Zoos make people likelier to behave sustainably?

Researchers at the University of Sheffield and Chester Zoo found that visits to 38 zoos and aquariums around the world made people more likely to behave more sustainably. The kind of behaviour they hope might happen is that people check products for the inclusion of palm oil. Many products are made with the assistance of palm oil as an ingredient. It is found in everything from biscuits to shampoo.

But palm oil production is unsustainable. It is linked to the destruction of orangutan habitat. And this is where zoos can change things ostensibly. It is Sir David Attenborough who once said:

"No one will protect what they don't care about; and no one will care about what they have never experienced."

In other words, it is about education. And zoos can be educational. It depends on the quality of the zoo, however. There are some horrendous zoos in developing countries which are simply torture chambers for the animals contained therein. They serve no educational purpose other than to decide that zoos are horrendous places and should be closed.

That isn't the case with many zoos in developed countries and the Sheffield and Chester research team found that interventions had "positive impacts on outcomes in zoo visitors."

The question, though, is whether anything learned at zoos can be translated into behavioural traits in the people who learnt the lessons. So, for instance, there was a "medium effect on knowledge and intentions, a small to medium one on attitudes and a small effect on behaviour" in respect of the impact on the behavioural patterns of people who had gone to a zoo.

I take from that to mean that people left zoos feeling more inspired to have a more sustainable lifestyle and one which is more conducive to conservation but this feeling dissipated and their attitudes dissipated somewhat and so the effect on their behaviour in making tangible changes to the environment was small or perhaps on occasions minimal.

The lesson, there, is that it takes more than pure education the change attitudes. It takes commitment and zoos alone are unlikely to change attitudes sufficiently to boost sustainability and protect nature as far as I am concerned.

Infographic on making zoos better places for big cats

Xavier McNally of the University of Sheffield one of the authors of the study published in the journal Conservation Biology said: 

"Millions of people visit zoos and aquariums globally, and this creates an opportunity to shape people's beliefs about conservation and empower them to help protect the environment by making small changes in their lives."

The University said that the findings showed how zoos and aquariums can help almost 200 countries meet the nature goals they signed up to in 2022. There is a desire to make 30% of the world's oceans and land a protected area by 2030.

Comment: these are laudable objectives but, for me, I don't think that zoos no matter how well-run they are can substantially change attitudes in terms of sustainability and wildlife conservation. My first impression when I see a really good zoo is that the animals should be free, in the wild, living natural lives. I see zoos as places where there are anti-conservation attitudes although zoos defend themselves by saying that their research fosters and encourages and improves conservation.

But there are many negatives which are often undiscussed such as where do zoos get their wild animals from? Do they get them from other zoos? Do they get them through a breeding programme? Or do they get them from the wild; stealing young animals from their mothers? That kind of illegal activity might occur in countries where wildlife protection and animal protection laws are not enforced properly or don't even exist. And that's kind of illegal activity is very anti-conservation.

RELATED: Captive Pallas’s cats die of toxoplasmosis

And I know a bit about the small wild cat species at zoos. Some small wild cat species simply cannot sustain themselves in zoos because the conditions are simply not conducive to their lifestyle (see link above). Some small wild cat species develop diseases quite quickly and die quite quickly. 

Their lifespans are severely curtailed. And these are in good zoos. Think about the bad ones where the environment inside is barren and hopeless. Many zoos are simply cruel places indicative of humankind's very poor attitude towards animals in many parts of the world. I cannot be optimistic about zoos despite the fact that some good goes on in them concerning conservation.

-----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

4 iconic wild cat species' numbers slashed over past 50 years (Infographic)

Most of us who read about the wild cat species and conservation understand that there has been a dramatic drop in numbers across the board. Here is an infographic showing the drop in population numbers of the lion, tiger, cheetah and leopard over the past 50 years with some additional information.

The the most important thing to note is (1) even the best experts sometimes don't know population numbers of wild cat species and when they do know (an estimate) the data is about 10 years old. Conservation is in a pretty poor state in my view and (2) there are some wonderful individual conservationists and groups concerned with conservation but the leaders of countries and the politicians are not truly committed to wildlife conservation and in this instance the conservation of the wild cat species.

That is why there's been a consistent decline over the past 50 years. The decline has been dramatic and shocking. It will continue for most of the species until the only individuals remaining on the planet will be those behind bars in zoos. Shame for the generations of kids to be born in the future.

The future of the wild cats from the smallest namely the rusty-spotted cat to the largest namely the Siberian tiger is pretty dire actually. I am very pessimistic but I could be wrong. I just don't see a great future for these species including the great iconic species.

-

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Whales have human rights decrees Māori king

NEWS/OPINION: The latest news in the world of wild species conservation is that whales will be recognised as legal persons under a declaration signed by New Zealand's Maori king together with native leaders across the Pacific.

The declaration has been signed last week by the King, Te Arikinui Tuheitia Paki, together with 15 paramount chiefs of Tahiti and the Cook Islands. It will need the backing of the government's to be enforceable.

A merging of the 2 elements of this story: human rights and whales by an AI computer DALLE 3    

Nonetheless, it is a recognition of the sentience of whales and the fact that they need to be protected. The document seeks to protect the rights of whales including "freedom of movement, cultural expression (which includes language), a healthy environment, healthy oceans and indeed the restoration of their populations." Those are the words of a Maori conservationist Mere Takoko.

The concept of "legal personhood" endows rights and duties and the status enjoyed by humans but a status which is rarely extended to other entities.

There is a current moratorium on commercial whaling which started in 1985 but whales are still hunted by Norwegians and Icelanders. The Japanese also hunt whales but under the guise of research which to almost everybody looks like a rather feeble excuse to continue to kill whales for consumption.

2017 New Zealand granted personhood status to the Whanganui River Because of Its Importance to Indigenous People. And in 2014 New Zealand for the first two grants personhood to an ecosystem in New Zealand's North Island : Te Urewera ranges.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Remote island of Taransay to be returned to its natural condition with Scottish wildcats

NEWS AND VIEWS: This is a story about a castaway island of the Isle of Harris in the north-west tip of Scotland called Taransay which, by the way, is where the television series Castaway was filmed starring Ben Fogle.

The island was bought by Adam and Cathra Kelliher in 2011. Adam Kelliher said:

"Our vision is to take the island back to the pre-intensive grazing, back to the Bronze Age. It will be covered by Atlantic rainforest. We are not talking about the Scottish straight pine, we are talking about a myriad of deciduous trees that thrived in the past."

The island is about 5 miles long by about 3 miles wide at its maximum width. It is a mystical place where visitors can renew their roots and connect with nature. It is said that people who visit Taransay leave it with a different attitude about life. It solitude, it's sense of nature, its quietness and tranquillity are all said to affect people deeply.

Beautiful Taransay where the Scottish wildcat may one day roam again.

And the vision of the Kellihers is to populate the island with trees, heather and flowers, mammals including deer, wild cattle, ponies, pigs, beaver, elks and as mentioned Scottish wildcats. A very grand scheme which if it works out at all will take many years.

Scottish wildcat

But, of course, what I like to see here is reference to the Scottish wildcat. This is a mammal which has been declared extinct because they say that the existing Scottish wildcats are in fact hybrids, the result of a matings between feral tabby cats and a genuine Scottish wildcats.

It is argue that there are no purebred Scottish wildcat left but having said that, it would be lovely to give them an island of about 15 mi² where they can thrive, where they can be be left alone. The only place where you might be lucky enough to see a Scottish wildcat currently is in Scotland but they were described as 'wildcats' in the past and they were present in the south of England.

The Scottish wildcat actually is the European Wildcat it's just that the Scots like to claim the species as their own!😀

Cathra Kelliher said that:

"People get quite emotional when they visit. There is something fundamental about your feet on those rocks, the feel of the Atlantic on your skin. It strips you of everything you don't need and you are left with just the core of what you are."

I think she describes it very, very nicely indeed. It is great to get back to your roots to the core of you, to connect with nature. I can see this island being a great attraction to many people in the future as the world becomes more and more complicated and arguably more more messed up with bad world leadership, climate change, and wars!

Management needed

In 2019 they took all the sheep off Taransay and there was an immediate explosion of flowers and wildlife but the grasses grew taller because there were no mammals to eat the grass. It isn't just about leaving things alone according to Adam Kelliher, it's about managing nature as well. I wish him well. If it goes well I might visit the place one day! 

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

30% of New Zealand cat owners are opposed to cat confinement and almost 50% are ambivalent

NEWS AND OPINION: This is a recent study from New Zealand about confining cats to the home i.e. full-time indoor cats. It's a modern trend and one that is being discussed in New Zealand as it is in many other developed countries. The objective is twofold (1) to keep the cats safe and (2) to keep wildlife safe from cat predation.

The New Zealand government and local governments within the country are particularly concerned about cat predation on wildlife - native species. They have a mentality which is similar to that found in Australia. It's one in which a focus is placed on protecting native species. The free-roaming domestic cat undermines that objective. But what do the citizens of New Zealand think about domestic cat confinement?

A survey of 395 cat owners as reported online on the Newshub website tells us that 30% of New Zealanders are opposed to keeping their cat inside the home full-time. Only 6% of cat owners in New Zealand do it at the moment while 17% are open to the possibility and 48% are unsure about the concept of full-time indoor cats.

This is not resounding support from cat-owning citizens for keeping cats inside the home. It doesn't surprise me. I've written in the past about the motivation of cat owners in keeping their cats indoors all the time and the prime objective is not to protect wildlife but to protect their cats. And in protecting their cats they avoid the emotional distress of their cat being harmed outside perhaps on the road.

RELATED: Places where domestic cats are confined to the home by law.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that normally cat owners keep their cats inside to avoid the distress that they will suffer if their cat is harmed on the road for instance. To use a long word it is an example of anthropocentrism.

This, I would argue, explains why the percentages from this study are rather poor for those people in authority who wants to keep cats inside to protect wildlife.

The general trend in New Zealand and Australia is for the authorities to want to change the law or make demands on cat owners to keep their cats inside. This survey represents somewhat of a pushback from that desire.

Cat advocates in New Zealand think that it is impractical to demand that all cat owners keep their cats inside all-time and it might be too expensive in for example having to build a catio or a cat confinement fence all around the back yard (£4,000). Both these options are fairly expensive. Although a mini-catio is cheap and better than no catio:

RELATED: Mini-catio is better than no catio.

You can't keep a cat locked up inside your home full-time unless you do something to entertain them which means enriching their environment. Hence the need for a catio. Even then it wouldn't be as good as allowing your cat outside in terms of mental stimulation.

The survey doesn't say this but a lot of cat owners want the best for their cat which means they want them to be happy and a domestic cat is happiest when they are out hunting! That sounds very anti-conservation and it is but if you are focusing on the cat only that is your objective.

New Zealand's cat advocates say that making micro-chipping and sterilisation obligatory would be effective over the long term in protecting wildlife. The problem with that plan is that it will take a very long time and it is difficult to enforce. Both these weaknesses in their plan will upset the authorities because they want something tangible quite quickly because they are elected officials and they need to demonstrate results i.e. success.

My personal view is that it's good that New Zealand is discussing these things but the problem is very hard to totally fix. One plank in the solution that has not been discussed in this news media article is education. If every cat owner was perfect they would microchip their cat, they would sterilise their cat, and they would take their cat outside on a lead or if they confine their cat to the home they would make sure that it was thoroughly enriched for their cat's entertainment. Many cat owners are far from perfect of course.

One issue is a lack of knowledge despite many years of discussion about cat caregiving on the internet. Things have improved by there is work to do.

I think education about cat ownership needs to be in the frame here. I would like to see domestic cat husbandry introduced into schools. It could be wider than that. You could have a course about companion animal husbandry for schoolkids. That should and could be part of the curriculum.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Scottish wildcat suffered "extinction by sex" and is making their last stand in the Cairngorms

Arguably, the Scottish wildcat is already extinct because even the best experts find it difficult to distinguish a hybrid Scottish wildcat from the real thing. The Scottish wildcat has been mating with domestic and feral cats for a very long time although it's become a lot worse over the last 60 years according to genetic research. The Times science editor, Tom Whipple, puts it very nicely by saying that it is "extinction by sex".

Scottish wildcat. A hybrid or a genuine wildcat? It's hard to tell the difference from appearance. You have to do DNA testing. This picture, I believe, as in the public domain.

As the habitat of the Scottish wildcat became fragmented because of human activities and as there are more people in Scotland than many years ago when there was a Scottish wildcat population, and as, as a consequence there are more domestic and feral cats in Scotland, and further, as there are less Scottish wildcats, the existing ones were much more prone to mate with domestic and feral cats than before. There was a gradual speeding up of what is called hybridisation which is the creation of hybrid Scottish wildcats, a cross between the purebred wildcat and the domestic or feral cat.

They look quite similar to the real item but if they are not purebred Scottish wildcats, they are not Scottish wildcats in my opinion. Anyway, they've bred some in captivity and released them in the Cairngorm region of Scotland with GPS collars and they hope that they will survive the winter. It is believed that they will but as I see it, this isn't just about appearance.

The Cairngorm region of Scotland where they hope the Scottish wildcat will make their last stand and thrive and grow their population. The image, I believe, is in the public domain.

A hybrid Scottish wildcat is not going to be as hardy and as capable in survival as the original wildcat that roamed the Scottish mountains thousands of years ago. In fact, the wildcat also lived in the south of England before around 1835 when the last one was shot by a landowner.

Yes, the wildcat lived in England but was persecuted to extinction except in Scotland where they were so much as persecuted as became extinct, as mentioned, by mating with domestic cats.

It's rather sad that for over 2000 years or more the Scottish wildcat lived happily throughout large parts of the UK and perhaps primarily in Scotland, mating with each other and remaining purebred and successful. But as human population numbers grew, humankind gradually encroached upon their lives and eroded their chances of survival.

As David Barclay, a conservation manager at Saving Wildcats said: in India where they have a similar problem trying to protect and conserve the Bengal tiger, at least you can recognise a Bengal tiger from all other cats. However, with the Scottish wildcat you can hardly tell the difference between a non-purebred wildcat and a purebred one. The markings are slightly different and in my view the hybrid version is a little bit more slender than the stocky and solid original, genuine item.

But this is where the problem really lies. It truly is extinction by sex and as I recall, it is the only example of this kind of extinction where you have a wild cat species which looks like the genuine article more or less but which isn't. 

Do you treat this cat as a Scottish wildcat? It seems that we have to because as I also recall the captive cats that they bred and have released are not purebreds, they are hybrids. This the best we can do and let's hope they survive the Cairngorm winter.

----

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Sand cat may be more endangered than people think

The popular sand cat may be more endangered than people think. A study completed fairly recently in southern Morocco discovered that sand cats have much larger home ranges than previously thought. And they travel far greater distances during the night than previously believed.

For example, one male cat that they tracked over a year covered 232.4 km². In all, the study radio tracked 22 individuals.

One individual travelled over 1758 km² (679 mi²) in just over six months. The sand cat's home range is similar if not greater than those of the big cats such as the jaguar and leopard. And certainly, they travel the most of any small cat and have the largest home ranges of all the small cats.

Image: MikeB (copyright protected).

Implications for conservation

What does this mean in terms of conservation? Well, the people in charge of assessing the vulnerability of flora and fauna including the small wild cat species, estimate the population sizes of these cats. They have to estimate them because they're very hard to count. This particularly applies to the sand cat for the reason as stated that they are spread out over a very large area and are secretive.

And one way they can estimate numbers is to estimate their density in a certain area. This means that they estimate how many cats there are in a certain area within their distribution. If that estimate is incorrect and they, for example, believe that there are more cats than there really are over a set area, they will then have an incorrect estimation of the entire population size of that species.

And this recent research indicates that they are spread out, as mentioned, far more than they thought and therefore their density is far lower than they thought. This should lead to a re-evaluation of the population size of the sand cat across the planet and in turn this may lead to a re-evaluation of their vulnerability to extinction in the wild by the IUCN Red List experts who I have difficult trusting!

Underestimates as to vulnerability

Incidentally, on a separate topic, I have always thought that the IUCN Red List underestimate, in general terms, the vulnerability of the wild cat species. And I have wondered whether they are being lobbied by the sport hunters for this reason. That is highly speculative but a reasonable suggestion. 

There is in fact some evidence that they are being pressured by people whose interest is against the conservation of animals because they want the freedom to use and abuse those animals and if they are big enough and interesting enough to shoot them for pleasure (sport hunting).

And there is a lot of money in sport hunting. It is normally the wealthy who engage in it and they can apply pressure to conservationists in various ways through their associations and clubs.

At the moment the sand cat is classified as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List people. As the classification suggests, the conservationists are unconcerned about this small cat species becoming extinct. 

They don't regard the species as vulnerable in the wild. But they could be wrong. 

Finally, the sand cat does very badly in captivity because they become ill very quickly. Therefore, humankind cannot fall back on zoo sand cats in order to save the species if things get very bad.

"Ocean fish" and "white bait" is shark meat in cat food. Do you care?

A research study tells us that endangered sharks are being used as "white bait" and "white fish" and "ocean fish" in cat and dog food. These are generic terms. There is no attempt to specify exactly what this food is. And the question is whether cat owners would stop buying cans of cat food if the products were properly labelled and shark meat specified in the labelling.

Blue shark. Photo: Joost van Uffelen / Getty Images

A lot of people nowadays are concerned about the environment. They are concerned about marine wildlife and overfishing. The argument is that the pet food manufacturers should be more transparent and honest.

This is particularly so since the shark populations have declined by more than 70% over the past 50 years. They found through DNA testing that some of the shark meat in cat food comes from sharks which are endangered. The sale of their bodies and body parts are under some degree of control in terms of their trade as specified under CITES or through classification by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The most common identified shark in cat and dog food was the blue shark. The species is not listed in CITES or classified as threatened by the IUCN but scientific research indicates that it is overexploited and the fishing of it should be regulated.

Another commonly encountered shark species in cat food is the silky shark. This species is listed under appendix 2 of CITES.

The fact that there is mislabelling on cat and dog food which misleads purchasers also leads to the unsatisfactory state of affairs that many environmentally conscious customers are contributing to the overfishing of endangered sharks.

The study that I am working off in writing this article suggests that many "pet owners and lovers would be alarmed to find out that they are likely contributing to the unsustainable fishing practices that have caused massive declines in global shark populations".

Overfishing of sharks has a negative impact on ecosystems' stability and function. Separately, a study found that the removal of sharks from the oceans has been linked to the "amplification of detrimental climate change effects".

In the United States, the most commonly encountered shark species in pet food was the short fin mako. In the current study all the pet food was produced, canned or packaged in Thailand.

In all, through DNA analysis, they found nine species of shark in pet food. One proposition is that the shark fin trade is contributing to this. Sharks are caught for their fins only and the bodies are thrown away as I understand it. Perhaps these bodies are being used in pet food. It is suggested that this might be beneficial because the bodies are being wasted. I would suggest that the better course of action would be to stop killing sharks for their fins.

Silky sharks are often caught as bycatch i.e. they are not targeted fish but they are caught in nets and killed when fishing for other species. This occurs during tuna fishing for example. Once their high-valued fins have been removed their carcasses make their way into the pet food industry chain which possibly account for the high prevalence of the meat from this shark species in pet food.

In conclusion, they state that "seafood fraud and the deliberate mislabelling or substitution of products is an increasingly recognise global problem".

Would you change your purchasing habits if they listed shark meat on cat food ingredients? Do you read the ingredient listings? Do you care? Are you concerned about the endangerment of many shark species? What do you think about killing sharks for their fins and throwing the rest of the shark away? Lots of questions. I would like you to comment on this if you have time.

The study referred to is: DNA Barcoding Identifies Endangered Sharks in Pet Food Sold in Singapore (04 March 2022 ).

2 physical features differentiate the true African wildcat from the hybrid wildcat

NEWS AND COMMENT-KAMBERG, KWAZULU-NATAL: Conservationists have taken charge of a purebred African wildcat which was trapped by farmers in the Kamberg area of KwaZulu-Natal. African wildcats were incredibly common in South Africa. Incidentally, KwaZulu-Natal is a coastal South African province known for its beaches, mountains and savannah. It sounds delightful. Note: it is nice to know that the farmer called the conservationists and did not simply kill the cat. I guess he was protecting livestock.

But the ubiquitous African wildcat is quite special nowadays as indicated by the report on the website iol.xo.za. The problem is this: they crossbreed with domestic and feral cats. This results in a first filial wildcat hybrid. Such cats are not purebred. They can't be described as wildcats. And this has watered down the population and the purity of the genes of the African wildcat in South Africa and elsewhere on the African continent.

RELATED: African and Asian wildcat – complete information.

African wildcat trapped by farmer. Photo: FreeMe Wildlife.

To confirm that they had a genuine wildcat, they carried out a DNA test and found that it indeed was purebred. This is a genuine wildcat. I must confess that the photograph of the cat does not confirm in my mind that this is a genuine wildcat. And if it is, you might be mistaken if you thought that it was a wild-looking tabby feral cat.

Two distinguishing features

Apparently, the conservationists employ two distinguishing anatomical features of the wildcat which separates them from tabby feral cats.

Back of ear flaps of African wildcat. Photo: FreeMe Wildlife.

The first is that they have a rich, reddish-brown coloration on the backs of their ears. In comparison, domestic and feral cats or domestic/wildcat hybrids have dark grey or black-backed ears. There might be a faint ocelli on the back of the ear flap as well. For tigers this is a white spot. It is very watered down in domestic and wildcat hybrid cats.

Lanky legs of African wildcat. Photo: FreeMe Wildlife.

The second distinguishing feature is that the wildcat has longer legs. They are quite rangy animals. They somewhat approach the gait of a cheetah for this reason. And when they sit upright on their bottom they are in a near vertical position. This is reminiscent of the ancient Egyptian statues. This makes sense because in the days of ancient Egypt, all domestic cats were either domesticated wildcats (Asiatic wildcats) or second third or fourth generation wildcats which had probably become truly domesticated.

RELATED: European wildcat habitat and hunting – classic cat technique.

It needs to be mentioned that the European wildcat does not have these long legs. They are a more stocky, squat and compact-looking cat whereas the African wildcat is slenderer. This is because of the climatic differences. Warmer temperatures produce smaller and lankier cats whereas in the north where it is colder they are bulkier in order to retain heat.

The chief executive officer at FreeMe Wildlife, the organisation which was involved in this rescue, said that they have a second genuine wildcat as well. They will be returned to the wild. They do not touch or get involved with them in order to ensure that they remain truly wild and non-domesticated. This facilitates their survival when returned to the wild.

Cheetahs to be reintroduced into India after being extinct there since 1952

This is a bold project but it is nice to read about it. India is going to reintroduce cheetahs into the country. The idea was first thought of in 2009. It is finally coming to fruition. The plan is to release 35-45 cheetahs into and around Kuno National Park over the next five years said the Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav. This park is in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. The cheetahs will come from Namibia and South Africa. Namibia is the African country where there is the largest population of cheetah's in the world.

Cheetah. Image by Barry Reed from Pixabay.

The cheetah became extinct in India because of hunting under the British Raj together with loss of habitat. There were once large numbers of cheetahs in India. Emperor Akbar apparently had about a thousand of them. He used to go hunting with them because cheetahs are quite friendly and they can be semi-domesticated so you can hunt with them. You send the cheetah off to hunt some prey animal and enjoy the excitement of it. And they are very pretty wild cat. They look amazing when they run so that I guess is where the enjoyment comes from.

As mentioned in the title, they declared the cheetah extinct in India in 1952. India gained independence on 15 August 1947. The extinction in the wild of this wild cat occurred five years after independence was declared. Therefore the authorities in India must have contributed to this extinction by failing to recognise the precarious population numbers and the fact that they were at that stage near extinction. They could have taken steps to protect them but failed.

It's amazingly sad then to think that back in the day under the British Raj people took pleasure in killing them. 

The plan is to fit the animals with GPS collars and they are going to ask local residents to protect them against poachers.

It's a risky project but my research indicates that cheetahs relocate pretty well. They are one of the better wild cats in respect of relocation. They are tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions. They don't pose a threat to humans. They just need to be protected from predation by other animals and from retaliatory killings by people.

In the past, a farmer in Namibia used donkeys to protect his calving herds. The more aggressive donkeys chased away jackals and drove away any cheetah that attempted to attack.

And the Cheetah Conservation Fund tried using guard dogs to protect livestock. They used four Anatolian Shephard guard dogs brought in from North America. It appears to been a successful because six more were later donated by a private breeder in North America and placed with collaborating farmers according to Mel and Fiona Sunquist (Wild Cats of the World).

Reintroductions of this nature can go badly wrong if the cheetah is too inexperienced to survive in the wild. They could end up being killed by predators or simply starving.

Prince William criticises rapid human birth rate in Africa but why did he have three kids?

Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, is a known wildlife conservationist which is good. He has once again highlighted the increasingly negative impact of human population growth on wildlife conservation. He is focusing on Africa where there is the world's most diverse and beautiful wildlife including many iconic large species and where the human population is on course to double by 2050 to 2.5 billion. That kind of human population growth inevitably leads to a heavy increase in agriculture and commercial enterprises and activities which squeezes out wildlife, essentially due to the destruction of their habitat.

Human birth rate is high in African putting pressure on wildlife. Photo: Pixabay.

William criticised Africa's human population growth in 2017. At that time he condemned the "staggering increase of 3.5 million people per month" in Africa.

A royal-watcher and apparently a critic, Phil Dampier, an author of books on the royal family, tweeted at the time: "If Prince William thinks there are too many people in the world shouldn't he and Kate have stuck to 2 children?"

The problem is this: it isn't only about the human population of Africa increasing as fast as it is which is causing massive problems for the conservation of wildlife on the continent, is also the population growth of developed countries such as the UK. It is the people of developed countries with high consumption of products and foods which drives habitat destruction as forests are cleared for crops to feed UK and European livestock.

The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Britain needs to place a curb on population growth as well. I think that you'll find, by the way, that certain ethnic minority cultures have much larger families than other cultures and the islands of Great Britain.

And doesn't India need to be introspective and ask if it is time to consider human population growth? The Bengal tiger has for years been squeezed out of India.

RELATED: Human population growth effects on animals.

Prince William is repeating the thoughts of Sir David Attenborough who has had in the past stated that humankind is a kind of disease on the planet. What he meant was that humankind is destroying the planet and as the population of humans grows there is more destruction and it is more difficult to control that destruction. Humankind is operating like a bacterial infection inside a person.

Cop26 is an example of how hard it is to unify the world in one objective even when that objective is saving the planet; saving humankind's home.

Cool way to get up close and personal with wild lions

NEWS AND COMMENT - HARRISMITH, SOUTH AFRICA: The Glen Garriff (GG) lion sanctuary is a non-profit organisation in South Africa which currently takes care of 77 lions which opened for business in 2002. The lions live their lives in safety and security at the sanctuary. The non-profit has social media accounts through which they raise most of their money. Their stated mission is to "love, protect and preserve the magnificent lions in our care."

Lion experience cube at GG lion sanctuary. Photo: Suzanne Scott (presumed) via Caters News.

The director (and a photographer) of this non-profit company, Suzanne Scott, 53, has a cage which she uses to get up close and personal with lions when she photographs them. She is using this cage to allow paying customers to her sanctuary to do exactly the same thing. And she's photographed the lions and humans interacting. 

They are interesting photographs and my immediate reaction is that this is a good idea. How else do you get so close, in safety, to a genuine wild lion? And the bars are wide enough to allow a camera to be used to photograph these fabulous cats at very close range. It would be a great opportunity for an amateur photographer to get some interesting photographs. I am sure that there are strict rules though. There is still a potential for harm.

It seems social media has spread this idea to the world rather late in the day because Suzanne Scott said: "We have been offering this experience almost 2 years now and the safety of both our guests and big cats is the top priority. "

The cage originally came from a German photographer who visited regularly. They adapted the cage for customer use by making it into a "lion experience cube". A German TV company had used a plexiglass cube to film the lions and I guess they got the idea from them.

The cube is regularly checked to make sure that it is safe and that it can carry the weight of a lion or lions who jump on top of it which they appear to enjoy doing as it provides a nice vantage point.

The GG lion sanctuary is in the process of rescuing lions from a closed down zoo in the Middle East and are expected to bring another 17 lions into the sanctuary soon.

The cube is another nice source of income for them. It looks like it is an excellent idea because it benefits both the customer and the lions who are stimulated by its presence. It adds a bit of colour into their lives. It's called environmental enrichment in the domestic cat world.

The empty, hollow pledges by governments to increase wild tiger populations

I'm told that in 2010 ministers from the governments of 13 countries in south-east Asia made a pledge to implement measures to double the wild population of tigers by 2022. That was impossible and they probably realised it when they made the commitment. And this is the way it has transpired.

Bengal tiger in reserve in India. Photo in public domain.

It is now reported that in south-east Asia it is highly unlikely that this goal will be met. I would go a step further and say that it will not be met. In fact, the numbers of tigers will go down and they will consistently go down into the indefinite future. There is no question in my mind about that.

It is said that tigers have become extinct in the recent past in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Wild tiger populations over the past 20 years have shrunk in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and to a lesser extent in Thailand.

Occasionally politicians try to present an optimistic viewpoint about tiger populations in the wild. They say that there has been a new count of tigers and declare to the world that the numbers have gone up. This simply isn't true. They've just changed the way they count tigers which results in a slightly higher figure but the truth of the matter is that the numbers are going down and the main reason is always the same: habitat loss due to human population growth resulting in more commercial activity which destroys the habitat.

CLICK THIS FOR ARTICLES ON BENGAL TIGER POPULATION

There are other reasons such as retaliatory killings but the bottom line is that the tiger is being squeezed out of their historical range; the place where they live. The human population is consistently expanding in Asia and Africa. Nothing is being done to curb this in the interests of wildlife conservation.

It is actually worse than that; the governments of these countries need to expand their human population to expand their economic growth. A country can't earn more money with less people because they need the workforce. That is why Germany allowed 1 million illegal immigrants into the country because at that time native Germans were not having families and they were looking at a shrinking workforce which would damage their economic growth.

This fundamental economic model demanding growth has to be changed to a new one which demands sustainability and stability in human population numbers. And then there should be gradual shrinkage with a parallel increase in habitat for wild species including the precious tiger.

Postscript: I have to mention, as an afterthought, another major reason why tigers are dying out in the wild and it is this; China's greed for tiger body parts which means that they are poached in the wild or they are farmed in China. When you farm tigers, you totally devalue the animal to the point where they become livestock. There is no possibility that you can have a proper attitude towards conservation if you are treating the animal concerned as livestock. That is common sense. So poaching is a massive problem thanks to China.

And apparently in Vietnam they snare animals and there are 12 million snares dotted around the countryside which sometimes trapped tigers and kill them. There are countless other reasons but they all boil down to one thing: human behaviour in all its guises. I suppose that's obvious but it seems that we have to state it because very little is done by the conservationist to change fundamental human behaviour which conflicts with the conservation of the tiger.

Human destruction of animals versus cat destruction of animals

This is going to be short because I don't have a lot of reference material on it but I would like to remind people that when humans criticise the feral and to a lesser extent the domestic cat for the destruction of native animal species, they are forgetting that humans destroy far more through their activities.

Humans destroy animals through habitat destruction and on a much lesser scale through the destruction of prey animals which support native species. There are three ways that humans destroy habitat. For the sake of clarity, I'm referring to the habitat in which wild animals live and without which they cannot live. The three ways are (1) exploitation of resources and (2) pollution and (3) the introduction of exotic species. Habitat destruction by humans is considered to be the most important cause of species extinctions in many studies.

Habitat destruction includes deforestation primarily. Many wild cat species live in forests and depend upon the forests. Across the globe there is massive deforestation. The island of Borneo was pretty much covered in forests but thousands of square miles have been erased over the last 50 years. The Borneo Bay cat lives in this forest. An elusive cat which is highly endangered now because of deforestation. That is just one example.

Bornean Bay Cat. Photograph copyright Jim Sanderson, Ph.D – Please respect copyright.

Other ways that humans have destroyed habitat is through water quality deterioration, drainage of wetlands, mining, agricultural use of prairies, and fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides all change the environment of a variety of bird habitat which led to declines in populations. I don't have hard data but these environmental changes negatively impact birds far more than feral cat predation.

And the experts say that it is "crucial to view cat predation within the context of habitat destruction, since cats have not been shown to be the primary cause of the loss of native species on mainland continents (Mead 1982; Mitchell and Beck 1992). MR Slater says that "unfortunately, evidence regarding extinction is often anecdotal, circumstantial or historical."

I am quoting from MR Slater's section in the book The Welfare of Cats. This section deals with the extinction of native species. It is highly relevant today because global warming is putting pressure on nature and the animals that live within it. Global warming is due to human activity but humans in reaction to that knowledge are reluctant to curb activities which create global warming and instead they criticise the feral cat in Australia for decimating wildlife species.  Humankind is myopic in respect of endangering wild species. Humankind wants to deflect attention away from their anti-conservation behavior.

And MR Slater states something which I like to read, and I'll say it again; habitat destruction by humans is the most important cause of species extinctions. It was and it is and it will be the major cause of the extinction of species because the world relies on economic growth. In relying on growth, you have to rely on increased population size and inevitably economic growth leads to the destruction of habitat.

Until politicians and economists totally adjust their ideal model for society which as stated is economic growth there will be more wild animal extinctions.

Feral cats are the costliest invasive species of Australia (but they forgot about people)

The people of Australia are not an invasive species because the aboriginals were there 50,000 years ago. But the feral cat is an invasive species and a study has decided that they are the costliest of the hundreds of individual species studied. They estimated that feral cats account for over AU$10 billion in damages and management expenses. Rabbits, pigs and rodents follow closely.

Australian feral cat. The enemy to millions of Australians. Image in the public domain.

In all, invasive species including plants have cost Australia at least AU$390 billion over the past 60 years. The researchers shone a spotlight on plants and animals. I would suggest that they also turn the spotlight around and point it at themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no study has looked at the amount of damage that humans do to the Australian economy in terms of damage and management expenses incurred.

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the cost of humans to the economy is far greater than all other invasive species. The difference, of course, is that people also create the economy; they make the money. However, if you want to cut back on damage and the associated costs, I think it would be useful to take a spotlight to human activity as well. At least put them all together; humans and animals and plants. It would allow politicians to more accurately see where improvements can be made.

There is a call to invest more money in managing invasive species in Australia. Included in the damage done by non-native species, is the destruction of native animals, marsupials and mammals. Australia has a lot of very cute, small marsupials of which they are very proud. Understandably they don't like feral cats and foxes preying on them and eating them. Some are endangered.

From my standpoint, I see a huge distortion in the way that the Australian authorities are looking at these issues. Recently there were massive floods and wildfires in Australia. It is said that these were caused by global warming. Australia contributes to global warming by mining coal and selling it internationally. That's the kind of human activity I'm referring to and which should be put under the spotlight. The damage caused by these fires and floods I would argue are far greater than that caused by the invasive species.

Associated:

• Australia is killing all their feral cats and now they have a mouse plague
• Make Australia’s native species more cat savvy rather than try and kill all the cats

The Barrier Reef is being destroyed by global warming. An iconic landmark of which Australia are rightly proud but they are contributing to its destruction.

And going forwards, it will get worse. And we have to project forwards. I think it is pretty clear that global warming is going to kill more Australian native species in the future than those killed by invasive species in the past. And global warming is a human behaviour issue. You cannot cut out of the equation human behaviour as studies always do.

Australians use thermal imaging cameras and rifles to conserve bilby and kowari populations

It is reported that bilby and kowari populations in Queensland's outback are increasing to the delight of conservationists thanks to a more efficient feral cat control programme which includes using thermal imaging cameras and, I presume, rifles to kill them. Both these animals are marsupials and they've spotted them in greater numbers this year. The bilby is endangered. The Department of Environment and Science recorded 471 bilbies at Astrebla Downs National Park.

A bilby in Currawinya National Park makes its way to its burrow. Photo: Cassandra Arkinstall

They also spotted a record 14 kowaris. This is a small carnivorous desert marsupial regarded as vulnerable in terms of conservation in Queensland.

They put the increasing population numbers down to better control of feral cats. The Department said that they have removed more than 3,000 feral cats from the park since 2013. As mentioned in the title, they use thermal imaging cameras rather than spotlights to pick out the cats. 

This has made killing them far more efficient. The news report does not tell us how they kill the cats but it has to be by shooting. If they're using thermal imaging cameras to spot them then the next step is to shoot them. Of course, it doesn't matter how they kill them and one of the most common ways is poisoning. The next most efficient method of shooting. It is raw slaughter. The issue of causing pain and suffering is irrelevant.

Apparently, the cats got used to spotlights. They learned to avoid them as they were associated with death, but thermal imaging has outfoxed them. A senior ranger, Barry Nolan, said: "Once the earth loses its heat that it got from the sun during the day, anything that provides body heat glows quite well under thermal technology, even if it's behind vegetation and stuff."

The video shows the bilby:

Green bridge for pumas traversing California's Freeway 101 will be world's biggest

NEWS AND COMMENT - LOS ANGELES, CALIF., USA: California plans to build the world's biggest animal bridge. It will traverse California's Freeway 101 which is adjacent to the Santa Monica Mountains. A conservation group is raising the $65 million to build it. It'll be called the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing. It will be 65 m long and 50 m wide.

 Green bridge for pumas traversing California's Freeway 101 will be world's biggest. Image in public domain.

The bridge will have high fencing and "sound walls" which I presume means walls which absorb the sound to make the crossing more amenable to the mountain lions. I guess they need to be encouraged to use it. 

At the moment the highway divides the habitat and distribution of the mountain lion in this area of America. When you have fragmentation of the distribution of a wild cat species like this you end up with inbreeding because the population size is too small to maintain a healthy genetic diversity. This can lead to sterile males which in turn further damages the population size.

No doubt, the conservationists have recommended this bridge as a matter of urgency. It's going to be built by the California Department of Transportation and is largely funded through private donations. Apparently, there's no state budget for it. New legislation will provide for state funding of wildlife crossings such as this one in the future. To date, National Wildlife Federation has secured $38 million.

CLICK FOR A RANGE OF PAGES ON THE MOUNTAIN LION

101 Freeway carries 300,000 cars daily which presents an impenetrable barrier to mountain lions trying to cross it. When they try, they get hit by a car and killed. And to the south of the highway is the sea and to the east is Los Angeles. That's why they are trapped within this relatively small area in terms of the space required for a population of mountain lions. 

Brad Schaffer, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles said that there is a large area of open space on the other side of the freeway which leads to a very large space. The bridge will allow mountain lions to have access to that space.

In addition, the density of cars on the freeway is increasing year-on-year as there are more and more people living in the area. The trouble is that the mountain lions in this area live in a 'closed population' which is causing inbreeding, declining fertility and genetic defects. Inbreeding also reduces the immune system's effectiveness.

If they lose the mountain lion in the area it will have a cascading effect on other wildlife as this cat is the top predator. There would be more deer and overgrazing depriving smaller mammals of food. He believes that the citizens of Los Angeles are "immensely proud of these lions, of having a big carnivore right in, almost in, their midst.

That is why the bridge will be built.

An alternative to killing feral cats in order to protect wallabies

Historically, Australian authorities kill feral cats to protect native species which includes wallabies. It's understandable but it is a negative solution particularly when the killing is carried out with a complete disregard for the pain inflicted. 

The Daily Science website reports an alternative method which I would like to disseminate in the interests of the welfare of feral cats. They say that a program called "head start" doubled the population of the critically endangered bridled nail tail wallabies in the Avocat Nature Refuge in Queensland. What they mean by this is that they protect the young Wallabies against predation by feral cats until they are adult enough to be able to escape and survive.

Mad bad and sick as far as I am concerned. Man carries tabby feral cat back to where? He's just shot it at night. He's having great fun saving Australia from native species Armageddon at the hands of feral cats. He is a member of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia with a cat he shot. Photo: Adam Ferguson for The New York Times

Specifically, the researchers placed individual wallabies weighing less than 3 kg together with their nursing mothers in a 9.2-hectare enclosure which was free of predators except for birds of prey and some other predators, which are unspecified. They allowed them to live there over a three-year period beginning in 2015.

The mothers raised 56 wallabies in the enclosure and they found that the head start program more than doubled the population of wallabies over three years. There are 16 core members which increased to 47 of which 21 were inside the head start enclosure and 26 were outside. The survival rate of young wallabies increased, in that 15/20 juveniles (75%) survived past the age of weaning in the enclosure compared to only 3/12 (25%) in the wild.

Wallaby. Photo: Science Direct.

The researchers have estimated that the Avocet wallabies will become extinct within two years but for the head start program. They said that until they have a way to eliminate feral cats in the wild the head start program is a good idea.

I've written a lot about Australia and suggested many other ways of controlling the feral cat population size other than brutal killing in any way possible. If you are interested you can read some of these articles by clicking on this link.

Wallabies are cat snacks in New South Wales, Australia

Young wallabies have been described as "cat snacks" by scientists in New South Wales. This is because it's what they are to feral cats in that region of Australia. Too many of them are being eaten by feral cats and scientists have come up with what they refer to as "headstarting". It's a strategy which means moving the young wallabies to a fenced off area devoid of cats, where they can develop to become large enough to be able to fend off the advances of feral cats. Scientists from the University of New South Wales conducted a trial and declared it an unqualified success.

 Wallabies are cat snacks in New South Wales, Australia. Photo: iStock.

"These wallabies are really affected by predators only when they are very small - they're easy snack-sized for a feral cat," said Alexandra Ross from the university.

Bridled nailtail wallabies are vulnerable with only an estimated 500 individuals in the wild in three areas of the east coast of Australia. They apparently relocated the wallabies to the Avocet Nature Refuge, which is south of Emerald in central Queensland.

This happened between 2015-2018 and 89% of them survived to become large enough to be put back into the wild resulting in a more than doubling of the overall population size over that period.

The said that there was minimal disruption to their lives as the enclosure contained their natural habitat. The only difference was that they were protected from predation by feral cats. It is a nine-hector enclosure.

It was important to the researchers to make sure that the wallabies understand that they can still be preyed upon by natural predators other than feral cats such as eagles and pythons. They feel that the small enclosure helps them to learn the dangers of predation.

The process of 'headstarting' is only useful for animals that provide conservationists with a window in their early life when they are vulnerable to predation and which allows the researchers to remove them from the environment in which they are vulnerable.

The process is cheaper as well. Ross estimates that it is up to 90% cheaper than traditional fencing methods because of the smaller size of the enclosure required. Bridled nailtail wallabies were thought to be extinct until 1973 when they were rediscovered by a fencing contractor who stumbled across a colony in Queensland.

My thanks to Brisbane Times of the story. The research is published in Current Biology.

Animals forced to flee or hide as humans invade their territories

Scientists are just beginning to understand that the negative impact that humans have on wild animals extends not just to the destruction of their habitat, which of course is devastating, but also to their simple presence and activities on the territory which these animals believe is theirs. Just occasional encroachment of human activity on the territories of wild animals results in a much greater change in their behaviour than people had thought.

Image by Nel Botha from Pixabay

The study refers to 'episodic' activity by humans such as driving cars off-road, military manoeuvres and hunting, and includes aircraft noise. Under these kinds of activities wild species increased their movement by up to 70%. The animals are fleeing to avoid humans and hiding. This means that they have to travel further to find food or to mate.

The increased human activity on their territory resulted in an average 37% increase in the activity of the animals affected. The researchers, whose study has been published in Nature of Ecology and Evolution, analysed more than 200 studies on 167 animal species. The species ranged from butterflies to great white sharks and the study covered almost 40 years.

In more than one third of the studies analysed the animals were forced into changes in their behaviour resulting in increased movement by more than half.

In essence, the animals either moved away or moved less. The occasional presence of humans had a bigger impact on their behaviour than permanent habitat loss. Habitat changes are predictable whereas the occasional activity from tourism, recreation and hunting is less predictable and as mentioned episodic. The animals don't know how to predict what will happen so they move further away; away from an unpredictable threat.

Roads (by which I believe they mean the construction of roads and the movement on them) increased movement by 68%. Aircraft noise by 65% in agriculture by 28%. Roads fragement territories.

The chances of survival of these animals is reduced because of low reproductive rates, fragmentation of their habitat leading to genetic isolation, leading in turn to local extinctions. And when these effects were suffered by larger animals the effect went down the food chain to smaller species and the wider ecosystem.

The scientists cite an example from New Zealand. Flightless birds in New Zealand provide vital seed distribution. They moved 41% less when people were around which reduced the spread of specific plants. The study raises the question of reducing human activity in important animal habitats.

Comment: Immediately I think of tourism flooding through the national parks of Africa. And of India where people want to see tigers in one of the many Indian tiger reserves where in fact tigers are quite scarce sometimes. Is this tourism damaging conservation of these iconic species and if so it would undermine the purpose of the reserves and national parks? It's a thought which needs to be addressed.

The fact of the matter is that human activity of any kind, be it the destruction of forests to building plantations such as soya or other commercial products, or simply their presence and activities dramatically affects our wild animals. Personally, like many others, I am deeply pessimistic about the future because I do not see humankind demonstrating an ability to change. Quite the contrary, the general trend is upwards in terms of human growth, upwards in terms of human activity including commercial activity and upwards in terms of agriculture in order to feed more mouths.