Finishing on a postive story…

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2012). Southern White Rhinocerus Ceratotherium simum simum. Available from: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/best_place_species/back_from_the_brink/southern_white_rhinoceros_.cfm (accessed March 2012).

IUCN list of Threatened Species. (2011) Ceratotherium simum spp. simum. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/39317/0 (access Match 2012)

Saving the Rhinos. (2012) White Rhino. Petluma, California. Available from: http://savingrhinos.org/White-Rhino.html (access March 2012).

This week, for my last blog, I am going to share a success story! My success story is fairly close to my heart, as a result of an amazing trip I took in 2010 to Africa. The summer of 2010 I packed my bags and flew over the Atlantic Ocean and landed in South Africa. From there, I traveled through South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. As I was traveling, little did I know that so many of the amazing animals that I was seeing and appreciating, are actually treated horribly and commonly poached by some people. A few people have already commented on the elephant populations, so I am going to tell you guys about the Southern White Rhino, which is a subspecies of the White Rhino.

The Southern White Rhino lives in all of the countries I previously mentioned in addition to Kenya and Swaziland (IUCN 2011). During the twentieth century, this population was similar to many other rhino populations in regards to being extremely close to extinction, with a population size of a mere 50 to 200 rhinos (WWF 2012). In fact, the population size during the late nineteenth century was so small that Southern White Rhinos were thought to be extinct (Saving the Rhinos 2012)! It wasn’t until less than 100 rhinos were found in South Africa in 1895, when we discovered that they were still “alive and kickin’”. The primary reason for the tiny population size is because rhinos are a prime candidate for poaching. There is a demand for their horn in black market trade (IUCN 2011, WWF 2012).  The rhino’s horn is so desired because it has both ornamental and medicinal purposes in the Middle Eastern areas (WWF 2012). Some additional reasons for why the population had crashed is because drought limited the amount of vegetation growing and therefore limited grazing and urbanization caused habitat destruction.

Figure 1. Southern White Rhino that has been poached.

http://c362.r62.cf1.rackcdn.com/trophies/trophies/white_rhino_display.jpg

I am happy to report that after very successful conservation and management regulations and the huge amount of assistance from local South Africans, the Southern White Rhino population has replenished to a healthy 20,600 individuals (WWF 2012)! Currently, IUCN classifies this subspecies of rhino as near threatened (IUCN 2011, WWF 2012). In order to prevent poaching from occurring, the majority of Southern White Rhinos live within heavily protected areas and private ranches (Saving the Rhinos 2012). It is important to note that the Southern White Rhino still has the threat of getting poached and for this reason, it is not considered least concern (UICN 2011).

Figure 2. Two wild Southern White Rhinos.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Waterberg_Nashorn2.jpg

The Southern White Rhino is considered one of Africa’s greatest success stories, and I for one am thankful because they truly are such unique animals, especially when you are able to see them face-to-face in the wild.

Words: 445

B.C.’s flagship species sinking…

1. Kinley, T. 1999. Mountain Caribou: This caribou ecotype depends on large tracts of old growth forest for its survival. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia, 8pp.

2. Kinley T, Apps C. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered Mountain Caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin [Online] 29(1):158-164. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783993 [March 2012].

Figure 1. Image of mature Mountain Caribou during summer.

Mountain caribou are a large ungulate species that have become a popular topic over the past century within North America, specifically in British Columbia. Mountain Caribou (Rangifer arcticus) are one of three ecotypes of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), and the main difference that separates the ecotypes are their habitats and their locations. ^1,2 The Mountain Caribou require a very specific habitat, which has been disappearing throughout the years, having a detrimental affect on their population. Within their habitats all of the ecotypes’ main food source is lichens, but the Mountain Caribou feeds primarily off of lichens that grow on old growth forest during the late winter, compared to terrestrial lichens that are fed on by the other two ecotypes.¹

The Mountain Caribou’s habitat is correlated with its location, which is an alarming 98%, in southeastern British Columbia and the remaining 2%, in very small areas of northern Idaho and Washington.¹ Within in these areas there is a large amount of precipitation that occurs, giving the area the name “Interior Wet Belt”.¹ This is advantageous for the Mountain Caribou living there because in the winter the vast amount of precipitation results in an abundance of snowfall. When the snowpack plentiful enough the caribou is able to use their unique and large hoof design to stand on top of the snow and reach the old growth lichens that are growing on the branches.^1,2

Unfortunately, there has been a huge decline in the Mountain Caribou population primarily due to the lack of old growth forests.¹ Consequently, Mountain Caribou has become an increasing conservation concern over the past century, so much so that they went from being blue-listed in 1999 to now being considered one of North America’s most engendered species.¹  Like previously mentioned, one reason for the decline in caribou population is the lack of old growth forests providing a niche for them.  The forests have been destroyed by excess logging and timber harvesting, increased amount of human settlement and forest fires.^1,2 The lack of forest not only causes a problem in regards to the lack of appropriate lichens available, but also due to increased exposure to predators, such as wolves, cougars and wolverines, because of the forest fragmentation.^1,2 Hunting and disturbance from outdoor recreationalists also contributed to the population decline. The measures being performed to preserve the Mountain Caribou include eliminating a hunting season and increasing the amount of no-logging zones in specific areas.¹

Figure 2. Two hunted Mountain Caribou, despite the population decline.

This unique ungulate is important for British Columbia to take actions to bring the populations back to a healthy level not only because it could be one more extinct species, but more so because it is a flagship species of our area and is a good representation of how the Interior Wet Belt’s health is.¹ I think it is safe to say that the Interior Wet Belt is currently very unhealthy and drastic changes need to be made.

Word Count: 482

CPAWS: Fixing Canada’s conservation flaws!

CPAWS. British Columbia chapter. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Vancouver, B.C. Available from:  http://cpawsbc.org/ (access Feb 2012)

  In order to maintain and conserve the natural world around us, including the various spectacular species roaming the earth, there have been multiple protected areas and animals. One organization that is dedicated to creating and maintaining Canada’s protected areas is called Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, also known as CPAWS. CPAWS was originally established in 1963, with a vision to protect at least half of Canada’s public land and water and as of now they have managed to create half of a million square kilometers of protected area within Canada (CPAWS).

                CPAWS works towards a variety of issues. Their main focuses range from wildlife, parks, forests, oceans and freshwater, mountains and finally the issues that incorporates everything, climate change. Additionally, they also have some more specific campaigns that they concentrate on for shorter amounts of time. Currently, one campaign is attempting to keep Jasper as a national park and prevent it from turning into a theme park. CPAWS also divides their work into 13 chapters, which are different regions within Canada that they are working in. Logically, the chapter for our location is chapter British Columbia. Within our chapter there are four categories: parks, wilderness and wildlife protection, future generations and marine. Working within this area, CPAWS’s goal is to protect an enormous 50% of B.C.’s ocean and wilderness forever (CPAWS)!

 

Figure 1. Logo for CPAWS: British Columbia Chapter

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/promo/photo_cont_2006/images/cpaws_logo.gif

 

                              Developing and protecting this amount of land is not cheap! In order to subsidise their funds, they accumulate funds from foundations, individual people or corporate. During ’09-’10, they were able to raise an astonishing 63% of $3,215,008 from foundations alone (CPAWS)!

                An issue that CPAWS is working on within B.C. parks is the attempt to protect the Flathead River Valley within the Rocky Mountains. This area is import to conserve because it is considered “one of the most biologically important places on the planet” (CPAWS). It still remains an area fully inhabited by wild carnivores, such as grizzly bears, cougars and wolves, which are able to prey on the many deer, elk and moose in the valley. This area in particular is important because it allows for the various animals within and around the valley to move both north and south to the surrounding parks. Additionally, this area is virtually unsettled by humans, despite the exceptional water quality, large amount of vegetation and diverse native mammal and fish species. CPAWS has begun working towards protecting this area because there is becoming an elevated amount of logging and trophy hunting and as of currently, there is no wildlife sanctuaries on this area.

                This is just one of many issues that CPAWS is working on to protect Canada and reach their goal!

 

Word Count: 441

The journey of the Burrowing Owl reintroduction in B.C.

Leupin, E. 2001. Burrowing Owl reintroduction efforts in the Thompson-Nicola region of British Columbia. Journal of Raptor Research [Online] 35(4):392-398. Available: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/jrr/v035n04/p00392-p00398.pdf [February 1, 2012.]

Leupin, E. 2004. Burrowing Owl: Athene cunicularia. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identifies Wildlife [Online]pp10. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/documents/Birds/b_burrowingowl.pdf [February 1, 2012.]

http://www.aitc.sk.ca/saskschools/animals/birds/b_owl6345.jpg

Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) are small, dull-brown owls that inhabit prairie-like grasslands.  The Burrowing Owls obtained their name from their trait of reproducing and nesting in burrows (Leupin 2004). These burrows are made from a variety of species, such as ground squirrels, marmots and badgers (Leupin 2004). In the past, these owls were commonly found primarily in the Southern Interior grasslands, ranging from Kamloops to Ashcroft to Purcell Mountains (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004). Unfortunately, due to increased amount of urbanization and agricultural development, including overgrazing and pest management, the Burrowing Owl population dramatically declined (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004). This declination was so dramatic that within B.C, Burrowing Owls have been on the endangered species list since 1978 (Leupin 2004). Since the early 80’s, this population deterioration was noted and there were programs developed to strive towards the reintroduction of Burrowing Owls.

The first attempt at reintroduction was by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MoELP) from 1983 until 1988 (Leupin 2001). Involved with their attempt, the recovery team relocated the Moses Lake, Washington Burrowing Owl families to the Southern regions of the Okanagan (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004).  This project, unfortunately, did not have the success hoped for and it was ceased in 1994 (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004).

There was a second attempt at reintroducing Burrowing Owls into Southern B.C. that occurred in 1989 (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004). This reintroduction process had a goal of reestablishing the population into at least three grassland locations within the Thompson-Nicola region (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004). The first phase of this process involved analyzing the current [at that time] breeding protocols and factors and improving them in order to allow successful reintroduction (Leupin 2001, Leupin 2004). In doing so, they examined factors such as diet, migratory behavior and mortality within the wild population (Leupin 2001). In order to carry out the reintroduction process, the project used two British Columbia locations to breed the Burrowing Owls. Interestingly, the first and main breeding facility remains at the Kamloops Wildlife Park, which houses 10 breeding pairs (Leupin 2001). The second breeding facility remains at the San Rafael Aviaries, which is located in Stanley Park, Vancouver B.C. (Leupin 2001).

The reintroduction process is still occurring and has made successes. When combining the two breeding sites, as of 2001, there will be enough Burrowing Owls to release as many as 25 breeding pairs in each of the three release sites (Leupin 2001). The release sites are located in the Thompson-Nicola region. They are specific sites chosen for a variety of reasons, such as grassland condition and quality of habitat for rodents that the owls feed on. In future years, the reintroduction project is hoping to continue their work with the burrowing owls and also strengthen the populations of mammals that burrow, in hopes of assisting the Burrowing Owls’ lifestyle when they are released.

Word Count: 474

Ajax Mine digging conservation issues into a hole?

Koopmans, R. 2011. Ajax will forever change the Jacko Lake grasslands. Kamloops Daily News.

http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110730/KAMLOOPS23/110729814/-1/kamloops/ajax-will-forever-change-the-jacko-lake-grasslands

Iverson, K. 2004. Grasslands of the Southern Interior: Grasslands cover less than one present of British Columbia’s land area. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia, 6pp.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/grasslands_si.pdf

 

Figure 1. Image of proposed Ajax Mine, Kamloops, British Columbia  (http://armchairmayor.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/so-just-how-big-is-ajax-well-its-soooo-big/)

 

Mining, for the most part, tends to be a financial and economic benefit for the communities that surround it; bringing in, ideally, a large profit as well as presenting many available jobs. However, mining likely does not have such a positive impact on the environment and conservation issues. Just outside of Kamloops, B.C. there is a proposed open-pit copper gold mine called Ajax Mine. It is expected that this mine will have at least a 23 year working life and is expected to bring in plenty of income and jobs for Kamloops citizens (Koopmans 2001). Despite these advantages, many Kamloops and surrounding residents are reluctant for the building of this mine due to conservation issues, such as grasslands and wildlife.

Within the area of the proposed Ajax Mine, more specifically Jacko Lake, there are “classic grasslands”, which are grassland areas that have ecological value despite the prior and current human use (Koopmans 2001).  Because of industrial development, such as mine development, and home building, B.C. has a diminishing amount of grasslands, down to a mere 1% (Koopmans 2001, Iverson 2004). This quantity does not seem to be increasing as, according to Dr. Lauch Fraser, grasslands are incredibly difficult to restore as a result of being relatively unproductive in comparison to other ecosystems.  

 In conjunction with the grasslands, wildlife conservation will also be affected by the building of Ajax Mine. Many of the animals that do live within the grasslands may not be seen on a regular basis, but they are present. The animals of this area are habituated in the grasslands surrounding Jacko Lake and the disturbance of the grasslands will directly alter and obstruct the habitat for the various species living in this area, causing relocation or death if not able to relocate (Koopmans 2001).  If the animals habitat isn’t removed, there is a large chance that animals and birds, such as great blue herons, will be forced to relocate as a result of the “large construction-related noises causing stress and nest abandonment” (Koopmans 2001).

On a conservational stand point, I feel as though it is risky for Kamloops to allow the development of Ajax mine. Grasslands in the interior of British Columbia are considered endangered and destroying another portion of grasslands will not help the issue (Iverson 2004).  If the grasslands are already having difficulties flourishing due to the hot temperatures and multiple disturbances, such as motorized vehicles or cattle grazing, one would think that it will be additionally difficult for the grasses to replenish themselves after such destruction of Ajax mine.  Furthermore, once the animals relocate due to their habitat alteration, there is no guarantee that they will return when their habitat is rebuilt. Needless to say, if Ajax mine is developed, there will be a sizeable blow to the environment, including the grasslands and wildlife.

 

Word count: 469

Hello All!

Welcome to conservation controversies!

I am writing this blog to info you all about some conservation biology issues that are occurring locally, provincially and globally!

I hope you guys enjoying reading my blog and I am looking forward to receiving your comments!