The main reasons why the endangered species act (ESA) act should be strengthened in United States are the act is the only piece of legislation that is responsible for the protection of flora and fauna and their habitat in addition to their genetic diversity (Easton, 2009).
Secondly, the ESA is a clear and uncomplicated act that provides a concise approach to achieve its goals when there is adequate funding and the will to do the same. Thirdly, the ESA offers the flexibility required to resolve conflicts arising out of diverse interests. Moreover, the act serves as a good example of endangered species protection for the rest of the world.
It offers protection of endangered species, which is a public good and therefore contributes to the betterment of the social welfare. Even thou many species have disappeared despite the adoption of the act, the rate of disappearance has been checked, otherwise more species would have disappeared by now.
This paper argues that the problem of the endangered species act does not lie in the weakness of the act but in its implementation mainly hampered by inadequate funding. More funds need to be appropriated for implementing the act with a special recognition of the economic cost that private landowners encounter in their efforts to comply with the act.
Arguments for strengthening the ESA
The ESA seeks to control the four main factors responsible for the demise of endangered species. These are overexploitation, destruction of habitat, invasion of alien species because of their introduction into same localities with endangered species and disease spread mostly by the alien species. In addition, pollution is also a major cause for extinction of species (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2007).
According to OConnell (1992) the endangered species act (ESA) has had numerous controversies surrounding it because of its ineffective implementation. The ESA was enacted in 1973 and was a product of successive environmental statues that were realized out of the increasing scientific expertise on biological diversity.
Since the enactment of the ESA in 1973, the scientific knowledge available has expanded. The act went much into protecting the environment that the endangered species depended on, thus it became more of a protection of biodiversity.
This approach has since been proved to fail as scientific progress outpaces political progress. There is increasing scientific evidence pointing to the necessity of having a complete ecosystem-based approach. This is informed by recent discoveries in conservation biology and biodiversity.
Another area of the act that needs to be strengthened is the metapopulation provision. Scientific evidence qualifies that it is inappropriate to let the loss of populations continue until only the population of the endangered species remain.
Loss of populations can jeopardize the survival of a listed species and therefore the crucial role, played by the mechanism of metapopulations need to be protected. Furthermore, the individual populations can be separately listed in the act.
Wilcove et.al. (1998) discuss that it is true that humanity is in the process of extirpating a notable size of the earths species composition. The magnitude of human enterprise is the reflective of the rate at which at which the destruction of biodiversity and the extinction of species occurs. The loss of habitat forms the most significant threat to endangered species closely followed by the invasion of alien species.
The significant role that habitat loss plays in the imperilment of species undoubtedly links their protection to the control of human population growth.
Most of the listed species in the act are located at few clustered areas of the United States and its unfortunate that the same areas are projected to have the highest population growth rate. This signifies a future of increased conflict of divergent views concerning the protection of the imperiled species habitat.
Strengthening of the act should not only come from the legislative side, there is an increased need to counter the efforts of industry stakeholders who wish to weaken the implementation of the act for their economic gains.
Scientists need to plunge headlong into the political process to develop a political sophistication necessary for the proper analysis and defense against the arguments of industrialists.
Arguments against strengthening the ESA
While it seems viable that strengthening the ESA will save more endangered species from extinction, the changing types of threats call for a new approach that goes beyond the act. The ESA mainly focuses on human activity that explicitly interferes with the biodiversity in the habitats of the imperiled species.
However, there are other threats that are not easily controllable with an act, given their magnitude and nature. For example, the threat that climate change possesses on the diversity of habitats is global and cannot be controlled by the act.
Climate change will affect a broad array of endangered species and for plants that have a narrow range and weak dispersal abilities, an act cannot be the solution to ensuring their survival.
Global warming has been mentioned as one of the cause of climate change and it is partly because of pollution on a global scale. A single act in the U.S. is not well suited to tackle a global problem.
During the formulation of the act, climate change was not a significant threat, and therefore the act was comprehensive it its jurisdiction and effectiveness. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said now, as threats to the endangered species assume a global perspective.
A proper way to tackle such threats as climate change and global pollution should involve a much wider approach than the act itself. The focus should not be on increasing the strength of the act but on enacting other acts and pursuing international agreements that guarantee proper conduct of all countries responsible.
The regulation and the official interpretation of the act play a major role on how the ESA is implemented. The nature of implementation of the ESA is subject to Political pressures that incorporate varied interest.
For example, there is a tendency of Congress to consider high-profile species more than low-profile species and that is reflected in their appropriation of funds for the relevant conservation programs.
The other problem of the ESA of 1973 is the unclear definition of the threshold for recovery. This failure also resulted from political interest and is not reflective of a poor legislation. The act lacks explicit biological benchmarks for determining the degree of recovery necessary. Therefore, actual recovery of a biodiversity is difficult to define.
This omission perhaps is meant to allow the act to be flexible in accommodation the various natures of biodiversity supporting different endangered species.
The appropriate threshold of a the probability of a species survival is completely a political question and attempts to make it biologically optimum from a scientific point of view is futile.
With the current political environment is seems appropriate that a line is drawn to pursue a general objective. This can be to improve significantly the survival probability of species as the general objective while specific objectives are determined based on each case and its uniqueness.
The main opposition of the act comes from industry stakeholders who feel that the jurisdiction of the act in some way curtails their threshold of economic resources that they can exploit.
To have their way, they finance meetings to formulate and push for amendments on the halls of Congress heightening the political pressures facing the act and its implementation. Although, conservationists and other stakeholders are pushing for the strengthening of the act, this push for the allocation of adequate tasks is becoming an uphill task.
The impression created therefore is that of an act weak to support itself that needs strengthening. This view is erroneous and adds to the zeal of those wishing to discredit the act because it gives them further reasons to claim that the act is not functional.
The ESA requires that the habitat of the listed species be protected and does not cater for the protection of the habitats. Therefore, even though private landowners are mandated with the protection in cases where listed species are located within their properties, the legislation does not give the landowners a mechanism to obtain funding to be directed at conservation measures.
The U.S. needs to have more incentives directed at the protection of habitats. Human activity needs to be controlled; however, the control should be implicit to avoid backlashes and more resistance. The most convincing approach to protect habitat through control of human enterprise lies in the provision of incentives.
The ESA is a prohibitive policy and the most comprehensive of all environmental laws. The problem of the act as lies in the allocation of the costs of preserving the biodiversity of listed species. It is true that benefits accrues to the whole nation, however the bulk of the costs are covered by private landowners.
Ninety per cent of the listed plants are found on private land. The main storm surrounding the act is that the political view aims at sustaining the public good of protecting the listed animals while private stakeholders are expressing their dissatisfaction with the high costs of complying with the act.
The enacted of the act left out the economic perspective in 1973, and that has turned out to be a thorn in its implementation (Brown & Shogren, 1998).
Amendments of the act in 1978 recognized the realities of incentives for private economic costs and on the social tradeoffs; however the conflict regarding the magnitude of the tradeoffs has derailed the authorization of the implementation. Congress has become the battleground for tradeoffs with bill to strengthen and bill to weaken the act putting more attention to the needs of business and landowners.
Since listing renders land habiting the listed species unfit for other economic development, landowners are keen to destroy the habitat before any listing happens and this has resulted in the destruction of habitats that the act was supposed to protect (Brown & Shogren, 1998).
Conclusion
The major cause of the failures in the implementation of the ESA is inadequate funding. Congress has continually appropriated inadequate funds towards proper and extensive implementation of the act. The shortcoming of the ESA is in lumping up the importance of all species.
Species with greater economic importance are listed with similar importance as those species with little economic importance. As such, the recovery efforts show little regard for marginal benefits in relation to the costs as well as ecological-economical interactions.
When this problem is viewed in relation to the inadequate funding for the implementation of the act then the reader agrees that even an implicit set up of priorities is impossible with a strengthening of the act.
References
Brown, G., & Shogren. (1998). Economics of endengered species act. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(3), 3-20.
Cunningham, W. P., & Cunningham, M. A. (2007). Principles of Environmental Science (5th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
Easton, T. A. (2009). Taking Sides: Clashing views on Environmental Issues (13 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
OConnell, M. (1992). Response to: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesnt Work and What to Do About It . Conservation Biology, 6(1), 140-143.
Wilcove, D. S., David, R., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998). Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. BioScience, 48(8), 607-615.
The red deer is one of the native wild animals in Ireland. The red deer roamed freely in large numbers across the country during the ancient days. The clearance of forests across Ireland in the 18th century fuelled the decrease of the red deer by an unparalleled margin. However, the numbers increased in the 19th century due to protection measures adopted by the national parks in the country and translocations from other countries. The Irish government and the wildlife service have taken steps to protect this unique species. Hunting has been illegalized in some parts while in others a license is required before any hunting expedition. The red deer spends most of the time feeding and it has the ability of maintaining fat reserves to use during the winter season when there is scarcity of food. However, this species is facing extinction due to a variety of reasons that will be discussed in this essay.
Scientific classification
The scientific name for red deer is Cervus elaphus in Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Artiodactyla, Family Cervidae, Genus Odocoileus, and Species virginianus (McDevitt et al. 266).
Physical description
The red deer as the name suggests has a red coat on the skin. A stag weighs about 190kgs while a mature female deer weighs about 110kgs (Lowe and Gardiner 556). The color of the red deer depends on the season. During the summer season, the deer is reddish brown in color. The red color vanishes during the winter season and it is replaced by a brownish color. Fully-grown stags are 1.5m in height and they are about 2m in length (McDevitt et al. 266).
On the other hand, females are smaller as compared to males with a mature female being 1m in height and 1.5m in length. Both the male and the female deer have a short thick tail. The young calves too are red in color, but they have brown spots on the skin and they weigh about 15kgs (Stokes, ONeill, and McDonald 335). However, the brown spots disappear during the summer, which gives them reddish color. The males have big antlers that distinguish them from their female counterparts. The antlers are shed once in a year and new ones develop. The antlers are used to keep off predators and for personal defense.
Diet
Red deer is herbivorous and it is known to graze all year round (Lowe and Gardiner 556). The animals live in herds depending on the habitat. Red deer form large herds in open country and small groups in woodland areas (Stokes, ONeill, and McDonald 345). They mostly feed on grass, trees, mosses, lichens, and other plantations. The antlers develop during spring and they go away during early spring the following year in preparation for the growth of new ones during the same period. The antlers vary in size depending on the animals health and diet. The red deer feed on twigs, grass, fruits and other vegetation (McDevitt et al. 268). During winter when there is scarcity of food, the red deer will feed on the bark of trees. During this period, the red deer alters its metabolism so that the fat stored can be used by the body, thus reducing food requirement
Social organization and communication
The red deer communicate in different ways by means of sounds, scent, and other body movements (Stokes, ONeill, and McDonald 445). The type of communication used depends on the situation. Calves produce high-pitched sounds in times of danger to attract the attention of their mothers (Lowe and Gardiner 555). The mothers too produce a unique sound while summoning the calves. Communication is most common during the mating season. The stags produce deep-throated roar to send signals to other stags that a certain male controls a given territory (McDevitt et al. 270).
In addition to the roars, the male deer marks its territory with a scented gland that signifies its control over the territory. Therefore, other stags avoid the territory after getting the scent, which leaves the dominant stag to control the marked territory. The roaring also serves the purpose of keeping the herds together. Allegedly, females are attracted to males that produce the sound more often and the louder the roar is, the more the females are attracted (Stokes, ONeill, and McDonald 355). The females too produce a sound during the breeding period before they adapt to a new environment.
The red deer form groups according to age and gender (McDevitt et al. 272). Hinds form their own groups while stags form theirs on the other side and the two groups only meet during mating in October. In most cases, the female herds are composed of 10 females, but in some cases, the herds merge especially in winter when the food is in limited supply. On the other hand, stags form a single group regardless of age. They remain as such all year round until October when the breeding season starts. In rare situations, the stags form temporal groups, but they later merge to form one group.
Mating, reproductive cycle and mortality rate of fawns
The month of October marks the breeding season for the red deer. A female deer is ready for reproduction at the age of 18 months (McDevitt et al. 269). During this period, mature stags meet with mature hinds and in most cases, each stag struggles to form and control a territory. Each stag brings together a group of hinds and endeavors to protect them from other males waiting for the mating season (Lowe and Gardiner 557).
On attaining the required herd, the stag marks a certain territory and controls it to avoid invasion by other stags. In most cases, the group is comprised of 5 sexually fit hinds. Mating occurs in early weeks of October (Stokes, ONeill and McDonald 342). Heat recurs after a period of 21 days in case the female deer does not get pregnant at the first mating. Controlling a territory involves engaging in fights with other stags and the winner of the war controls the territory in question. The fights are dangerous and at times, they result in injuries among the contesting stags. In a bid to hide evidence of birth and keep the fawns secure, the female deer eat the placenta (McDevitt et al. 269).
Pregnancy lasts for 33 weeks and in most cases, females give birth in June. The females leave the rest of the herd and hide during the process of giving birth. The fawns may suckle until the mother gives birth again. The fawns are protected under the watch of their mothers for a period of about 8 months after which they are left to graze on themselves. The survival rate of the fawns is about 90% in normal circumstances (Lowe and Gardiner 553). Female carves usually remain in the areas they were born until maturity while the male calves congregate with other males. At the age of six months, the male deer develops antlers, which are tender and fragile, and thus they can break if not well handled. The young males have no place in the mating due to dominance of old and energetic males that outsmart the former in the fight for territorial control. Research indicates that hinds lives longer as compared to their male counterparts.
Habitat
The red deer are found in the islands of Torc, Cores and Mangerton mountains, and in the Killarney Park located in the lower parts of the country (McDevitt et al. 263). Other flocks are found in the Glendalough dell and Turlough Hill in Co. Wicklow. In addition to the aforementioned areas, wild herds are also found in Glenveagh, Co. Donegal, Connemara, Co Galway and areas of Co Mayo (McDevitt et al. 264). These herds are not indigenous as they were imported from Scotland in the 1990s to help in increasing the population of the red deer.
Threats why are they endangered?
The extinction of the red deer is escalating due to interbreeding between the red deer and other species, which produce completely different species of deer. Sika deer has been identified as one of the species that have posed great threat to the survival of the red deer (Stokes, ONeill, and McDonald 365).
In addition to the interbreeding, red deer is known for its delicious meat. Red deers meat dominated the markets in most parts of the world especially in Europe until new laws were imposed requiring butchers to obtain licenses from the wildlife service in order to sell the meat. This aspect is probably the major reason why the red deer is going to extinction. In addition to its meat, the deer produces antlers, which are used for decoration purposes (McDevitt et al. 266). The two products provide incentives to poachers to hunt and kill the animal in order to enjoy the huge profits earned from their sale.
Recovery program
In a bid to protect the already endangered group of animals, the government has come up with legislation requiring any person hunting the red deer to obtain a license from the wild life service. In Kerry Park, poaching is illegal and anyone caught hunting the animal is subjected to high penalties (Lowe and Gardiner 553). In some game parks, interbreeding of the red deer with other species has been controlled to avoid the impeding replacement of the animal with other species.
Conclusion
The red deer is one of the endangered species in Ireland. The animal is herbivorous and it feeds on grass and other vegetation. It is found in Torc, Cores, and Mangerton mountains. They live in groups according to age and sex. The stags live individually or in isolated groups, but the females form small different groups depending on age. The rain deer extinction is caused by the view that the animal was initially a target of poachers due to its delicious meat and antlers used in arts. Additionally, the red deer has the ability to interbreed with other deer species. This interbreeding results in completely different deer species leading to loss of the original characteristics of the species. However, the Irish government in partnership with the countrys wildlife service has restricted the hunting and sale of the red deers meat in order to protect the animal from the threat of extinction.
Works Cited
Lowe, Pat, and Andrew Gardiner. Hybridization between red deer (Cervus elaphus) and sika deer (Cervus nippon) with particular reference to stocks in NW England. Journal of Zoology 177.4 (1975): 553-566. Print.
McDevitt, Allan, Ceiridwen Edwards, Peter OTooled, Padruig OSullivand, Catherine OReillya, and Ruth Cardene. Genetic structure of, and hybridization between, red (Cervus elaphus) and sika (Cervus nippon) deer in Ireland. Mammalian Biology 74.4 (2009): 263-273. Print.
Stokes, Kate, Kate ONeill, and Robbie McDonald. Invasive species in Ireland, Belfast: Environment and Heritage Service, 2006. Print.
Endangered species are species that have been shortlisted under the International Union for Conservation of Nature as most prone to becoming extinct. Many countries have laws that protect the endangered species but not all animals and birds are protected by these laws. There are laws that forbid hunting, deforestation and ensuring the preservation of these animals. In the United States, there exists data that demonstrates a correlation between the endangered and threatened species with a population of humans. Species are listed as threatened or endangered depending on the risks they face to being declared as completely extinct (Hunter et al. 440).
Some laws that cover the endangered species have been declared controversial in the way they place the species in the lists and the criteria used when removing the animals from the lists. Furthermore, there are animals whose existence is endangered and they have not been listed and thus are not protected under federal law. Listing species under endangered makes them vulnerable to poachers and collectors. Some animals such as the ivory-billed woodpecker are not protected under the law and there are dangers of them becoming extinct (Hunter et al. 442). This paper is focused on an endangered species known as the ivory-billed woodpecker.
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
The ivory-billed woodpecker has been listed among one of the endangered species in America that is not protected by the federal law. It is among the largest woodpeckers with a length of approximately 20 inches and a wingspan of 30 inches. The ivory-billed woodpecker was mostly located in the virgin forests in Southeastern US (Gallagher 18). Nowadays it has become almost impossible to spot the woodpecker in the woods as the habitats have been destroyed through logging and also still due to human activities such as hunting.
These have reduced the number of the ivory-billed woodpeckers in existence and reports suggest that only a few have been spotted. The forests in America have been unable to maintain the existence of the ivory-billed woodpecker. The International Union for Conservation and Nature has reported that the ivory-billed woodpecker is critically endangered and near the possibility of being extinct. It has been listed in the US under the Class 6 species, which means that these birds are probably or definitely extinct (Gallagher 22). The ivory-billed woodpecker is nearing extinction due to lack of proper habitats due to logging and due to hunting by humans who mostly wanted the feathers.
The Southern United States had been covered with large regions of hardwood forests and this made these sites suitable habitats for the ivory-billed woodpecker before the American Civil War (Gallagher 45). After the war had ended, many acres of land were deforested by the timber industry, and this left sparsely isolated regions as probable habitats. The ivory-billed woodpecker is known to feed of beetles and larvae as well as insects, fruits and seeds. The bird is known to live in pairs in its life and they travel together. The pairing animals mate each year and between two and five eggs are laid and incubated within a period of 3 to 5 weeks. The pairs incubate the eggs together at different timings. Due to the heavy logging by timber industries and collectors, the existence of ivory-billed woodpeckers was devastated. In the 1920s, the woodpeckers were considered extinct (Gallagher 50).
Political, Economic and Ecological Elements to Protect the Species
Management plans give a guideline that can be used to achieve a certain goal. In this case, the goal is to protect the existence of the ivory-bill woodpecker by understanding their existence and the best way we can be able to protect this existence. The ivory-bill woodpecker was known to live in thick forests. Due to this fact, it is important to learn how we can be able to replace the forests to be able to lure back the woodpeckers to these habitats. When we consider factors that have contributed to the reduction of ivory-billed woodpeckers, it is important to understand that destruction of the nest trees and trees that act as the food source, it is important to consider a restructuring of these sites (Hunter et al. 448).
It is during the destruction in the forests that roads for logging and the slash fires increased routes for access by trappers, commercial collectors, and hunters and this increased the risk of these woodpeckers being harmed (Jackson 88). The loss of habitats was a cause for their decline but the main reason was the killing of the ivory-billed woodpeckers by humans though they also suffered from diseases. Ivory-billed woodpeckers prefer to live in large trees, vast forest areas, and in dead trees and large branches. There is a possibility that the food used by the woodpeckers can be found in large dead trees and this explains their preferences.
Recovery Plan
To be able to design a management plan for protecting the species, we have to understand the biology and ecology of the ivory-billed woodpeckers. Though there are suggestions that some ivory-billed woodpeckers have been spotted, it has become difficult to locate them. To be able to have a proper management plan, first, we have to be able to locate where the species can be found and confirm their existence (Jackson 92). Once the population has been identified, then we can be able to learn more about their biology and ecology and be able to provide a practicable approach in the way we can protect their habitat given the potential presence. It is important to consider the land protection and habitat management efforts and also focus on learning the location where the ivory-billed species may persist and examine the habitats to be able devise proper conservation actions.
The recovery process can only be fruitful when we are able to locate the birds or their nests. We have to be able to set achievable goals. The main goal of the management plan is to be able to locate, shelter, protect, and hope to increase the population of the ivory-billed species so that they can be down listed from the endangered species to at least the threatened species and thrive hard to remove the species from the federal list (Jackson 105).
The recovery process of the ivory-billed woodpeckers is hindered by us having limited or no knowledge at all in regard to the distribution, population abundance, biology and habitat requirements of these endangered species and thus we are unable to formulate a more definite recovery criteria. It is our responsibility to ensure that we are able to keep the ivory-billed woodpeckers in their preferred habitats. This can be done by being able to plant large trees of their liking and being able to protect these trees from loggers. Laws must be in place to prevent the logging of these trees through hefty fines or even fines.
Stakeholders Involved
Economic support is required to be able to achieve the goals and objectives of the plan. To locate shelter and increase the existence of the ivory-billed species and their habitats, the project has to be financed. There can be individual pledges in achieving the goal, but the main stakeholder in playing this critical role is the federal government. The federal government has the machinery and the finance to oversee the noble course of saving the extinction process of the ivory-billed woodpecker (Jackson 85). Furthermore, in achieving the goals and objectives of the management plan, there have to be laws that protect the existence of these birds. It has to be brought to the attention of all people that human activities that may interfere with the existence of these ivory-billed woodpeckers are highly prohibited. By so doing, the federal government has to enact laws that can protect these birds and those found going against the laws should be held liable.
Government agencies that deal with the wildlife and the forests are also stakeholders that are involved in the management plan. They have to play a role in ensuring they are able to protect the ivory-billed woodpeckers and their habitats respectively. The government agencies should institute programs to oversee the development of proper habitats for the birds. These programs should also include corporate and individual stakeholders or volunteers who would be willing to oversee the protection of the endangered species (Hunter et al. 455).
Consequences of the Plan
By overseeing the completion of the plan to locate, protect and increase the number of the ivory-billed woodpeckers, as a nation, the possibility or increasing the revenue from tourist visits is a possibility. Many tourists have been known to visit different countries in search for the ivory-billed woodpeckers and they have been disappointed to return without a view of them. By being able to provide them with a safe habitat, there is a possibility that the woodpeckers would multiply and due to this they would not be endangered species any more. Though many would oppose the idea of using government revenue and machinery to locate and protect the endangered species, if the plan can be used effectively, then the benefits that would arise from the project would be worthwhile.
Conclusion
In this world, there are lots of endangered species and most of them may become extinct if the federal governments do not put in place strict laws to protect the species. Human activities have been known to be the main cause why many animals and birds have become endangered. These laws have to be directed to humans that harm the habitats and existence of the animals. In so doing, the federal government can be able to monitor its wildlife and attract tourists who bring revenue to the country. There have to be proper conservation strategies in place to be able to protect the habitats of the animals and as humans we have to have proper conscience and learn the biology and ecology of the endangered species to be able to harbor their existence (Hunter et al. 450).
Works Cited
Gallagher, Tim. The grail bird: hot on the trail of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005. Print
Hunter, William C., et al. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29.2 (2001): 440-455. Print
Jackson, Jerome A. In search of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Harper Collins, 2006. Print
Emergence of human activities over the past decades resulted in multiple impacts furthermore contributing to driving these organisms to extinction. Such activities mainly refer to dwindling and loss of habitat of insect assemblages followed by triggering drivers such as degradation and fragmentation which associates with deforestation, agricultural expansion and urbanization (Foley et al., 2005; Dirzo et al., 2014; Habel et al., 2019a). Pollution becomes a key driver for insect extinction through the intensive use of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) as its toxicity and lethal effects greatly impacts insect population and habitat alteration (Brühl and Zaller, 2019).
Insect population faces even greater threat (Hayes and Hansen, 2017) because of undetected effects on insect physiology and behavior posed by bioaccumulation and chronic pressure (Desneux et al., 2007). Use of fertilizers in agriculture also affect insect populations indirectly because of soil acidification and eutrophication on structural habitats. The use of anthelmintic substances (e.g. Ivermectin) has a negative impact on richness of insects concerned with dung composition (Verdu et al., 2018). Economically important insects (such as pollinators and natural enemies of pests) are threatened by chronic exposure to industrial pollutants including air and factories (e.g. heavy metals). Light pollution interferes with insects (e.g. fireflies) which are vulnerable to change in natural light/dark cycles. This desynchronizes natural activities such as feeding, egg-laying, and causes mismatches in mutualistic interactions. Noise pollution changes and interferes the acoustic and auditory surveillance of insects in its environment.
Anthropogenic introduction of new invasive species outside of their natural zone also poses threat to native insects. Vulnerable ones being those with narrow geographical distribution and specialist feeding habits having to face direct predation, competition and vectoring of diseases (Wagner and Van Driesche, 2010). In correlation, with the addition of invasive plants, it reduces the quantity and quality of food leading to the decline in essential resources for many insects due to its monotypic nature (Severns and Warren, 2008; Preston et al., 2012; Havel et al., 2015). Overexploitation are also drivers in insect loss as these organisms are harvested for decoration and medicinal uses. Climate change leads to multifaceted responses greatly affecting shifts in species distribution (Chen et al., 2011) extinction (Dirzo et al., 2014) and unexpectable cumulative effects at different ecosystem levels (Peñuelas et al., 2013).
On top of that, other insects became co-dependent with endangered insects being vulnerable to co-extinction (Dunn et a., 2009). Insect reproduction are even more disrupted due to sudden increase in temperature and defragmentation. An example are insects like the Malaysian firefly (Pteroptyx tener) that needs mangrove and other plants to breed but across the country (Rembau-Linggi estuary), mangrove swamps have been converted to aquaculture farms thus limiting the range of firefly dispersal.
I chose this topic because I feel like this is a very important global issue that is still going on for a long period of time and we should do something about it before it’s too late and we ruin our planet. We may not realize but if many animals are going extinct this year rapidly, it will also affect human life because we will not have much food left to feed our human population of 7.2 billion. I am interested in this topic because without these animals the food chain will be imbalanced and also we will have many negative impacts such as food loss and that will make humans struggle and one day go through extinction.
First, I am going to do this by be doing a secondary research on my research question, and mostly focus on the heavy impacts of the animal’s habitat. To do that, I would need to understand the question clearly and not getting out of topic. I will also research about the effects, solutions that can fix the problem, and the advantages and disadvantages. To conclude, I will be also talking about my opinion about this subject and what I should do if I were the people that are ruining the forest and the animal’s habitat.
Humans can also cause harm of a species through overharvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, overhunting and many more. One of the heaviest impact that harms animals and its habitat is the planet’s human population. Human’s population has doubled in the last 50 years and it isn’t going to stop, it’ll keep increasing every second and the higher the population more animals will be pressured because of the billions of people that need to be fed. Another harmful act that humans are doing right now is deforestation, humans are cutting down too many trees for fuel and for furniture. While this is benefiting many people, many animals in the wild do not have a place to live because their homes are destroyed, and they have to adapt in another environment. Deforestation is damaging Earth’s forests really dreadful, it causes heavy damage to the quality of the land. Forests around the world still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area but if we do not do anything about it, it will get worse until all the forests in the world have been demolished. The world’s rain forests could completely disappear in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation. But it is going to be difficult to fix this problem because forests are cut down for many reasons, but most of them are related to money or to people’s need to provide for their families. The most common people that drive deforestation are farmers. Farmers cut down these trees for a reason, they cut forests to provide more room for planting crops or grazing farm animals. These farmers often clear a few forests to feed their families by cutting down trees and burning them in a process known as “slash and burn” farming.
Deforestation is a really harmful issue to our planet and it has many negative effects on the health of Earth and its surroundings. A really big impact is a loss of millions of species. Seventy percent of Earth’s land animal and plants live in forests, and many of these species will not be able to survive the deforestation that destroys their homes. It will be very depressing for them and they are forced to find another home or else they will suffer and die. Deforestation also drives climate change because forest soils are moist and without protection from sun-blocking tree cover they quickly dry out. Trees are also responsible to help continue the water cycle by returning water vapor back into the atmosphere. Without trees how are humans going to find another way to cover the trees’ role, this will cause forest lands to quickly become deserts. Cutting down trees causes the forest to depose the forest of portions of its canopy which blocks the sun’s rays during the day and holds in heat at night. This is very dangerous and leads to more extreme temperatures swings that can be harmful to plants and animals. Trees also play a very important role in soaking up the pollution that fuel global warming. Fewer forests mean larger amounts of pollution entering the atmosphere and increases the speed and extreme harshness of global warming.
For instance, here in Indonesia, an animal that humans like to prey on is the Sumatran Tiger. They are endangered because their habitat has been cut down and nearly 80% of their forest land has been cut down. The reason why their habitat is being cut down is because their habitat contains palm oil. People use these oils for some of their foods and are being sold in the supermarkets. Another reason why they are endangered is because humans are poaching, killing and hunting them. There aren’t many Sumatran Tiger’s left in the wild in Sumatra, there are only 500-600 Sumatran Tigers left so it is really important to keep these Tigers safe and protect them before we lose them. In 1978 there were 1,000 Sumatran Tigers left and 25 years later the population of the Sumatran Tigers has been cut in half and that just shows that humans do not make an effort to save these tigers a couple years ago. Now we need to help and donate to many charities that can help save the Sumatran Tigers.
The effects of doing these harmful things to the animals and their habitat is that some plants would die out because they depend on animals to spread their seeds and without animals we wouldn’t be able to grow crops. Animals such as worms, insects, arachnids and all sorts of tiny creatures, we depend on them to grow food crops and is really essential for us humans. Plats cannot grow without animals and we wouldn’t have animals to eat because they would die from starvation. If all the species in our planet die, it is very likely that us humans will go extinct as well because we depend on them for our food that keeps us healthy and survive. Animals such as sheep, minks, cows, rabbits, foxes, raccoons, chinchillas, snakes, beavers, seals, bears, dogs and cats provide us with our clothing. Every single species in the world has a role and all of them are important, the size of a species does not matter for nature, the tiniest organism is as important for the ecosystem as the largest mammals. Every species in this planet is balanced to make the ecosystem balanced. If we do not stop doing these harmful things it might also affect our society therefore it should be prevented.
Many advantages that I pinpoint is that people cut down forests because they gain a lot of money from doing it and with that money they can help and spend it on their families to live and also make furniture’s for everybody. Furniture’s are everywhere around the world, everyone has them because they are essential and they help us to keep our home clean and organized. It benefits all of us but we are not benefiting the animals and their homes. The disadvantage of keeping them alive and healthy we instead are destroying their homes and they die due to starvation and they don’t have a place to live. We should really pay attention to that more because animals don’t deserve this, they should have a fair life just like us.
Humans in the future might already be technologically advanced and we can depend in any spare needs for food, recycled oxygen, water and much more. Keeping the natural resources to expand our society is still necessary to make this planet a better place. We should protect all living things in order to make this environment friendly and healthy and we can stop animal extinction by maintaining the environment. We can reduce deforestation by reducing the use of papers. Thousands of people buy books every year and just imagine how much paper has to be produced for a single book. Instead of wasting a lot of paper and causing deforestation for these books, we should be more advanced and buy books online and read it in their devices instead of buying a book that might be thrown away or even left unopen for years after finishing the book.
To conclude, I think that we should pay attention to this global issue more because if we don’t do anything and help our environment and ecosystem, we might have a really big problem ahead of us and it will destroy the next generation of humans and the planet. I hope that this essay will hopefully make people help our environment and to do the right thing.
With Modern-day technology improving every minute it is safe to assume scientists and archaeologists are working together to try and revive extinct species. But should we bring them back? Does it benefit us?
As very intuitive mammals with the ability to grow and evolve each second, it is expected for us to be curious about other species, even deceased ones. De-extinction would allow us to evaluate these life forms. Not only would we learn more about the species we would also be gaining insight into how the world works. In doing so our environment could benefit from bringing back these extinct species. It is possible that when reviving species there is a chance that we could eliminate some of the issues our world is currently encountering restoring balance in biomes.
We have only ever seen species like these in books or on the internet it would be an immense accomplishment for humanity to be able to bring these creatures back and observe them living once again. Not only would we be bringing species back we would also be able to use the technology to preserve future species too.
However, there are concerns regarding de-extinction. For instance, it has been brought to concern that there would be a threat of new diseases that could impact humans. It is thought that when going through the process of de-extinction diseases that were wiped out when the species went extinct could make a return. To me personally, it would make more sense to use the technology we have to preserve the currently endangered species.
Although the idea of bringing back extinct species is exciting it just means whatever animals born from de-extinction will immediately be in captivity. We are not bringing these animals back to benefit the environment or for other animals’ benefits, the harsh reality is we are reviving these species to exploit them for information.
Back in 2009 de-extinction resulted in the successful birth of a Pyrenean Ibex however, the animal died shortly after its birth due to birth defects in its lungs. Once these animals are born, we are responsible for taking care of them if we do not history will just repeat itself and these animals will go extinct again. There is the danger of poaching too, what poacher would not want to be known for killing a previously extinct animal? Currently, extant species that are endangered are under human protection, what is the point of resurrecting more animals for us to have to protect. With the birth of these species, there is a chance we could lose extant species by sacrificing time and recourses to care for the resurrected ones. Is it possible that bringing back these animals could result in more biodiversity loss than gain? Afterall these new species will require a habitat and food to survive which could put current animals in the wild in jeopardy.
In the last 100 years, it is estimated that 500 animals have gone extinct, it is also estimated that since 1970 humans have been the cause of at least 60% of animal populations. Up to 1 million plant and animal species face extinction because of human activities, we are driving animals to extinction while also trying to revive more.
I believe we should focus on extant species and their survival rather than worrying about ones that are currently dead. At this rate, humans will cause mass animal extinction at our benefit. We have few reasons to resurrect these animals other than for our scientific improvement. Not only will de-extinction put current animals at risk, but we are also at risk of disease in which we do not know. Not to mention how expensive de-extinction is and how it could potentially affect our economy to bring back all these different extinct species. It is a learning experience but, it is one as humans we are not ready for at this current period.
In the year 2018, it was recorded that only 11 white lions were left in the wild. This record is shocking because it shows how the white lions are endangered and how mankind should take measures to save these beasts and all kinds of species. On the other hand, this topic is controversial for some believe that this issue must be taken into consideration, while others believe that this issue is useless and that time and money are being wasted. While others claim that the money and effort should only be put on the animals that benefit humans, I believe that we should definitely protect endangered species, primarily for medical purposes, ecological preservation, and the environment.
Animals play a big role in the medical world where they help scientists either test for research or can create medicines. Medicinal drugs are tested on animals like dogs, cats, monkeys, rats, and mice instead of using them on humans to know if it is effective. In addition, animal extracts are used in medicine such as ointments and creams. If some animals vanish, the chance of finding new drugs and cures that humans have not yet discovered will never be possible. For example, the armadillo is one of the few species where the leprosy bacillus grows; through research, a preventative treatment was developed against leprosy in places where leprosy is still prevalent. Furthermore, bats have intrigued scientists with the most important medical breakthrough, which is a longer life span. Proper proteins in long-lived bats explain the longer lifespan and are still searching for ways in the future to aid humans.
In addition, the conservation of endangered species is a must for ecological purposes because they form a part of the ecology. Numerous NGOs are fighting to save some animals to help the ecology remain stable. As Anthony Douglas Williams once said, “One day we will understand the language of animals, and I hope and pray someday they will forgive mankind”. He uses this quote to show that what humans are doing is devastating. Adding up to this, animals bring out nutrients and some decomposition to a cycle like the carbon and nitrogen cycle, and not only that, they help researchers find problems that are happening in the ecology and find the solution instead of using machinery and scientific methods which require time and effort.
And the last reason to preserve endangered species is for the environment. It is a cycle that must continue, and if a part of it is removed, it will cause it to corrupt. Organizations that help the environment note that animals play a big role in sustaining it. A quote written by Margaret Mead says: “We won’t have a society if we destroy the environment”. This is why the extinction of some species will destroy the environment. Our nature is interconnected, if an animal or species is removed, this will disturb nature, and thus can lead to complete changes in the environment and definitely affect other animals. One of the biggest examples is that bees are very important because they are pollinators, they help plants reproduce, and if they go extinct, this can upset the food chain in the animal world.
Extinction is something that would happen with or without the cause of humans, but it shows that it is going at a faster rate now than before, this is why it should be addressed. On the other hand, some people say that it is a waste of money and that millions of dollars are spent each year on species trying to save them from extinction and claim it is useless. This argument should not go through any person’s mind because seeing these animals is almost priceless, and just having the thought of knowing one species of animal that was once alive is now forever gone is unbearable for some. One of the most recent extinction of species is the dodo bird, which once roamed free in the wild, but is now extinct due to overhunting. On average 1.7 billion dollars is spent yearly on endangered animals. It might seem like a huge amount, but saving these animals is critical for the sake of the earth and humanity. In addition, it is a pleasure to see animals as well as interact with them, species that are endangered are no longer around us and will no longer be in the future for us to enjoy. This causes future generations to learn about these animals on the Internet and in books, which is devastating.
Moreover, many consider that saving endangered species is a waste of time and that this time can be used for other things that are considered more important, such as politics or financial issues. But what most people don’t know is that NGOs and not the government are the ones who use this time when special staff and volunteers take care of this issue so the government does not have to interfere, but only on some minor occasions. The advantage to that is NGOs will have their names out, which will help bring more donations, expand the projects, and hopefully fulfill their mission. In recent years, Endangered Species Day was born to raise awareness. On May 3rd, people all around the world are allowed to be aware and what actions to take to protect these endangered species. Costa Rica has an estimated two hundred animals that are listed as endangered species due to poaching, deforestation, illegal exotic pet trade, and many more. KSTR is an organization that on May 17th will offer on Endangered Species Day fifty percent off all tours and will educate and explain to all tours how to save species and show their importance. This is one of the few methods that NGOs can aid endangered species.
In conclusion, this subject should be taken into great consideration and not neglected, even though some consider it unimportant. Animals are a big part of humanity, so endangered species must be protected.
Over the past 50 years, zoos have experienced changes in their modes of operation. The major change is that zoos have shifted from being entities where people go to see wild animals from different parts of the world to conservation centers for endangered species. Most zoos have dedicated their resources to enhance the survival of specific species of animals, and they have reduced the number of other animals within the protection areas (Keulartz, 2015). Zoos have also been instrumental in educating members of the society about the need to protect the endangered species.
Keeping animals in zoos around the world
Conservation efforts are normally faced with economic challenges such as the lack of sufficient space to house the endangered species. Many zoos have also been facing the issue of limited capacity, which entails the lack of space to increase the number of given endangered species; thus, they have to maintain a low number of the animals (Keulartz, 2015). The lack of financial resources is also one of the major issues facing some zoos across the world. Adopting the endangered species requires the zoos to have sufficient funds to meet the needs of the animals and to maintain the facilities.
A species is first listed in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before it can be listed as an endangered species. The species is listed as an endangered species when its numbers decrease significantly in its natural habitat (Buse, 2014). The endangered species face a high risk of extinction; hence, the human intervention must be applied to help in breeding the species to conserve it (Reeve, 2014). The authorities also look into the status of the habitat of the species to determine the availability of resources and the presence of other factors that might endanger the existence of the species.
During the 5 days observation of the rhinos, 45% of the time was spent foraging, 25% resting, 10% of social activity, and the animals stood idle for 20% of the time. This reveals that the normal day of a rhino is associated with a lot of time foraging and resting or staying idle. The animals have a rather slow social life.
After viewing the webcam, it is apparent that the rhinos are not as active as I thought. They are also not as aggressive against each other as I thought. It was quite interesting to see the rhinos live in harmony with each other, and lying down in groups in the afternoons (Rhino yard cam, 2016). Rhinos have a reputation of being highly aggressive, but the rhinos observed through the webcam seemed to be very calm throughout the week (Are rhinoceros dangerous?, 2016). This could be influenced by the fact that there are limited sources of threat to the rhinos in the facility.
Conclusion
Technology has a positive influence on people’s feelings toward wildlife and conservation because it provides a clear insight into the conditions of the parks and zoos as seen in the webcam view of the rhino park. Through technology, zoos and animal parks can positively influence the society to donate toward enhancing the capacity of the facilities in the quest of enhancing the conservation of diversity in wildlife (Kobilinsky, 2016). Technology has facilitated an easier and faster way of spreading information about the endangered species and mobilizing the members of the society to enhance their participation in efforts geared toward conserving the environment to safeguard the future of the endangered species.
Buse, J. (2014). Different Perspective on the Endangered Species Act at 40: Responding to Damien M. Schiff, A. Environs: Envtl. L. & Pol’y J., 38, 145.
Keulartz, J. (2015). Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Web.
Kudzu is a climber with large, compound deciduous leaves. Leaves consist of three wide leaflets, each of which is divided into two or three lobes.
Natural History and Ecology
Kudzu was introduced from Asia in 1876 for fodder and prevention of soil erosion. Kudzu proliferates mainly through rhizomes, runners, and developing vine nodes, expanding as much as a foot per day.
Ecosystem-level Relationships
Due to its rapid growth, Kudzu stifles slower developing plants and bands tree trunks, thereby restricting their growth. It destroys shrubs and trees by breaking or toppling entire plants through the might of its weight.
Impacts of Changing Florida Landscape
Climatically, Florida is ideally suited to Kudzu’s requirements It flourishes in warm climatic zones, where summer temperatures exceed 80°F, winters are temperate, and rainfall is fairly high. It favors areas with ample sunlight and thrives in almost any type of soil.
Management
Kudzu’s extensive root system has to be demolished to ensure permanent eradication. Vines are cut at ground level and reoccurring sprouts are cut monthly. Systemic herbicides are applied to infiltrate the root system. Soil-active herbicides also produce satisfactory results.
Gopher frog
Scientific name
Rana capito (Doubledee 2003)
Conservation Status
Threatened (Florida and Alabama)
Appearance
Rana capito capito (Florida gopher frogs) is between 2.5 and 3.5 inches long. Their colors vary from gray to brown, with darker markings and they always have warts. Males may be identified by yellow markings on their back ridges, maxilla, axilla, and groin. Females have extended snout-vents.
Natural History and Ecology
Gopher frogs breed ponds with vegetation but no fish. Tadpoles hatch between May and July, and mature in about 210 days. They are mainly active at night when they consume insects and other frogs.
Ecosystem-level Relationships
The gopher frog lives commensally with the gopher tortoise. Threats to the gopher tortoise’s habitat have a serious impact on the gopher frog population.
Impacts of Changing Florida Landscape
Fire control has allowed invasive hardwood plants to encroach on the gopher tortoise’s favored wiregrass and softwood plants, driving the tortoises away and endangering gopher frogs. Increased human activity also reduces gopher frog territory. They are also threatened by the introduction of fish. (Miller)
Management
Preservation of habitat of both the gopher frog and gopher tortoise, and controlled burning to simulate natural fires, will have to be applied to save the gopher frog from extinction.
The mountain gorillas are considered one of the rarest mammals in the world, with an estimated population of 380 for those in Virunga and 340 for those in Bwindi. (Fung 1) A German explorer Oscar von Beringia first described mountain gorillas in 1902, but it soon became necessary for a handful of individuals, both local and foreign, to become seriously concerned for the survival of these now-rare Central African mammals. (“Mountain gorillas”) The efforts of American primatologist Dian Fossey to document the plight of the fragile population of mountain gorillas were immortalized in the film “Gorillas in the Mist” and it is believed that she herself was murdered by poachers in 1985. (Flanagan)
This paper will provide an overview of the mountain gorillas found in the protected forests in the tri-country area of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), including the conservation efforts aimed at ensuring their survival as a species.
Some basic information
The mountain gorilla was first identified in 1902, and by 1989 the population had been severely decimated by human activities such as poaching and conversion of forest areas to agricultural use. (“Recent findings on mountain gorillas show hope for species’ survival”)
Central Africa is the only place where mountain gorillas can be found, and the area of concern is confined to about 780 square kilometers of medium altitude (2,500 to 4,000 meters) forests northwest of Rwanda, southwest of Uganda, and east of the DRC. “The two groups of particular focuse are the Bwindi mountain gorillas, so named because they live only in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park found in Uganda, and the Virunga gorillas, found in the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, also in Uganda, Volcano National Park in Rwanda and Virunga National Park in the Southern Sector of the DRC”. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”) As of 2007, the total combined population is placed at 720 animals, with about 20% in habituated groups, or attenuated to tourism, for the benefit of gorilla watchers.
The term “silverback” refers to adult males between 12 to 15 years of age, on account of the silver streak of hair that traverses his back and hips. The average lifespan of a mountain gorilla is 45 years, and females normally start reproducing as early as 10 years old, every three to five years. They carry the developing baby for nine months and care for them for about 3.5 years.
A juvenile is between 3.5 to 6 years, a subadult from 6 to 8 years in which they are non-reproductive. Males reach “blackback” status at age 8 and evolve into a silverback by age 12. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”).
In appearance, adult male mountain gorillas are typically about 350 to 400 lbs while the females reach an adult weight of 215 lbs. They have longer hair than other gorilla species. The standing height of a typical gorilla is between 1.25 and 1.75 meters, with an arm span of 2 to 2.75 meters. (“Gorilla”).
The diet consists mostly of leaves, stems, and the shoots of herbaceous plants, with the occasional fruit and flowers as well larvae, ants, and snails. Gorillas are considered folivores. On occasion, gorillas have been observed to eat their fecal matter, speculated to be an attempt at recycling minerals from the undigested foliage. However, this has not been determined to be the true motive for such behavior. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”).
Silverbacks are not generally territorial, meaning they are not behaviorally programmed to keep the parameters of their territory free from outsiders. Some territories may thus overlap, but they will defend the members of their group, especially juveniles and infants from contact or harm from outsiders, whether gorillas from other groups or humans. The chest-beating, dragging of foliage, and slapping of the ground are actions designed to ward off unwanted attention. It is also used to prevent a female from leaving the group or wandering into neighboring groups. In general, however, silverbacks are not aggressive, leading peaceful lives. They are active during the day and prefer to stay on land, spending a quarter of their time eating, resting at midday, and sleeping in nests prepared from plants that they do not habitually consume.
About twelve distinct vocalizations have been identified. “Hooting” is used to warn off intruders who may be perceived as encroaching onto the group circle. “Belching” may alternately be a contact call as well as a sign of foraging satisfaction. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”).
Virunga gorillas inhabit the contiguous forests, about 375 square kilometers in the area of the national parks of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). While considered genetically of the same subspecies, the Virunga and Bwindi mountain gorillas exhibit morphological and behavioral differences. In terms of geography, the two gorilla populations are separated by 40 square kilometers and have not been observed to interbreed. Some experts consider the possibility that the Bwindi gorillas may warrant a separate classification (Fung 2-3)
Bwindi mountain gorillas are now number 340 as reported by the global conservation organization World Wide Fund (WWF). The 2007 survey, using genetic analysis of feces, means that the population growth is at 12% over the last 10 years, indicating a slow but steady improvement in the population. The Eastern Africa Regional Programme representative is cautiously optimistic, stressing the need for even more conservation efforts to ensure the survival of the species, in light of the perils facing the habituated animals from human activities such as hunting, civil unrest, and conversion of forestry for agricultural purposes.
The gorillas are often unwary, inured by years of being observed by tourists, and are easy targets for harm, as evidenced by the killing of two fully mature male gorillas in Virunga National Park, or silverbacks in the DRC in early 2007. (“Recent findings on mountain gorillas show hope for species’ survival”)
The Bwindi census was conducted between April and June of 2006 using trails, nests, and genetic analyses of feces to identify individual animals. The results show a 6% growth over figures garnered in the 2002 census. The census also revealed that the Bwindi population is expanding to the northern part of the park. (Delaney)
Satellites are also keeping an eye on land cover and other changes in the gorilla habitats that would otherwise be unavailable for study by conservationists and other scientists. NASA’s remote sensing capabilities produce Landsat images for free that shows how humans are inexorably using up the land in the southern sector of Virunga National Park, an unwelcome development in light of the increase in the Virunga gorilla population by 56. The use of satellites eliminates political complications as well as financial constraints associated with aerial surveys. (“Gorillas in the midst of extinction”).
Virunga mountain gorillas typically live in groups ranging from 2 to 20 members and more often than not includes just one fully mature male, referred to as a “silverback” in reference to the silvering of the hairs of the back of a male when full maturity is reached. Males in the wild normally start breeding at the age of 15, although full maturity can occur at eight years of age in males in captivity. This may be due to competition from older, dominant males in the group. Females reach sexual maturity at age seven and a half.
At this stage, most sexually mature male and female gorillas leave the natal group although they remain within the home range, to form new groups, usually a lone male attracting several females. Mountain gorillas prefer specific types of plants, favoring in particular certain bamboo shoots (Arundinaria Alpina). Other plants include leaves of the Galium ruwenzoriense and Peucedanum lingerie stems. In general, Virunga gorillas eat less fruit than Bwindi gorillas. (“Report on the status and conservation of the Mountain Gorilla” 1-2).
Forty percent of the family groups, however, have more than one silverback, a result of some of the juvenile males staying with the natal group when they mature. In the multimale group, the role of the alpha silverback is somewhat modified in terms of reproduction, as will be explained further on. About 3% of mountain gorillas are silverbacks that have yet to form a group or are part of an all-male group. In terms of female dominance in a mixed group, there has been no observed hierarchy. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”).
In eastern mountain gorillas, although the dominant male tends to monopolize reproduction, noninvasive DNA research of wild gorilla groups in Rwanda shows that second-ranking males also contribute to reproduction, approximately 15% in the study groups between 1985 and 1999. It is concluded that rank is the basis for reproductive success rather than age and possibly due in some part to the choice of a female mate. The fertility cycle of female gorillas is approximately 28 days, able to successfully mate for a maximum of three days within the cycle. (“Mountain Gorillas: some social and biological data”) Genetic data also suggest that not all subordinate contributing males are paternally related to the dominant male. This paternity pattern is not reflected in western gorillas, were members of the same age had so far come from the same male. (Bradley et al. 9418-9423).
The ecological value of the mountain gorillas is their role in seed transport, as is true for most great apes. The various subspecies are confined within their specific areas and play a key role in ensuring biodiversity and forest regeneration. As to genetic importance, gorillas are only 3% different in terms of genetic makeup from humans, which impacts the study of human origin. (Fung 8) Gorilla watching tourism is also a major source of income, accounting for approximately US$5 million annually to the DRC, Uganda, and Rwanda. In Bwindi, five out of the 30 gorilla groups are habituated, and plans are underway to increase this to seven to increase income even more. (“Recent findings on mountain gorillas show hope for species’ survival”).
Many jobs have been created from gorilla tourism, including guides, hotel workers, and handicraft makers. Each gorilla watcher pays a US$500 fee to spend an hour gazing at the gorillas. Some part of this income goes back to the village inhabitants in the area, paying for water tanks, health clinics, schools, and new trees. (Anderson and Morgan).
The biggest threat to Virunga mountain gorillas is loss and degradation of their habitat, due mostly to the encroachment of growing human populations in search of subsistence at unsustainable rates. (Fung 7) Moreover, civil unrest in Rwanda has resulted in the arrival of 2 million war refugees in the DRC, settling in the buffer areas and boundaries of the Virunga National Park and increasing the need for wood for fuel to a dangerously high degree. (12) The threat to mountain gorillas is exacerbated by war and political unrest in the area. (Fung 1).
Aside from poaching and habitat degradation and loss, respiratory diseases such as influenza are also a significant contributing factor to the death toll of mountain gorillas. The study carried out by the Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project estimates that about 25% of the deaths occurring within the population are attributed to respiratory distress. In efforts to minimize human contribution, tourists are allowed to observe the animals no nearer than seven yards away and for no more than an hour. (“Respiratory Diseases Kill Mountain Gorillas”) Only 30 tourists a day are allowed to visit the gorillas in Rwanda. (Flanagan).
Conservation efforts
The Karisoke Research Centre in Rwanda was established in 1967 for the preservation of the gorillas in the Parc National des Volcans. Similar programs established later were the Mountain Gorilla Project (1978), and the Virunga Veterinary Centre (1987). (“Gorilla”).
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), better known as the World Conservation Union, includes mountain gorillas in the “critically endangered” category in its Red List of Threatened Species as of 2000. (Fung 1) As of 2007, however, mountain gorillas have been upgraded to the “endangered” (EN) category, which means it is no longer Critically Endangered but faces a very high probability of extinction in the wild. (2007 Red List of Threatened Species) While this is still a matter of concern, the improvement of status has heartened conservationists and has provided the impetus to strive for even better results in the future, somewhat tempered by the various factors that are currently working against them in the area, including civil unrest and the poaching of juveniles as well as the killing of mature gorillas.
The mountain gorilla is also covered under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) as well as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), international treaties designed to protect the species; however, problems of enforcement continue to effectively prevent the loss of habitat for these animals (Fung 1)
The World Heritage Convention (WHC) and the CMS each seek to protect mountain gorillas for different reasons. The WHC designated the Virunga mountain habitat as a World Heritage site while the CMS enables the transboundary cooperation of the three countries connected by the Virunga Mountains in conserving and managing the area, including the native gorillas. (Fung 9-11)
“The International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP), on the other hand, is designed for the conservation of the mountain gorilla habitat in Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC and is supported by international organizations, specifically the Fauna & Flora International, African Wildlife Foundation and the WWF”. (“Recent findings on mountain gorillas show hope for species’ survival”)
International conservation groups have attempted unsuccessfully to reintegrate a young female, rescued from animal traffickers in October 2002, into the wild. She was reintroduced into a gorilla group two months after her rescue but was rejected as an “outsider” which resulted in biting injuries. It is believed the female gorilla’s original group was one of the unhabituated groups in the Rwandan area. (“First attempt made at mountain gorilla reintroduction”)
Recent developments
The taxonomy of the gorilla species has undergone some recent modifications, with the growing inclination of primatologists to classify the western and eastern mountain gorillas, referred to as Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei respectively, as distinct species. Cross River gorillas in Nigeria-Cameroon or Gorilla gorilla diehli and the Western Lowland gorilla or Gorilla gorilla gorilla are considered subspecies of the western mountain gorilla while Eastern lowland gorillas or Gorilla beringei graueri and gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes and the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest or the Gorilla beringei beringei are considered subspecies of the eastern gorillas. (Fung 1-2) It is with the Virunga and Bwindi gorillas, the most populous of the gorillas that most scientific interest and research has focused upon.
The Bwindi gorillas may well be classified as Gorilla beringei Bwindi although further taxonomic research is still needed. (“Report on the status and conservation of the Mountain Gorilla” 1)
There is evidence of a gradual increase in the Virunga gorilla population, rising from a 1989 census of 324 to 380 in October 2003, an average increase of about 1.2% a year. (Fung 2)
With the total mountain gorilla population at about 720, the killing of ten (3 silverbacks, 5 females, and 2 infants) in Virunga National Park in the DRC from January to September 2007 is of serious concern for gorilla conservationists. There are about 72 habituated and about 120 non-habituated gorillas in the DRC. In some cases, the killings are suspected to be the work of traffickers. Two are still missing, both females, one of reproductive age. (“Rare mountain gorillas under threat since 3rd sep due to Congo war”)
Head of non-profit organization WildlifeDirect Dr. Emmanuel de Merode was one of the people present when the slaughtered bodies of four members of the Rugendo gorilla family, three females and one silverback was discovered by rangers in July 2007. Two of the silverbacks found dead in Virunga National Park, one of whom was 18-year-old Karema, were eaten, based on the report of a local farmer ordered by rebels to collect the meat.
The killings are thought to have been carried out by rebel group Rally for Congolese Democracy-Goma led by war criminal Laurent Nkunda. (Owen) The slain gorillas also included a female named “Safari” who had just given birth. The infant remains missing and is presumed dead. The gorillas had all been shot, and Safari had been set on fire postmortem.
The motive for the killings is thought to be as a form of intimidation conservation enforcers who had been trying to prevent the encroachment of the protected prime gorilla habitat to make charcoal. Typically, burning wood found in the protected area makes the charcoal, which is in great demand. The practice is encouraged by protection from businessmen who stand to reap considerable profits, referred to as the “charcoal mafia.” (Anderson and Morgan) United Nations agency Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was prompted by the discovery of the four gorilla killings in Virunga National Park to send a mission to investigate the slayings and take steps to prevent it from occurring again. (“Killings of mountain gorillas in Congo prompt U.N. probe”)
The presence of armed rebel groups has frustrated attempts by rangers to provide continuous protection and surveillance for the 200 mountain gorillas in the DRC. Since the beginning of the civil war in 1996, about 97 rangers have been killed from heavy artillery and bombing by rebels who are after the rifles and ammunition. The rangers were outgunned by the rebel groups and had no choice but to abandon their posts. (Anderson and Morgan)
The killing of the Rugendo silverback could have serious repercussions for the family because the dominant male provides leadership and protection for the group, of which six survive from the original 12. (“Killings of mountain gorillas in Congo prompt U.N. probe”) The loss of the alpha male and the halving of the group’s number may well lead to the breaking up of the habituated group, which could lead to some of the members having no group, especially the juvenile males. Other groups will probably reject the outsider, as happened in the attempted reintegration of a stolen juvenile female discussed earlier. Because gorillas have established social behavior, the loss of group membership is a significant problem for the survivors.
There has been speculation that attacks on the mountain gorillas may be to satisfy the whims of collectors. In 2002, two Virunga adult females were killed and one male gorilla wounded by poachers, the first such incident of its kind since 1985, in the course of stealing a juvenile. Some people have been arrested on suspicion of being gorilla dealers. (Flanagan)
Conclusion
Habituated gorilla groups have become vulnerable to poachers because they have become so used to human contact that they become easy targets, a concern for conservationists fighting to keep the species from extinction. However, tourist income is of considerable importance in funding the costs of keeping the national parks open, which is a dilemma that has plagued conservationists since the 1992 killings. (Flanagan)
Many factors contribute to the risks of extinction for mountain gorillas. Their habitat is restricted to a small area, which is even then being gradually taken over by human populations for agricultural purposes. Even if the population growth rate improves in the future, there may not be enough resources available to sustain their growing numbers in their present area.
Their diet is as specialized as their habitat, preferring varieties that may not be readily available in other areas. Their rate of reproduction is comparatively slow. A female gorilla becomes sexually mature at the age of eight, producing offspring at a rate of one every three years, and with a lifespan of about 50 years. This means that a female will realistically produce at most 12 offspring in 50 years.
In the meantime, a reign of terror has started to decimate the sparse gorilla population with malicious acts of violence by humans either against the gorillas themselves for intimidation or profit, or against the rangers who are tasked to ensure their protection. The civil unrest has led to the increase of the human population in the area as refugees escaping persecution settle in the protected areas of the gorilla habitats, using up resources that are needed for the gorillas to survive. Aside from this, rebels have started killing off gorillas for their meat and poachers to ensure that the charcoal-making business continues to thrive or to satisfy the whims of unscrupulous animal collectors.
With 720 gorillas surviving in the Bwindi and Virunga forests, and a population increase of approximately 1% a year, the mountain gorillas continue to be at considerable risk for extinction given the instability of the political climate in Central Africa, and the continuing failure of international conservation organizations to effectively enforce the treaties designed to protect the species. While it is in the interest of the respective tourist agencies of Rwanda, Uganda, and the DRC to ensure that gorilla tourism continues to bring in foreign income, coordinating efforts for protecting the gorillas remain problematic.
Even if taxonomists succeed in proving that the Bwindi mountain gorillas deserve their own subclassification apart from their Virunga counterparts, there may not be enough of them left to make the distinction an issue apart from an academic point of view, much like the dinosaurs.
Works Cited
“2007 Red List of Threatened Species.” International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2008. Web.
“First attempt made at mountain gorilla reintroduction.” Conservation. Rhino Resource Center. 2008. Web.
“Gorilla.” United Nations Environment Programme. 2007. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2008. Web.
“Gorillas in the midst of extinction.” Looking at Earth. 2005. NASA. Web.
Flanagan, Jane. “Poachers kill rare mountain gorillas in raid for rich collector.” 2002. The WELL. Web.
Fung, Melissa. “A World Heritage Species Case Study: The Virunga Mountain Gorillas.” International Environmental Law Project. 2005. Lewis & Clark College. Web.
McNeilage, Alastair, Robbins, Martha M., Gushanski, Katerina and Kagoda, Edwin. “Mountain Gorilla Census – 2006.” International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Web.
Owen, James. “Mountain gorillas eaten by Congolese rebels.” National Geographic News. 2007. Web.
Walker, Robert. “Mountain gorillas escape poachers.” BBC News. 2004. Web.
