World Primates At Risk: IUCN issues report listing 25 most threatened

The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity is being held right now in India and during the convention the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) issued a report listing the 25 primates most threatened with extinction.  The list included many small monkeys and apes that are found in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America.

Primates like lemurs, langurs and other species of monkeys, along with apes like the mountain gorilla made the list.  These animals are being threatened by the loss of their habitat - tropical jungles being leveled for lumber or agricultural growth - in addition to being hunted for food or for the illegal wildlife trade.

Several species are standing on the brink of extinction, such as the Madagascar's northern sportive lemur, of which there are only 19 left in the wild.  More than half of the world's 633 primate species are at risk of extinction.

"Lemurs are now one of the world's most endangered groups of mammals, after more than three years of political crisis and a lack of effective enforcement in their home country, Madagascar," said Christoph Schwitzer of the Bristol Conservation and Science Foundation.  "A similar crisis is happening in Southeast Asia, where trade in wildlife is bringing many primates very close to extinction."

However, there are some success stories that alter the balance sheet somewhat.  Thanks to conservation efforts, several species - like India's lion-tailed macaque or Madagascar's greater bamboo lemur - have been brought back from the edge and the world has not lost a single primate species to extinction so far this century.  But we are very close to having that happen to some of these threatened species if decisive action is not taken.

So, there is a catastrophe looming, we have made some progress, but there is much more to be done.

However, progress can be painfully slow.  In February of 2010, the IUCN issued a very similar report - listing 25 threatened primates, again primarily in Africa and Southeast Asia.  The small primates, like lemurs, were particularly at risk.  But, as with the current report, there were some bright spots regarding species whose numbers were increasing due to conservation efforts.  The two reports were eerily similar.

It would seem there is a tug of war taking place in the jungles of some of our richest areas in terms of biodiversity.  Loses are being challenged by some gains, keeping the score at a sort of ecological draw.  The question is what will it take to significantly push the score in favor of the primates?  

Source: Huffington Post
Source: IUCN Red List

The Future of Coral Reefs: all but lost or capable of being saved?

Writing this blog over the course of the past few years, I have touched on a variety of environmental issues and challenges facing a variety of ecosystems, many of which are ocean-related.  I must admit, there are times when I find myself writing about one bad situation after another and begin to think, "Well, we're screwed."  My prescription for those moments of cynicism is to write about something positive, fun or even silly.  Change the mood; take a break; put your head in a better place.

I thought of that when I read Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed, A World Without Coral Reefs.  Bradbury is an ecologist with the Australian National University and in his writing he took the position that if coral reefs are threatened with extinction in the next 20-30 years, the three main forces that are threatening the reefs - overfishing, ocean acidification, and pollution - cannot be sufficiently arrested in time to make a noticeable difference within that time frame.  Therefore, coral reefs are doomed.

"It's past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be."

Bradbury examines the three main threats and lists some measures of improvement but contends that such progress, whether real or proposed, is incapable of reducing the effects of overfishing, acidification, and pollution enough to make a measurable difference in the ultimate degradation of the coral reefs.  There just isn't enough time but, contends Bradbury, governments, environmentalists, and scientists won't accept the inevitable and continue to cling to hope.

"But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds needed to cope with the fallout from their collapse. Money isn’t spent to study what to do after the reefs are gone — on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems that are not coral reefs. And money isn’t spent to make the economic structural adjustment that communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We have focused too much on the state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing them."

The following day, another op-ed appeared in the New York Times to try and balance the gloom and doom of Bradbury's position.  In Reefs in the Anthropocene - Zombie Ecology?, Andrew Revkin quoted several marine scientists who, while not disputing the direness of Bradbury's reporting, did make the case that all is not necessarily lost.  Revkin quoted John Bruno, marine ecologist with the North Carolina University at Chapel Hill:

"It is scary, but is it true? I don’t think so. I have been called a pathological optimist, but on the other hand, I’ve watched reefs change radically from the dangerous wild places I experienced as a kid in the Florida Keys, to simplified systems with few corals and fewer predators. And this is in just 30 years. 

We have many examples of places where local threats like fishing and pollution have been reduced or reversed and in some cases like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with great success.  We also have some — though not many — reefs even in the Caribbean that have a lot of healthy coral and are patrolled by sharks, grouper, snapper, barracuda, and other large carnivores.

The challenge for my generation of scientists is to increase the number of these “quasi-pristine” coral reefs (I’d like to see a tenfold increase) and to halt the decline of the other 90 percent of the world’s reefs.  Are this optimistic goals? Sure.  But the science suggests this is doable and I’m far from ready to give up on reefs."

Revkin also received some feedback from renown marine scientists, conservationist, and author, Carl Safina.  Safina recognizes the extant of the problem and concedes that many reef areas will be permanently altered.  But he also recognizes that there is quantifiable progress taking place and that it is not yet time to throw in the towel.

"Bradbury seems to suggest giving up and spending money on ways to replace the values (for example, fish) that coral reefs have provided. But what would giving up look like? Overfishing is old news, and plenty of people are, in fact, spending money trying to raise fish. Some are making money. Overpopulation: also old news and crucial to everything from water supplies to prospects for peace. One doesn’t need to certify future coral reef destruction to realize that overpopulation is bad for human health and dignity, not to mention a catastrophe for wild living systems. These problems have caused the losses to date and they continue. Warming and acidification are also building. 

But to accept that reefs are doomed implies that the best response is to give up hope, thus give up effort. That means we give up on curbing overfishing and allowing rebuilding (yet these two goals are in fact are increasingly working in many places, specifically because people have not given up, and because letting fish recover can work). It means we give up on controlling pollution (in the U.S., the Clean Water Act brought great improvement to rivers so polluted that they actually caught fire multiple times; developing nations deserve to do no less for themselves). It means we give up on population, whose most effective solving strategy is to teach girls to read and write. 

Giving up, while reefs still flourish in many places, means accepting what is unacceptable, and abandoning work on situations that can likely be improved. It means deciding to be hopeless. It means giving up on the reefs, the fishes, and the people, who need all the combined efforts of those who both know the science best—and who, while life exists, won’t give up. 

The science is clear that reefs are in many places degraded and in serious trouble. But no science has, or likely can, determine that reefs and all their associated non-coral creatures are unequivocally, equally and everywhere, completely doomed to total non-existence. In fact, much science suggests they will persist in some lesser form. Bleak prospects have been part of many dramatic turnarounds, and, who knows, life may, as usual—with our best efforts—find a way."

Bradbury's op-ed is a worthwhile read, sobering as it is.  However, so is Andrew Revkin's as his take serves not just as a Pollyanna, all-things-are-rosy response.  There is a thoughtful counter-argument to the idea that coral reefs are beyond salvation.  The biggest challenge may not be in what we do as much as when we get the worldwide determination to do it.  No one argues with the fact that the clock is ticking.

Source: Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed
Source: Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog post

Endangered Elephants: scientists unlock mysteries while numbers decline in Indonesia

Often in this blog, I cite some of the new and unusual things we are learning about life in the ocean. Much of it is literally uncharted territory with new species and biological processes cropping up all the time.

But let's not forget terra firma, too. Take for example an iconic land animal, one that we have observed and studied for many years: the elephant. Even today, the elephant has mysteries that we are still trying to unfold.

A recent study by scientists from Canada's University of Guelph of Asian elephants that reside at Busch Gardens zoological park in Florida, revealed some new information about the pachyderm's ability to retain and dissipate heat. With an animal of this size, many of the biological processes that allow other animals, including man, to function - circulation, breathing, bone structure - often go through some adaptations. To help regulate its body temperature, it is thought that African elephants radiate excess heat through their large ears. However, the Asian elephant has noticeably smaller ears. So, as it builds up heat throughout the course of the day, how can it release that stored heat at day's end? Why through its trunk, of course.

Thermal images taken of the elephants (click here to see them online at BBC Nature) throughout the day and into the evening reveal that the Asian elephant compensates for its smaller ears by concentrating heat in its trunk. In fact, the ears are some of the coolest spots on the elephant's body.

According to study leader Dr Esther Finegan, "As the Asian elephant ears are so much smaller in surface area, they [are] very much less effective [at heat loss] than the larger African elephants' ears. But, why African elephants do not use their trunks - as Asian elephants appear to do - is a wonderful question to which we do not yet know the answer."

So, a new study of an familiar old animal reveals heretofore unknown biological processes. And it also raises questions about pre-existing beliefs scientists held about African elephants. Once again, we continue to learn, we continue to question, we continue to re-learn.

Unfortunately, studying Asian elephants within the confines of zoos like Busch Gardens may someday prove to be the only way we can learn anything about these huge beasts. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the number of Sumatran elephants in the wilds of Indonesia have reached critically low levels and face a greater risk of extinction than ever before.

Pressured by a growing loss of jungle habitat to deforestation, it is estimated that there are only 2,400 to 2,800 Sumatran elephants in the wild - a reduction by 50% from a count taken in 1985. That's a population cut in half in just 25 years.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has now raised the Sumatran elephant's listing from "endangered" to "critically endangered" which puts it on the IUCN's Red List. The Indonesian government has been trying to limit forest development - deforestation has been replacing forest in favor of palm oil plantations - but the government has seen limited success. It is now considering a new approach using financial incentives.

"The government has recently allowed companies to have restoration areas instead of logging concessions for some remaining forest area, so those kind of initiatives can be done by companies where they can also still make profit and at the same time also have the recovery of the endangered species," said a representative of the World Wildlife Fund told Voice of America.

How unfortunate it is that, on the one hand, we are still learning about an animal that has roamed the earth for thousands of years, long before the dawn of man, while at the same time we may be witnessing its extinction in the wild - and that passing will be of our making. Whales, sharks, and other ocean creatures are not the only species at risk.

And we called the elephant Dumbo?

Source: BBC Nature
Source: Voice of America

Manta Rays: decline motivates IUCN to declare rays vulnerable to extinction

Here's a piece of good news for manta rays and all those who love them. David Shiffman (WhySharksMatter) writes in southernfriedscience.com about steps being taken by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) regarding adding manta rays to the IUCN's Red List, listing them as "Vulnerable" to extinction.

Now that may not seem like good news at first, but by making the declaration, it can start the wheels in motion that can lead to international regulations and restrictions. This can lead to preserving the species and preventing any further erosion to their numbers beyond the 30% decline that has been seen in the past few decades.

Threatened Gentle Giants: both species of manta ray added to the IUCN Red List

Manta rays are true gentle giants; though they can grow more than 20 feet wide from wingtip to wingtip, they eat only plankton. Swimming with these animals is a rare thrill for SCUBA divers, and manta-viewing ecotourism is worth over $100 million each year. Like many species of sharks, manta rays grow slowly and reproduce rarely. According to Dr. Nick Dulvy of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group, “ they give birth to an average of one offspring every two years…they are a long-lived species with little capacity to cope with modern fishing methods.” They also migrate across huge distances, regularly crossing between national boundaries and spending much of their time on the high seas, making management difficult.

Although their biology cannot support a large-scale fishery and their behavior makes any fishery inherently difficult to manage, manta rays are very much in demand. At least part of them is: their gill rakers. According to Lucy Harrison, program officer for the IUCN Shark Specialist group, “Increasing demand for these fishes’ filter-feeding system for traditional Chinese medicinal purposes, especially in Hong Kong, is rapidly driving down their population everywhere.”

By some measures, the global population of manta rays has declined by more than 30% in recent decades, with some local populations facing much larger declines. Earlier this week, an IUCN Shark Specialist Group team led by Andrea Marshall has concluded that both species of manta ray (the giant manta Manta birostris and the reef manta Manta alfredi) should be declared Vulnerable* to extinction.

The IUCN Shark Specialist Group recommends that several steps be taken to protect mantas from further population declines. These include creating an international conservation treaty for both species, a CITES listing, and national-level policy changes in countries that fish for mantas. Some of these proposals may benefit from the support of the online conservation community, so please stay tuned! I’ll continue to report on these suggested policies as they moves forward.

---

* “Vulnerable” in the context of an IUCN Red List status should be capitalized, as should other IUCN Red List statuses. For more information on what “Vulnerable” means, please visit the Red List website here.

Western Black Rhino: IUCN declares the African species officially extinct

We've lost one and the world is a lesser place for it.

Today, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declared the Western Black Rhinoceros of Africa officially extinct.

In addition, two other sub-species of rhinos are being considered as most likely gone. The Northern White Rhino of central Africa is considered "possibly extinct" in the wild, and the Javan Rhino is "probably extinct" in Viet Nam (a small population is still holding on in Java, but their numbers are declining).

Rhino populations have suffered for decades due to habitat loss and, in particular, poaching. The demand for rhinoceros horn as a homeopathic cure in Eastern medicine, ranging from cancer cures to an aphrodisiac, has lead poachers to track down rhinos within supposedly protected animal reserves. The same situation is putting tigers and Asian bears at a high level of risk also.

When the population of a particular species gets low enough, several factors come into play that can cause their numbers to rapidly decline, spinning out of control. Lack of sexually mature males and females; bio-dispersion, whereby the population is now so diverse the odds of an encounter between a male and a female become more remote; poor health due to a lack of good mixing of the DNA gene pool - all begin to work against the few remaining animals.

"In the case of both the Western Black Rhino and the Northern White Rhino, the situation could have had very different results if the suggested conservation measures had been implemented," he added. "These measures must be strengthened now, specifically managing habitats in order to improve breeding performance, preventing other rhinos from fading into extinction," said Simon Stuart of the IUCN Species Survival Commission.

But all is not a total loss for one of wild nature's iconic species. Although a quarter of all mammal species are facing extinction, according to the IUCN's Red List, when conservation measures are put in place and effectively managed and enforced, there can be positive results. Case in point: Africa's Southern White Rhino had reached a perilous low of around 100 animals at the end of the 19th century - a victim of both poaching and "great white hunters." But today the Southern White Rhino numbers over 20,000.

In Nature, any extinction is a loss - from a small insect to a massive animal like a rhino. The biological web that ties all species together within an ecosystem makes adjustments for the loss and sometimes those adjustments cascade through several different flora and fauna as it looks for some sort of stability. Whether the changes are subtle or catastrophic, they are changes at the hand of man, changes that nature was never truly prepared to deal with.

When we lose the Western Black Rhino, we lose a little bit of ourselves, of our potential as stewards of the environment.

Source: MSNBC.

Tigers Facing Extinction: November summit holds hope for their future

2010 is the year of the tiger according to the Chinese calendar.

Probably no animal on dry land impresses me more than the tiger. It is a magnificent combination of strength, grace, and color. I can almost understand the allure felt by those who delve in ancient homeopathic medicine; the power of this great animal somehow being transferred to us mere mortals. But it is that very demand which fuels poaching and, combined with encroachment on their natural habitat, has reduced the number of tigers in the wild to a paltry estimated population of 3,200.

I have written about their precarious predicament before and I bring it up again because of one significant ray of hope. In November, a meeting will be held in St. Petersburg, Russia with representatives of 13 nations - primarily those that have wild tigers within their borders - to discuss how to better enforce and protect the remaining population and what can be done in the long term to improve their numbers and ensure their survival.

Over the past century, the number of wild tigers have declined by a staggering 97%. If nothing can be achieved at next month's meeting, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the tiger could become extinct in the wild within 12 years.

"The worse scenario is that the tiger could be gone when the next year of the tiger comes along, in 12 years," said Ola Jennersten, of WWF Sweden.

But another factor that threatens the wild tiger is the demand for tiger products obtained from captive tigers and how the current economy is pushing more captive tiger owners to sell their animals, no questions asked, both of which keep the demand high for wild tigers.

In fact, according to the WWF, there are more captive tigers in the United States alone, than in all of the wild. An estimated 5,000 tigers are held in the U.S. - and, unfortunately, not just in regulated zoos and animal parks, but in private compounds that are far from healthy and humane for the animals.



The WWF is pushing for stricter regulation and better enforcement regarding captive tigers in the U.S. and is conducting a campaign to get Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to attend the November Tiger Summit to ensure that the U.S. plays an active role in preserving and protecting tigers, both wild and those within the nation's borders. Concerned U.S. citizens can visit the WWF website or click here to become part of the campaign.

For the first time in a long time, there could be a reason to feel encouraged. "Despite the gloomy figures, the situation is more hopeful than ever," Jennersten said.

When I was a child, my favorite stuffed animal - my security blanket as it were - was a small tiger. While I would probably be seen as potential prey by a real tiger today, there is that spot in my heart that hopes to give back to the tiger some of the security it once gave me. That's a trade in animals I could live with.

Read about possible tiger extinction in NPR.
Read about captive tigers in the U.S.

Plants At Risk: research catalogs potential extinction threat to one-fifth of all plants

There are several news agencies that are picking up on a recently released study that declares that one-fifth of the world's plants are faced with extinction. Animals or large-scale ecosystems seem to catch the attention of the general public more than plants, perhaps because we can relate to an animated polar bear, a wolf, or a shark better than we can to an orchid. And ecosystems catch our attention because their fate is often wrapped up in global implications.

However, plants, as much as they may be taken for granted or ignored altogether, play a significant role in not only the overall health of the planet but to mankind specifically.

Researchers at England's Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, and the Natural History Museum, along with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have analyzed over 4,000 plant species and determined that 22% should be considered threatened with possible extinction, while another 33% could not have their status determined because so little is known about them. Their research forms an important baseline by which future growth or loss can be measured.

With an estimated 380,000 plant species in the world today, what appears to be the greatest threat is habitat loss - areas of land that are being consumed and redirected towards agriculture. Tropical rain forests seem to be the greatest botanical areas at risk.

Now what might assume that the loss of some obscure orchid or weed is not a big deal; that as long as we have plenty of fruits and vegetables, we will be okay. Not so, according to the research. Many medicines have been first derived or can only be derived from plant extracts, and with the loss of botanical environments that can be a loss of an untold number of future medications. Ironically, developing countries, where much of the tropical forests and plant systems are being wiped out, are one of the main benefactors in plant-derived medicines for conditions ranging from malaria to leukemia.

In addition, focusing on plants that serve the greatest numbers of people as food is a limitation that can have profound effects on the very plants we depend on. It is reported that 80% of the calories consumed by the world come from only 12 different plant species. That can cause a precarious limitation in the DNA gene pool of plants which can have a negative impact on those 12 species we so much depend on. Imagine ridding the world of all animals except for cows, pigs, chickens and a few fish and you can see how precarious our situation would become in maintaining a healthy gene pool of feed animals.

The report on the ongoing botanical research comes in advance of next month's United Nations Biodiversity Conference. The future of plants on earth must be an important component of a more holistic approach towards biodiversity, realizing that every plant or animal plays a role and we must consider the implications when any species, plant or animal, is brought to the level of extinction.

Stephen Hopper, professor and director of the the Royal Botanical Gardens said, "We cannot sit back and watch plant species disappear - plants are the basis of all life on Earth, providing clean air, water, food and fuel. All animal and bird life depends on them and so do we. Every breath we take involves interacting with plants. They're what we all depend on."

Read more about it in the Royal Botanical Gardens' KEW News.

China's Finless Porpoise: dwindling population faces extinction in Yangtze River

China's Yangtze River has been described as the "Asian Amazon" and, as seems to befall many large rivers in growing nations, it has seen its share of perils from urban development, commercial use, and industrial pollution. Unfortunately, many of the river's inhabitants pay the price - including the river's dwindling population of freshwater cetaceans.

The Baiji - a freshwater river dolphin with an unusual, elongated jaw/beak that roamed the Yangtze for tens of thousands of years - was declared extinct in 2007, eliminated from the planet in a matter of a few decades.

And now another rare dolphin species is facing a similar fate. As reported in the BBC Earth News, a new study published in the Marine Biology journal, says that the river's remaining population of finless porpoises are headed for extinction. The finless porpoise (so named because it lacks a dorsal fin) lives in the Yangtze, Yellow Sea, and South China Sea; and according to the study, there are genetic differences between the various populations. This would indicate that there is no co-mingling between the groups and this can add to their inability to withstand adverse changes to one group's environment.

This type of isolation and loss of mixing of the DNA gene pool is also what threatens land animal populations, like some of the wolf packs in the north central United States.

With everything from human waste and industrial chemical pollution, boat traffic, and commercial fishing taking place in the Yangtze River, the rapidly declining freshwater population of the finless porpoise - numbering less than 1,000 when last estimated in 2006 - will not survive without strong action on the part of the Chinese government.

The only hope is for a fundamental change in attitude in China regarding its aquatic natural resources. And there is some evidence of that which could produce results, hopefully before it is all too late.

While a major producer of CO2 emissions and the greatest exporter of seafood of any country, China is also realizing the environmental impact its economic growth is having on itself. The country is making sizable investments in alternative energy and, according to the Seafood Choices operational arm of SeaWeb, China's seafood distributors are beginning to show some interest in sustainability. Seafood Choices is holding seminars with seafood exporters in advance of a Sustainable Seafood Forum to be held in China this November.

Whether all of this will produce changes that will come in time to save the finless porpoise remains questionable at best. It is unfortunate that humans seem to be a reactionary species, responding to a tragedy that might spell a better future for some but leaving victims - like the Biaji and the finless porpoise - as reminders of what we could have done if only for a little foresight.

Read about the finless porpoise in BBC Earth News.
Read about SeaWeb/Seafood Choices progress in China.

Dealing In Endangered Species: slitting our own throats

What you see in the picture above are not wild cats in a cage, but the severed heads or pelts of cheetahs, ocelots and other rare and endangered cats - all confiscated and in storage in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' main storage facility in Colorado. It is a sobering place, a bold reminder of man's greed and perverted sense of dominion over animals - perverted because as we threatened our natural resources, we threaten ourselves.

The worldwide trade in exotic and endangered animals is as important an issue as global warming or pollution/commercial development as to its worldwide impact on species. In 1973, the U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed and two years later the international Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was ratified but while these laws and governing bodies have done much to regulate, enforce, and protect endangered species, the slaughter continues.

And why? Well, the dilemma with many endangered species is that, to the poacher, the value increases as the more endangered it becomes and in impoverished areas where much of the illegal poaching takes place, the temptation to put food on their table is too great.

Terry Grosz, former regional director of enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service explains, "Given the poverty and corruption that exist in other parts of the world, there will always be pressure to resort to the illegal wildlife trade. People have to eat. When people are hungry, this is what they do."

But what supports the market for these products? There is a market based on greed and status. Do we really need a tiger head or a set of white shark jaws above our mantle? Or a stuffed gorilla hand to use as an ashtray? Or how about a caiman, standing on hind legs and holding a silver tray like some reptilian butler? Man's superiority? Only in his capacity for evil.

Another pervasive motivation that drives the market is the cultural history in ancient homeopathic medicine. Rhino horns, tiger penis (freeze-dried for your convenience), black bear gallbladder bile, and many more - all for everything from libido to hangovers and more, and at times more challenging to address than the status souvenir buyer.

But it must be addressed. Scientists have been making estimates of as much 15% to over 30% of the planet's animal and plant species could be bound for extinction by 2050. Naturalist E.O. Wilson says we may be heading to a new epoch - the current Age of Mammals, or Cenozoic Period, would be followed by the Eremozoic Period, a Greek prefix denoting loneliness.

Support organizations that are working towards curtailing the illegal killing and trading of exotic and endangered animals: CITES, WildAid, Center for Biological Diversity, and there's many more. They need your help . . . and so do the plants and animals of Earth.

"Wildlife dies without a sound," says Grosz. "We're the only guys who can give them a voice." Join them.

Thanks to the Los Angeles Times.

Florida's Softshell Turtle: a target for Asian market demand

Along with shark fins for soup and bluefin tuna for sashimi, another aquatic animal that has been impacted by Asian consumer demand is the freshwater softshell turtle. With the boom in Asian economics, the demand for this oriental delicacy (and it's use as a homeopathic medicine) has skyrocketed to the point where populations of softshell turtles in Asian countries including China, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia have all been wiped out.

So, who is meeting this escalating demand? Sunny, fun-filled Miami. That's right, Florida is one of the leading exporters of softshell turtles, shipping them to Los Angeles or San Francisco for export overseas. One Florida seafood dealer alone processes up to 20,000 pounds a week - approximately several thousand turtles.

Federal laws that protect endangered turtle species do not extend to Florida's softshell species and while states like Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Mississippi have prohibited or severely limited harvesting of these turtles, the only regulation in effect in Florida is a temporary 20-turtle-a-day limit. With the number of licensed commercial fisherman in the state that still equals an annual harvest of more than a million turtles.

The battle wages between those who seek to prohibit or limit the commercial catch and the those who support the commercial industry and their need to catch a sufficient number so as to be profitable. Once again, it's the conflict of short term economic goals vs. sensible long term environmental policy. Remember, it's only man that considers the economic impact of limiting the harvesting of a limited natural resource; Nature does not care to hear the economic arguments. It only reacts to what is being imposed upon it.

"They've been around for hundreds of millions of years and have survived climate change and lots of other things," says Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity. "And now we're about to eat them out of existence - in the blink of an eye, biologically speaking."

Updating the Red List: wild mammals in peril

According to the World Conservation Congress, meeting in Barcelona, Spain, up to 25% of all wild mammals are threatened with extinction due primarily to loss of habitat and hunting/poaching. Of that total, up to 33% of all marine mammals are in peril - particularly dolphins which get caught in fishing nets and drown.

The figures released are part of an update of the Red List which lists all threatened species and is maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. You can view the entire list at their web site (click here).

The reasons for this plight of so many animals runs the gamut - from habitat loss for lumber or farming in developing countries to meeting the demand for "luxury" items like chimp and gorilla meat. Whatever the reason, the loss of any animal has an impact on the overall balance and health of the local ecosystem. In fact, biodiversity - having a wide range of species - is a key element to any healthy ecosystem. This has always been one of the cornerstones of the evolutionary process.

A precise accounting of all marine mammal species is complicated by the challenges in locating these animals, compared to land-based species. Says Jan Schipper of Conservation International, "If you don't know where they are or how many there are, then it's hard to determine if they have viable populations or [are] threatened with extinction." That means that the conservative numbers offered by the World Conservation Congress could be much higher. (Read article by Ken Weiss/Los Angeles Times).