleared centuries ago. Many organisations are working towards this in Scotland, for more information ‘Rewilding Britain’ (http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/) and ‘Trees For Life’ (http://treesforlife.org.uk/) are two excellent places to start.

1. Rudel, T. K., Coomes, O. T., Moran, E., Achard, F., Angelsen, A., Xu, J., & Lambin, E. (2005). Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global environmental change, 15(1), 23-31.
2. Putman, R. J. (1996). Ungulates in temperate forest ecosystems: perspectives and recommendations for future research. Forest Ecology and Management, 88(1), 205-214.
3. Côté, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J. P., Dussault, C., & Waller, D. M. (2004). Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 113-147.
4. Rackham, O. (1986). The History of the Countryside. JM Dent and Sons, London.
5. Edwards, T., & Kenyon, W. (2013) SPICe Briefing: Wild Deer in Scotland. Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
6. Eagle, A., & Chance, C. (2015) Lynx UK Trust’s Proposal for a trial reintroduction. Launceston, Cornwall: Lynx UK Trust.
7. Odden, J., Linnell, J. D., Moa, P. F., Herfindal, I., Kvam, T., & Andersen, R. (2002). Lynx depredation on domestic sheep in Norway. The Journal of wildlife management, 98-105.

By Aoife Hutton

The concept of rewilding has recently emerged as a hot topic in both scientific and public spheres. Championed by the writings of George Monbiot in his book ‘Feral’ and popular TED talk, rewilding pushes the bounds of a previously a conservative approach to conservation science and encourages us to reassess our goals, and aim big.

Rebecca McDonald, a 4th year ecological and environmental science undergraduate at University of Edinburgh, last week presented a project on the aims, scope and logic of a potential rewilding effort in North America proposed by Donlan et al., (2005). Rebecca’s project was refreshingly critical in scrutinizing just how realistic the often times romaticised concept of rewilding actually is.

Donlan et al. proposed that rewilding should aim to restore ecosystem function of the Pleistocene era and reintroduce megafauna lost 13,000 years ago – a time long before human arrival in North America. In particular, this would mean refilling the niche once taken by proboscidians (mammoths, mastadons and gomphotheres). Modern day relatives most similar are the Asian and African elephants. As idyllic as elephants roaming along the edges of Route 66 may sound, there are some pretty mammoth logistical issues involved.

How would elephants be transported to the US? How would elephants react to a vegetation they have not evolved to live with? What impact would human-elephant interactions and conflict have? And for the economists among, how much would all of this cost?

Alongside these quite obvious concerns, maybe it is time to address the elephant in the room about Pleistocene rewilding; if the aim is to restore ecological function of a pre-human time, how do we, as humans, co-exist?

The fundamental separation of human and non-human animals inferred (perhaps albeit unintentionally) by this kind of rewilding scheme is problematic on several levels. If we aim to restore ecological function to a time before human existence in an area, how do resolve the fact that humans do and have been living in those areas for many generations.

Sadly, conservation has been an oppressive force to indigenous people – one just has to look at the displacement of Native American people from tribal land for the creation of National Parks in the US as an example. While rewilding North America wouldn’t necessarily lead to similar circumstance, the cultural and social implications of such a project definitely need to be examined more thoroughly to address such concerns.

Not all rewilding projects have a Pleistocene era as the end-sight, and countless projects have shown the success of rewilding, delivering the top-down benefits to ecosystems which advocates of the concept endorse. Taking a more recent point in geological time as the aim seems to prove for a more attainable result, one such case was the reintroduction of wolves in Greenstone National Park, US, which had been lost from the area less than 100 years prior. The reintroduction achieved expected and desirable top down changes to the ecosystem, restoring beaver populations and ultimately affecting river hydrology.

While some rewilding efforts do seem highly effective tool in conservation science, I remain skeptical over Pleistocene era rewilding. In this case, time and resource seems better spent on looking after the flora and fauna in our presently existent biosphere, and on trying to break down barriers of the human/non-human interface, so that we can come to see ourselves as not only a cause of problems to ecosystems, but also as components which are a part of a living ecosystem – we are not above it.

Links and Resources

• TED Talk George Monbiot: For more wonder, rewild the world. https://www.ted.com/talks/george_monbiot_for_more_wonder_rewild_the_world?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=tedspread
• Donlan, J., Greene, H.W., Berger, J., Bock, C.E., Bock, J.H., Burney, D.A., Estes, J.A., Foreman, D., Martin, P.S., Roemer, G.W., Smith, F.A., Soulé, M.E., 2005. “Re- wilding North America.” Nature 436, 913–914.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/full/436913a.html
• Huffington Post Article: The Forgotten History Of ‘Violent Displacement’ That Helped Create The National Parks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-park-service-anniversary-indigenous-people_us_55dcdd7ce4b0a40aa3ac9998

• Reardon, S. 2014, “Return of the Wild”, New Scientist. 40-43. http://sonhank.com/return-of-the-wild