ScienceDaily (Oct. 14, 2011) — Industrial chemicals are being transported from the industrialized world to the Arctic via air and sea currents. Here, the cocktail of environmental toxins is absorbed by the sea's food chains, of which the polar bear is the top predator.
The accumulated industrial chemicals cause diseases in the polar bears which do not lead to their immediate deaths. On the other hand, the toxins damage the bones and organs of the polar bears, their immune systems and not least their reproductive systems. However, the harm suffered by the population of polar bears in eastern Greenland is not yet fully understood," says Christian Sonne.
Together with researchers from LIFE -- the Faculty of Life Sciences and Aarhus University, Christian Sonne has undertaken the first meta study of ten years of research conducted up until 2010 into the effects of contaminants on the health of the species. At the same time, he has analysed tissue and bone samples from about 100 east Greenlandic polar bears.
Christian Sonne and his colleagues from LIFE -- the Faculty of Life Sciences have previously conducted controlled experiments on the effects of environmental toxins on Arctic foxes and Greenlandic sled dogs. Both species top the Arctic food chain and are genetically and developmentally closely related to the polar bear.
The experiments showed that the damage seen in the polar bears was also evident in the groups of Arctic foxes and dogs which were fed environmental toxins, but not in the control groups.
The title of Christian Sonne's doctoral thesis is: 'Health effects from long-range transported contaminants in Arctic top predators: An integrated review based on studies of polar bears and relevant model species'.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013121709.htm
Showing posts with label environment issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment issues. Show all posts
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Mining to blame for islands to sink beneath waves
13 May 2011
By Sivaramakrishnan Parameswaran
BBC Tamil Service
Two small islands in South Asia's first marine biosphere reserve have sunk into the sea primarily as a result of coral reef mining, experts say.
The islets were in a group in the Gulf of Mannar, between India and Sri Lanka.
The Indo-Pacific region is considered to contain some of the world's richest marine biological resources.
The group's 21 islands and islets are protected as part of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, covering an area of nearly 560 sq km (216 sq miles).
Fishermen had indiscriminately and illegally mined invaluable coral reefs around the islets of Poomarichan and Villanguchalli for many decades, said S Balaji, chief conservator of forests and wildlife for that region of Tamil Nadu state.
"The absence of any regulations prior to 2002 led to illegal mining of the coral reefs, which came to an end when environmental protection laws were enacted," he told the BBC Tamil Service.
Mr Balaji said rising sea level as a result of global warming was also a factor behind the islands' submergence.
But this was questioned by Simon Holgate from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, UK, who said observations showed that the sea level in the region had been rising slower than the global average.
"I think that global sea level rise had little impact on the disappearance of these islands and it must be due to other reasons, possibly the mining of coral reefs," Dr Holgate told BBC News.
Though these islets were only 3-5m (10-15 ft) above sea level, their submergence sounded an alarm bell about the danger many more small islands faced in the long run, according to Mr Balaji, who is also director of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (GOMBRT).
The Gulf of Mannar was chosen as a biosphere reserve by the Indian government in 1989 because of its biological and ecological uniqueness, and the distinctive socio-economic and cultural profile shaped by its geography.
Most of the 21 islands are uninhabited, and the corals were mined for use as a binding material in the construction industry, as they were rich in calcium carbonate.
Rich biodiversity
The biosphere reserve is a storehouse of about 3,600 species of marine flora and fauna.
Many more wait to be studied, said Deepak Samuel, marine biologist and project associate with the Energy and Environment Unit of the UN Development Programme (UNDP).
"The Gulf of Mannar is a unique reserve with ecosystems like coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass," Mr Samuel said.
"It is a nursery for shell and fin fishes, which means the entire breeding and juvenile raising takes places in these three ecosystems."
More than 300,000 fishermen depend on the Gulf of Mannar for their livelihood. It is also the dwelling place for many endemic species, notably the dugong or "sea cow".
Studies have proved that this gulf is home to 117 species of corals belonging to 37 genera, and 13 out of the 14 species of seagrasses in Indian seas.
The area has also been famous for pearl harvesting for over 2,000 years.
According to marine biologists, a quarter of the 2,000-plus fin fish species in Indian waters are in this gulf, making it one of the region's most diverse fish habitats.
The loss of these two islands should be a "wake-up call" for all those in the entire Asia-Pacific region, said Mr Balaji.
Though the lost islets were small, he cautioned that a similar fate may happen to larger islands in the long run as a result of global warming coupled with large scale mining.
Losing the reefs may result in migration of fish populations to other regions, which would result in loss of the gulf's biodiversity, according to Dr Samuel.
"Lost islets are indicators, and can even be considered as a warning," he said.
With the threat of climate change in years to come, factors such as coral mining will have an accelerating effects on the submergence of many island, he warned.
People in the area have gone on record many times as saying that the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mannar saved them from destruction when the devastating tsunami struck in December 2004.
Experts also point out the need to keep the remaining 19 islands and islets "pristine" in order to offer them some protection them from processes such as climate change.
The Indian National Oceanographic Institute point out that very few of the islands and islets in the gulf are in good shape.
Collection of coral by students for research over many decades, and heavy industrial pollution caused by onshore industries, have inflicted an irreversible damage to the coral reefs in this unique marine biosphere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13383182
By Sivaramakrishnan Parameswaran
BBC Tamil Service
Two small islands in South Asia's first marine biosphere reserve have sunk into the sea primarily as a result of coral reef mining, experts say.
The islets were in a group in the Gulf of Mannar, between India and Sri Lanka.
The Indo-Pacific region is considered to contain some of the world's richest marine biological resources.
The group's 21 islands and islets are protected as part of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, covering an area of nearly 560 sq km (216 sq miles).
Fishermen had indiscriminately and illegally mined invaluable coral reefs around the islets of Poomarichan and Villanguchalli for many decades, said S Balaji, chief conservator of forests and wildlife for that region of Tamil Nadu state.
"The absence of any regulations prior to 2002 led to illegal mining of the coral reefs, which came to an end when environmental protection laws were enacted," he told the BBC Tamil Service.
Mr Balaji said rising sea level as a result of global warming was also a factor behind the islands' submergence.
But this was questioned by Simon Holgate from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, UK, who said observations showed that the sea level in the region had been rising slower than the global average.
"I think that global sea level rise had little impact on the disappearance of these islands and it must be due to other reasons, possibly the mining of coral reefs," Dr Holgate told BBC News.
Though these islets were only 3-5m (10-15 ft) above sea level, their submergence sounded an alarm bell about the danger many more small islands faced in the long run, according to Mr Balaji, who is also director of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust (GOMBRT).
The Gulf of Mannar was chosen as a biosphere reserve by the Indian government in 1989 because of its biological and ecological uniqueness, and the distinctive socio-economic and cultural profile shaped by its geography.
Most of the 21 islands are uninhabited, and the corals were mined for use as a binding material in the construction industry, as they were rich in calcium carbonate.
Rich biodiversity
The biosphere reserve is a storehouse of about 3,600 species of marine flora and fauna.
Many more wait to be studied, said Deepak Samuel, marine biologist and project associate with the Energy and Environment Unit of the UN Development Programme (UNDP).
"The Gulf of Mannar is a unique reserve with ecosystems like coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass," Mr Samuel said.
"It is a nursery for shell and fin fishes, which means the entire breeding and juvenile raising takes places in these three ecosystems."
More than 300,000 fishermen depend on the Gulf of Mannar for their livelihood. It is also the dwelling place for many endemic species, notably the dugong or "sea cow".
Studies have proved that this gulf is home to 117 species of corals belonging to 37 genera, and 13 out of the 14 species of seagrasses in Indian seas.
The area has also been famous for pearl harvesting for over 2,000 years.
According to marine biologists, a quarter of the 2,000-plus fin fish species in Indian waters are in this gulf, making it one of the region's most diverse fish habitats.
The loss of these two islands should be a "wake-up call" for all those in the entire Asia-Pacific region, said Mr Balaji.
Though the lost islets were small, he cautioned that a similar fate may happen to larger islands in the long run as a result of global warming coupled with large scale mining.
Losing the reefs may result in migration of fish populations to other regions, which would result in loss of the gulf's biodiversity, according to Dr Samuel.
"Lost islets are indicators, and can even be considered as a warning," he said.
With the threat of climate change in years to come, factors such as coral mining will have an accelerating effects on the submergence of many island, he warned.
People in the area have gone on record many times as saying that the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mannar saved them from destruction when the devastating tsunami struck in December 2004.
Experts also point out the need to keep the remaining 19 islands and islets "pristine" in order to offer them some protection them from processes such as climate change.
The Indian National Oceanographic Institute point out that very few of the islands and islets in the gulf are in good shape.
Collection of coral by students for research over many decades, and heavy industrial pollution caused by onshore industries, have inflicted an irreversible damage to the coral reefs in this unique marine biosphere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13383182
Thursday, April 21, 2011
BP oil spill: The environmental impact one year on
In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and resulted in 4.9m barrels of oil being discharged, threatening marine life and hundreds of miles of coastline. Yet, one year on, what environmental impact did one of world's largest accidental oil spills have on the region's wildlife and habitats, and has it been as bad as it was feared at the time?
By Mark Kinver Science and environment reporter, BBC News
Scientists have warned that it is too soon to attempt to offer a considered assessment on what impact the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest of its kind, has had on the Gulf of Mexico's wildlife.
Scientists have warned that it is too soon to attempt to offer a considered assessment on what impact the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest of its kind, has had on the Gulf of Mexico's wildlife.
In short, they said, nature did not work in such a way that the full picture will present itself within just one year.
Also, they added, more data needed to be gathered in the months and years ahead to gauge the full extent of the incident, which covered such a vast area.
Dr Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) - one of the federal agencies leading the clean-up operation - said there were reasons to be optimistic.
In an interview with the AP news agency, she said that the health of the Gulf is "much better than people feared", but the jury was out about what the end result would be.
"It's premature to conclude that things are good. There are surprises coming up - we're finding dead baby dolphins," she observed.
Researchers and conservation groups said it was difficult to access information being gathered as part of an investigation by a federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process.
The NRDA is a formal framework in which government agencies look at the damage caused by the spill to natural resources and services - such as fisheries, wetlands, protected species, agricultural land - and calculate how much it would cost to repair the "injuries".
"What we know is very sketchy," said Claude Gascon, chief science officer for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
"We have tried, and many others have tried, and it is almost impossible to get any idea what that group of agencies and researchers are actually finding.
"The simple reason for that is that there is going to be so much potential litigation in terms of settlements etc, " Dr Gascon told BBC News.
"So it is very difficult to know at the moment, the scale of the impact has been and will be in the future.
"All of us, including conservation organisations, professionals and academics, are keenly awaiting whatever the federal process will release into the public domain."
There was also agreement that it was too soon for long-term impacts to manifest themselves, such as disruptions to ecosystems' food chains.
This is why it was important for the data collection currently being carried out by the NRDA to continue, even if there was an out-of-court settlement, said Stan Senner, director of conservation science for Ocean Conservancy.
"It is too soon to draw any conclusions about impacts, especially within the marine environment," he told BBC News. "We certainly cannot gauge long-term effects just 12 months after the spill.
"For example, there were things like the massive use of dispersants, which was unprecedented. And because the well was so far offshore (50 miles), there were undoubtedly many, many impacts that were out of sight and we may never have the capacity to work out what really happened.
"Right now, there are far more questions than answers."
Understanding risks
Referring to the NRDA, Dr Senner said: "If the process runs its full course, it could take several years, may be more, to go through the damage assessment studies, then develop a restoration plan and present a claim for the cost of restoration to the responsible parties."
"All of us, including conservation organisations, professionals and academics, are keenly awaiting whatever the federal process will release into the public domain."
There was also agreement that it was too soon for long-term impacts to manifest themselves, such as disruptions to ecosystems' food chains.
This is why it was important for the data collection currently being carried out by the NRDA to continue, even if there was an out-of-court settlement, said Stan Senner, director of conservation science for Ocean Conservancy.
"It is too soon to draw any conclusions about impacts, especially within the marine environment," he told BBC News. "We certainly cannot gauge long-term effects just 12 months after the spill.
"For example, there were things like the massive use of dispersants, which was unprecedented. And because the well was so far offshore (50 miles), there were undoubtedly many, many impacts that were out of sight and we may never have the capacity to work out what really happened.
"Right now, there are far more questions than answers."
Understanding risks
Referring to the NRDA, Dr Senner said: "If the process runs its full course, it could take several years, may be more, to go through the damage assessment studies, then develop a restoration plan and present a claim for the cost of restoration to the responsible parties."
See more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13123036
(Via Dawn Holloway)
By Mark Kinver Science and environment reporter, BBC News
Scientists have warned that it is too soon to attempt to offer a considered assessment on what impact the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest of its kind, has had on the Gulf of Mexico's wildlife.
Scientists have warned that it is too soon to attempt to offer a considered assessment on what impact the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest of its kind, has had on the Gulf of Mexico's wildlife.
In short, they said, nature did not work in such a way that the full picture will present itself within just one year.
Also, they added, more data needed to be gathered in the months and years ahead to gauge the full extent of the incident, which covered such a vast area.
Dr Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) - one of the federal agencies leading the clean-up operation - said there were reasons to be optimistic.
In an interview with the AP news agency, she said that the health of the Gulf is "much better than people feared", but the jury was out about what the end result would be.
"It's premature to conclude that things are good. There are surprises coming up - we're finding dead baby dolphins," she observed.
Researchers and conservation groups said it was difficult to access information being gathered as part of an investigation by a federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process.
The NRDA is a formal framework in which government agencies look at the damage caused by the spill to natural resources and services - such as fisheries, wetlands, protected species, agricultural land - and calculate how much it would cost to repair the "injuries".
"What we know is very sketchy," said Claude Gascon, chief science officer for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
"We have tried, and many others have tried, and it is almost impossible to get any idea what that group of agencies and researchers are actually finding.
"The simple reason for that is that there is going to be so much potential litigation in terms of settlements etc, " Dr Gascon told BBC News.
"So it is very difficult to know at the moment, the scale of the impact has been and will be in the future.
"All of us, including conservation organisations, professionals and academics, are keenly awaiting whatever the federal process will release into the public domain."
There was also agreement that it was too soon for long-term impacts to manifest themselves, such as disruptions to ecosystems' food chains.
This is why it was important for the data collection currently being carried out by the NRDA to continue, even if there was an out-of-court settlement, said Stan Senner, director of conservation science for Ocean Conservancy.
"It is too soon to draw any conclusions about impacts, especially within the marine environment," he told BBC News. "We certainly cannot gauge long-term effects just 12 months after the spill.
"For example, there were things like the massive use of dispersants, which was unprecedented. And because the well was so far offshore (50 miles), there were undoubtedly many, many impacts that were out of sight and we may never have the capacity to work out what really happened.
"Right now, there are far more questions than answers."
Understanding risks
Referring to the NRDA, Dr Senner said: "If the process runs its full course, it could take several years, may be more, to go through the damage assessment studies, then develop a restoration plan and present a claim for the cost of restoration to the responsible parties."
"All of us, including conservation organisations, professionals and academics, are keenly awaiting whatever the federal process will release into the public domain."
There was also agreement that it was too soon for long-term impacts to manifest themselves, such as disruptions to ecosystems' food chains.
This is why it was important for the data collection currently being carried out by the NRDA to continue, even if there was an out-of-court settlement, said Stan Senner, director of conservation science for Ocean Conservancy.
"It is too soon to draw any conclusions about impacts, especially within the marine environment," he told BBC News. "We certainly cannot gauge long-term effects just 12 months after the spill.
"For example, there were things like the massive use of dispersants, which was unprecedented. And because the well was so far offshore (50 miles), there were undoubtedly many, many impacts that were out of sight and we may never have the capacity to work out what really happened.
"Right now, there are far more questions than answers."
Understanding risks
Referring to the NRDA, Dr Senner said: "If the process runs its full course, it could take several years, may be more, to go through the damage assessment studies, then develop a restoration plan and present a claim for the cost of restoration to the responsible parties."
See more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13123036
(Via Dawn Holloway)
Monday, April 18, 2011
Spelman pledges £110m to revive unhealthy waterways
13 April 2011
Otters and salmon will benefit from a £110m boost in spending on England's lakes, rivers and streams, the government has said.
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the funds would revive "lifeless" bodies of water, allowing wildlife to flourish by tackling invasive weeds.
She also said that ministers wanted people to become more involved in caring for local waterways and streams.
Ralph Underhill, of campaign group Our Rivers, welcomed the announcement.
£92m will be provided over the next four years to combat non-native invasive weeds and clear up pollution.
Redundant dams, weirs and landings in England will also be removed.
The funding will be shared between the Environment Agency, Natural England and charities such as the Association of Rivers Trust.
This boost is earmarked for England alone because funding for waterways is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
An additional £18m will be provided this year to help farmers protect water courses near agricultural land, the government added.
Grass roots
Announcing the move, Mrs Spelman said: "The health of our rivers has come along in leaps and bounds, but we still see nasty invasive weeds and lifeless waters blight blue spaces in cities and across our countryside.
"With this funding, we'll help all our waterways and streams thrive by tackling problems that until now have been sitting in the 'too-hard' basket.
"Our new grass-roots approach to boosting healthier waterways and flourishing wildlife has local experience and knowledge at its heart."
Mr Underhill warned that the funding would not "solve all the problems overnight".
But he hailed the announcement as "fantastic news for our rivers and the wildlife they support".
"Rivers are a national asset and in the current financial climate it is great to see a new investment being made in their future," he added.
Conservation charity WWF-UK said it was delighted by the government's extra funding.
Tom Le Quesne, freshwater policy manager, said: "We recently withdrew legal action against the government which was originally taken because the previous government's 2009 plans for implementation of the Water Framework Directive did not deliver for rivers.
"We hope this funding shows the beginning of a long-term drive to improve the quality of our rivers and helping wildlife thrive."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053394
(Via Dawn Holloway)
Otters and salmon will benefit from a £110m boost in spending on England's lakes, rivers and streams, the government has said.
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the funds would revive "lifeless" bodies of water, allowing wildlife to flourish by tackling invasive weeds.
She also said that ministers wanted people to become more involved in caring for local waterways and streams.
Ralph Underhill, of campaign group Our Rivers, welcomed the announcement.
£92m will be provided over the next four years to combat non-native invasive weeds and clear up pollution.
Redundant dams, weirs and landings in England will also be removed.
The funding will be shared between the Environment Agency, Natural England and charities such as the Association of Rivers Trust.
This boost is earmarked for England alone because funding for waterways is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
An additional £18m will be provided this year to help farmers protect water courses near agricultural land, the government added.
Grass roots
Announcing the move, Mrs Spelman said: "The health of our rivers has come along in leaps and bounds, but we still see nasty invasive weeds and lifeless waters blight blue spaces in cities and across our countryside.
"With this funding, we'll help all our waterways and streams thrive by tackling problems that until now have been sitting in the 'too-hard' basket.
"Our new grass-roots approach to boosting healthier waterways and flourishing wildlife has local experience and knowledge at its heart."
Mr Underhill warned that the funding would not "solve all the problems overnight".
But he hailed the announcement as "fantastic news for our rivers and the wildlife they support".
"Rivers are a national asset and in the current financial climate it is great to see a new investment being made in their future," he added.
Conservation charity WWF-UK said it was delighted by the government's extra funding.
Tom Le Quesne, freshwater policy manager, said: "We recently withdrew legal action against the government which was originally taken because the previous government's 2009 plans for implementation of the Water Framework Directive did not deliver for rivers.
"We hope this funding shows the beginning of a long-term drive to improve the quality of our rivers and helping wildlife thrive."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13053394
(Via Dawn Holloway)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Llamas move fish to cooler waters in Lake District
12 April 2011
A rare species of fish has been moved to higher ground to try to protect it from rising water temperatures.
Llamas were used to transport the endangered vendace 500m up mountain paths to a tarn in the Lake District.
Vendace, the UK's rarest freshwater fish, normally live in a lake environment.
But the Environment Agency said the species needed to be protected from the warming effects of climate change and its impact on rivers and lakes.
This project aims to establish a vendace "refuge".
Derwentwater, Cumbria, is now thought to be the only site in England and Wales where the fish exist.
The Environment Agency said the 25,000 fish were transported by llamas because the mountain paths were inaccessible by car, and it helped reduce the carbon footprint.
The llamas, from local charity Llama Karma Kafe, transported the newly hatched fish to Sprinkling Tarn, near Seathwaite Fell.
Fisheries officers on foot then helped transfer the fish to the cool waters of the tarn.
Andy Gowans, Fisheries Technical Specialist for the Environment Agency, said: "By introducing these vendace into Sprinkling Tarn, where water temperatures will be lower, it will provide an additional element of safeguarding for this endangered species.
"The fish will be closely monitored, in the hope that a self-sustaining population will be established."
Environment Agency Chairman, Lord Chris Smith, said: "Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge facing the world today.
"In addition to the anticipated warming of lakes and rivers, we may also see an increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and heatwaves.
"All of these could have an impact on much of the native wildlife in England, especially aquatic species such as the rare and specialised vendace, so we are taking action now to conserve the existing populations."
The Environment Agency said it was also keeping a close eye on species such as salmon and trout, which were particularly vulnerable to increasing temperatures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13042511
(Via Dawn Holloway)
A rare species of fish has been moved to higher ground to try to protect it from rising water temperatures.
Llamas were used to transport the endangered vendace 500m up mountain paths to a tarn in the Lake District.
Vendace, the UK's rarest freshwater fish, normally live in a lake environment.
But the Environment Agency said the species needed to be protected from the warming effects of climate change and its impact on rivers and lakes.
This project aims to establish a vendace "refuge".
Derwentwater, Cumbria, is now thought to be the only site in England and Wales where the fish exist.
The Environment Agency said the 25,000 fish were transported by llamas because the mountain paths were inaccessible by car, and it helped reduce the carbon footprint.
The llamas, from local charity Llama Karma Kafe, transported the newly hatched fish to Sprinkling Tarn, near Seathwaite Fell.
Fisheries officers on foot then helped transfer the fish to the cool waters of the tarn.
Andy Gowans, Fisheries Technical Specialist for the Environment Agency, said: "By introducing these vendace into Sprinkling Tarn, where water temperatures will be lower, it will provide an additional element of safeguarding for this endangered species.
"The fish will be closely monitored, in the hope that a self-sustaining population will be established."
Environment Agency Chairman, Lord Chris Smith, said: "Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge facing the world today.
"In addition to the anticipated warming of lakes and rivers, we may also see an increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and heatwaves.
"All of these could have an impact on much of the native wildlife in England, especially aquatic species such as the rare and specialised vendace, so we are taking action now to conserve the existing populations."
The Environment Agency said it was also keeping a close eye on species such as salmon and trout, which were particularly vulnerable to increasing temperatures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13042511
(Via Dawn Holloway)
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Australia urged to help halt Mekong dam
Ron Corben
March 10, 2011
Environmental groups want Australia's help to halt a $3.5 billion hydro-electricity power project on the Mekong River which has pitted our South-East Asian neighbours against each other.
Thailand and Laos want to press ahead with the Xayaburi Dam project, but Australia - through the Mekong River Commission (MRC) - has backed concerns by Vietnam and Cambodia over project.
The Xayaburi Dam in Laos is the first of 11 proposed hydropower developments on the lower Mekong River.
Concerns have been raised about the dam's impact on the biodiversity of the river and the 40 million people who depend on it for their livelihoods.
The United States has already called for development to be deferred for 10 years to allow further environmental impact studies to be carried out.
Environmental groups in Australia have also pressed Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd to back calls for a stay on hydro-power development along the river.
Ame Trandem, a representative for environmental group International Rivers, says Australia needs to step up pressure on the commission given fears of the wider impact hydropower dams will have on the Mekong River.
"Australia should be applying more pressure on the Mekong River Commission to make sure that the four countries take a precautionary approach to the dams and that they are fully informed and aware of the impact the dams will cause," Ms Trandem said.
A decision on the project by the commission could come as early as March 22.
The Laos-based MRC is internationally donor sponsored, with Australia a key contributor.
The MRC advises the four countries - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam - over the direction of development on the Mekong River.
Laos, in official statements, says it sees no reason for delaying the Xayaburi Dam, having met all legal, environmental and social measures.
In 2007, Laos signed a memorandum of understanding to sell 95 per cent of the electricity produced by the Xayaburi project to Thailand.
Financing and construction for the $3.5 billion development is also set to come from Thai banks and construction companies.
University of New South Wales political analyst, Carl Thayer, says Australia faces difficult diplomatic times given Thailand and Laos' ambition to press on with the Xayaburi hydro-power development.
"Vietnam's got Australia's ears," Mr Thayer said.
"Laos needs the money from selling electricity. All northeast Thailand and Vietnam are importers of electricity from Laos - it cuts the other way," he said.
"By Australia and environmentalists raising it, it is because the scientific evidence isn't clear enough. And be careful what you wish for because it could do irrevocable damage for downstream states," he told AAP.
"There's no win-win situation for Australia because each country (has its) own national interest in getting... the water and using its flow."
The 4900-kilometre Mekong River starts in the Tibetan Plateau, running through southern China, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia and onto the Vietnam's delta region to the South China Sea.
China has gone ahead with programs to dam the upper Mekong, while the Xayaburi Dam is the first planned construction on the lower Mekong's mainstream.
Climatologist Anond Snidvongs from Chulalongkorn University says dams will impact the region's agriculture.
"Dams are definitely going to affect the biodiversity, that's one thing. It's very clear and very well proven," he said.
Of key concern is the impact on fisheries on Cambodia's Ton Le Sap Lake and Vietnam's delta, both vital sources of food and income for millions of people on the Lower Mekong.
"Fish in the Mekong, they are both food and also economics. About one third of the economy of Cambodia at the moment relies on the exporting of fish (from the lake) to other countries, especially Thailand," Mr Anond said.
In Vietnam, a deputy minister of natural resources and environment warned the Xayaburi Dam would greatly affect Vietnam's agricultural production and aquaculture.
Reduced fresh water flows into the Mekong Delta in Vietnam would lead to greater saltwater intrusion into agricultural soils damaging rice output from the delta - the rice bowl of the country.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/australia-urged-to-help-halt-mekong-dam-20110310-1bp03.html
March 10, 2011
Environmental groups want Australia's help to halt a $3.5 billion hydro-electricity power project on the Mekong River which has pitted our South-East Asian neighbours against each other.
Thailand and Laos want to press ahead with the Xayaburi Dam project, but Australia - through the Mekong River Commission (MRC) - has backed concerns by Vietnam and Cambodia over project.
The Xayaburi Dam in Laos is the first of 11 proposed hydropower developments on the lower Mekong River.
Concerns have been raised about the dam's impact on the biodiversity of the river and the 40 million people who depend on it for their livelihoods.
The United States has already called for development to be deferred for 10 years to allow further environmental impact studies to be carried out.
Environmental groups in Australia have also pressed Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd to back calls for a stay on hydro-power development along the river.
Ame Trandem, a representative for environmental group International Rivers, says Australia needs to step up pressure on the commission given fears of the wider impact hydropower dams will have on the Mekong River.
"Australia should be applying more pressure on the Mekong River Commission to make sure that the four countries take a precautionary approach to the dams and that they are fully informed and aware of the impact the dams will cause," Ms Trandem said.
A decision on the project by the commission could come as early as March 22.
The Laos-based MRC is internationally donor sponsored, with Australia a key contributor.
The MRC advises the four countries - Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam - over the direction of development on the Mekong River.
Laos, in official statements, says it sees no reason for delaying the Xayaburi Dam, having met all legal, environmental and social measures.
In 2007, Laos signed a memorandum of understanding to sell 95 per cent of the electricity produced by the Xayaburi project to Thailand.
Financing and construction for the $3.5 billion development is also set to come from Thai banks and construction companies.
University of New South Wales political analyst, Carl Thayer, says Australia faces difficult diplomatic times given Thailand and Laos' ambition to press on with the Xayaburi hydro-power development.
"Vietnam's got Australia's ears," Mr Thayer said.
"Laos needs the money from selling electricity. All northeast Thailand and Vietnam are importers of electricity from Laos - it cuts the other way," he said.
"By Australia and environmentalists raising it, it is because the scientific evidence isn't clear enough. And be careful what you wish for because it could do irrevocable damage for downstream states," he told AAP.
"There's no win-win situation for Australia because each country (has its) own national interest in getting... the water and using its flow."
The 4900-kilometre Mekong River starts in the Tibetan Plateau, running through southern China, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia and onto the Vietnam's delta region to the South China Sea.
China has gone ahead with programs to dam the upper Mekong, while the Xayaburi Dam is the first planned construction on the lower Mekong's mainstream.
Climatologist Anond Snidvongs from Chulalongkorn University says dams will impact the region's agriculture.
"Dams are definitely going to affect the biodiversity, that's one thing. It's very clear and very well proven," he said.
Of key concern is the impact on fisheries on Cambodia's Ton Le Sap Lake and Vietnam's delta, both vital sources of food and income for millions of people on the Lower Mekong.
"Fish in the Mekong, they are both food and also economics. About one third of the economy of Cambodia at the moment relies on the exporting of fish (from the lake) to other countries, especially Thailand," Mr Anond said.
In Vietnam, a deputy minister of natural resources and environment warned the Xayaburi Dam would greatly affect Vietnam's agricultural production and aquaculture.
Reduced fresh water flows into the Mekong Delta in Vietnam would lead to greater saltwater intrusion into agricultural soils damaging rice output from the delta - the rice bowl of the country.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/australia-urged-to-help-halt-mekong-dam-20110310-1bp03.html
Push to Build Dams Sparks New Warnings Over Mekong River's Future
March 04, 2011
Ron Corben | Bangkok
Governments along the Mekong River are nearing a decision on plans to build a hydropower dam in Laos. Environmentalists fear that a planned series of dams will damage the environment, and the livelihoods of the people living along the Mekong.
In northern Laos, the government plans to build the Xayaburi hydropower dam, capable of generating 1,260 megawatts of electricity – on the main stream of the lower Mekong River.
It is the first of 12 dams planned for the Mekong. The Southeast Asian governments involved say the dams will be a clean source of energy for a rapidly developing region and will help cut poverty.
The $3.5 billion Xayaburi project is being built in cooperation with Thailand, which will buy almost all of the electricity it generates.
It is the first project requiring approval by the four governments along the lower Mekong – Laos, Thailand Cambodia and Vietnam – under a consultative process overseen by the Mekong River Commission.
The governments could present their decision later this month.
Under a 1995 agreement the four countries are to cooperate to ensure sustainable development along the 4,900-kilometer Mekong system.
Environmentalists say the consultations have not been transparent and that plans for the dams have not had adequate local debate or study.
Ame Trandem is with the environmental group International Rivers. She says the governments have not reached a point where they can make informed decisions.
"This is why it recommended deferring the decisions for the next 10 years,” Trandem said. “And we feel the Xayaburi consultation process right now should be halted in order to allow that 10 year deferment so people can understand the Mekong River better."
The Mekong River Commission, which is funded by countries that include Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and the United States, recommends that the Xayaburi project be deferred. The commission says more work is needed to assess the effect of having 12 hydropower dams.
But the Lao government says it sees no reason for delay, and that the government has met all legal, environmental and social requirements.
Climatologist Anond Snidvongs at Thailand’s Chulalongorn University says while dams regulate water flows, they can harm biodiversity and the economy.
"It’s very clear and very well proven. Fish in the Mekong, they are both food and also economics,” Trandem said. “About one-third of the economy of Cambodia at the moment relies on the exporting those fish to other countries, especially Thailand."
Environmentalists such as International River’s Trandem say millions of people will be affected.
"When we look into the future if these dams are built the future is going to be very grim,” Trandem added. “People will be poor because they have lost their main source of income - fisheries - people will also not have enough food to eat. This is a huge worry."
Environmentalists are pressing the four Mekong governments to stall the Xayaburi program to further assess the long-term implications for both the Mekong River and its people.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/environment/Push-to-build-dams-sparks-new-warnings-over-Mekong-Rivers-Future-117396313.html
Ron Corben | Bangkok
Governments along the Mekong River are nearing a decision on plans to build a hydropower dam in Laos. Environmentalists fear that a planned series of dams will damage the environment, and the livelihoods of the people living along the Mekong.
In northern Laos, the government plans to build the Xayaburi hydropower dam, capable of generating 1,260 megawatts of electricity – on the main stream of the lower Mekong River.
It is the first of 12 dams planned for the Mekong. The Southeast Asian governments involved say the dams will be a clean source of energy for a rapidly developing region and will help cut poverty.
The $3.5 billion Xayaburi project is being built in cooperation with Thailand, which will buy almost all of the electricity it generates.
It is the first project requiring approval by the four governments along the lower Mekong – Laos, Thailand Cambodia and Vietnam – under a consultative process overseen by the Mekong River Commission.
The governments could present their decision later this month.
Under a 1995 agreement the four countries are to cooperate to ensure sustainable development along the 4,900-kilometer Mekong system.
Environmentalists say the consultations have not been transparent and that plans for the dams have not had adequate local debate or study.
Ame Trandem is with the environmental group International Rivers. She says the governments have not reached a point where they can make informed decisions.
"This is why it recommended deferring the decisions for the next 10 years,” Trandem said. “And we feel the Xayaburi consultation process right now should be halted in order to allow that 10 year deferment so people can understand the Mekong River better."
The Mekong River Commission, which is funded by countries that include Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and the United States, recommends that the Xayaburi project be deferred. The commission says more work is needed to assess the effect of having 12 hydropower dams.
But the Lao government says it sees no reason for delay, and that the government has met all legal, environmental and social requirements.
Climatologist Anond Snidvongs at Thailand’s Chulalongorn University says while dams regulate water flows, they can harm biodiversity and the economy.
"It’s very clear and very well proven. Fish in the Mekong, they are both food and also economics,” Trandem said. “About one-third of the economy of Cambodia at the moment relies on the exporting those fish to other countries, especially Thailand."
Environmentalists such as International River’s Trandem say millions of people will be affected.
"When we look into the future if these dams are built the future is going to be very grim,” Trandem added. “People will be poor because they have lost their main source of income - fisheries - people will also not have enough food to eat. This is a huge worry."
Environmentalists are pressing the four Mekong governments to stall the Xayaburi program to further assess the long-term implications for both the Mekong River and its people.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/environment/Push-to-build-dams-sparks-new-warnings-over-Mekong-Rivers-Future-117396313.html
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Humans causing mass extinction of Earth's species
March 2, 2011
The good news is that so far, a study finds, the total loss is not devastating
(Livescience.com)
Are humans causing a mass extinction on the magnitude of the one that killed the dinosaurs?
The answer is yes, according to a new analysis -- but we still have some time to stop it.
Mass extinctions include events in which 75 percent of the species on Earth disappear within a geologically short time period, usually on the order of a few hundred thousand to a couple million years. It's happened only five times before in the past 540 million years of multicellular life on Earth. (The last great extinction occurred 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out.) At current rates of extinction, the study found, Earth will enter its sixth mass extinction within the next 300 to 2,000 years.
"It's bittersweet, because we're showing that we have this crisis," study co-author Elizabeth Ferrer, a graduate student in biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told LiveScience. "But we still have time to fix this."
Others aren't so optimistic that humans will actually do anything to stop the looming disaster, saying that politics is successfully working against saving species and the planet.
The 6th extinction
>Species go extinct all the time, said Anthony Barnosky, the curator of the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley and another co-author of the paper, which appears in today's (March 2) issue of the journal Nature. But new species also evolve constantly, meaning that biodiversity usually stays constant. Mass extinctions happen when that balance goes out of whack. Suddenly, extinctions far outpace the genesis of new species, and the old rules for species survival go out the window.
"If the fossil record tells us one thing, it's that when we kick over into a mass extinction regime, results are extreme, they're irreversible and they're unpredictable," David Jablonski, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience. "Factors that promote success and survival during normal times seem to melt away."
Everyone knows that we now lose many species a year, Barnosky said. "The question is, 'Is the pace of extinction we're seeing today over these short time intervals usual or unusual?'"
Answering the question requires stitching together two types of data: that from the fossil record and that collected by conservation biologists in the modern era. They don't always match up well. For example, Barnosky said, fossils tell us lots about the history of clams, snails and other invertebrates. But in the modern world, biologists have only assessed the extinction risk for 3 percent of known species of such invertebrates. That makes comparisons tough.
The fossil record also presents a blurrier history than today's yearly records of species counts. Sparse examples of a species may be distributed across millions of years of fossil history, the researchers wrote, while modern surveys provide dense samples over short periods of time. And even the best source of modern data -- the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of threatened and endangered species -- has cataloged the conservation status of less than 2.7 percent of the 1.9 million named species out there.
Coming crisis
The researchers worked to combine these two sources of data, Ferrer said, taking a conservative approach to filling in gaps and estimating future directions. They found that the overall rate of extinction is, in fact, between three to 80 times higher than non-mass extinction rates. Most likely, species are going extinct three to 12 times faster than would be expected if there were no crisis, Ferrer said.
That gives Earth between three and 22 centuries to reach the point of mass extinction if nothing is done to stop the problem. (The wide range is a factor of the uncertainty in the data and different rates of extinction found in various species.) The good news, Barnosky said, is that the total loss so far is not devastating. In the last 200 years, the researchers found, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct.
The strongest evidence for comparison between modern and ancient times comes from vertebrate animals, Barnosky said, which means there is still work to do collecting better data for more robust comparisons with better invertebrate data. But, he said, the research "shows absolutely without a doubt that we do have this major problem."
Back from the brink?
The culprits for the biodiversity loss include climate change, habitat loss, pollution and overfishing, the researchers wrote.
"Most of the mechanisms that are occurring today, most of them are caused by us," Ferrer said.
So can we fix it? Yes, there's time to cut dependence on fossil fuels, alleviate climate change and commit to conservation of habitat, the study scientists say. The more pressing question is, will we?
Barnosky and Ferrer both say they're optimistic that people will pull together to solve the problem once they understand the magnitude of the looming disaster. Jablonski puts himself into the "guardedly optimistic category."
"I think a lot of the problems probably have a lot more to do with politics than with science," Jablonski said.
That's where Paul Ehrlich, the president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University and author of "The Population Bomb" (Sierra Club-Ballantine, 1968), sees little hope.
"Everything we're doing in Washington [D.C.] today is working in the wrong direction," Ehrlich, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience. "There isn't a single powerful person in the world who is really talking about what the situation is ... It's hard to be cheery when you don't see the slightest sign of any real attention being paid."
Other researchers take an upbeat view.
"If we have a business-as-usual scenario, it is pretty grim, but it isn't yet written," Stuart Pimm, a professor of conservation ecology at Duke University who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience in a phone interview from Chile, where he was doing fieldwork.
In 2010, Pimm said, the United Nations declared the International Year of Biodiversity. According to a UN statement, the 193 countries involved agreed to protect 17 percent of Earth's terrestrial ecosystems and 10 percent of marine and coastal areas. Some types of ecosystems still lag behind, Pimm said, but there is reason for hope.
"I hope that this will alert people to the fact that we are living in geologically unprecedented times," Pimm said. "Only five times in Earth's history has life been as threatened as it is now."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/scitech/main20038438.shtml
The good news is that so far, a study finds, the total loss is not devastating
(Livescience.com)
Are humans causing a mass extinction on the magnitude of the one that killed the dinosaurs?
The answer is yes, according to a new analysis -- but we still have some time to stop it.
Mass extinctions include events in which 75 percent of the species on Earth disappear within a geologically short time period, usually on the order of a few hundred thousand to a couple million years. It's happened only five times before in the past 540 million years of multicellular life on Earth. (The last great extinction occurred 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out.) At current rates of extinction, the study found, Earth will enter its sixth mass extinction within the next 300 to 2,000 years.
"It's bittersweet, because we're showing that we have this crisis," study co-author Elizabeth Ferrer, a graduate student in biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told LiveScience. "But we still have time to fix this."
Others aren't so optimistic that humans will actually do anything to stop the looming disaster, saying that politics is successfully working against saving species and the planet.
The 6th extinction
>Species go extinct all the time, said Anthony Barnosky, the curator of the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley and another co-author of the paper, which appears in today's (March 2) issue of the journal Nature. But new species also evolve constantly, meaning that biodiversity usually stays constant. Mass extinctions happen when that balance goes out of whack. Suddenly, extinctions far outpace the genesis of new species, and the old rules for species survival go out the window.
"If the fossil record tells us one thing, it's that when we kick over into a mass extinction regime, results are extreme, they're irreversible and they're unpredictable," David Jablonski, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience. "Factors that promote success and survival during normal times seem to melt away."
Everyone knows that we now lose many species a year, Barnosky said. "The question is, 'Is the pace of extinction we're seeing today over these short time intervals usual or unusual?'"
Answering the question requires stitching together two types of data: that from the fossil record and that collected by conservation biologists in the modern era. They don't always match up well. For example, Barnosky said, fossils tell us lots about the history of clams, snails and other invertebrates. But in the modern world, biologists have only assessed the extinction risk for 3 percent of known species of such invertebrates. That makes comparisons tough.
The fossil record also presents a blurrier history than today's yearly records of species counts. Sparse examples of a species may be distributed across millions of years of fossil history, the researchers wrote, while modern surveys provide dense samples over short periods of time. And even the best source of modern data -- the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of threatened and endangered species -- has cataloged the conservation status of less than 2.7 percent of the 1.9 million named species out there.
Coming crisis
The researchers worked to combine these two sources of data, Ferrer said, taking a conservative approach to filling in gaps and estimating future directions. They found that the overall rate of extinction is, in fact, between three to 80 times higher than non-mass extinction rates. Most likely, species are going extinct three to 12 times faster than would be expected if there were no crisis, Ferrer said.
That gives Earth between three and 22 centuries to reach the point of mass extinction if nothing is done to stop the problem. (The wide range is a factor of the uncertainty in the data and different rates of extinction found in various species.) The good news, Barnosky said, is that the total loss so far is not devastating. In the last 200 years, the researchers found, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct.
The strongest evidence for comparison between modern and ancient times comes from vertebrate animals, Barnosky said, which means there is still work to do collecting better data for more robust comparisons with better invertebrate data. But, he said, the research "shows absolutely without a doubt that we do have this major problem."
Back from the brink?
The culprits for the biodiversity loss include climate change, habitat loss, pollution and overfishing, the researchers wrote.
"Most of the mechanisms that are occurring today, most of them are caused by us," Ferrer said.
So can we fix it? Yes, there's time to cut dependence on fossil fuels, alleviate climate change and commit to conservation of habitat, the study scientists say. The more pressing question is, will we?
Barnosky and Ferrer both say they're optimistic that people will pull together to solve the problem once they understand the magnitude of the looming disaster. Jablonski puts himself into the "guardedly optimistic category."
"I think a lot of the problems probably have a lot more to do with politics than with science," Jablonski said.
That's where Paul Ehrlich, the president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University and author of "The Population Bomb" (Sierra Club-Ballantine, 1968), sees little hope.
"Everything we're doing in Washington [D.C.] today is working in the wrong direction," Ehrlich, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience. "There isn't a single powerful person in the world who is really talking about what the situation is ... It's hard to be cheery when you don't see the slightest sign of any real attention being paid."
Other researchers take an upbeat view.
"If we have a business-as-usual scenario, it is pretty grim, but it isn't yet written," Stuart Pimm, a professor of conservation ecology at Duke University who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience in a phone interview from Chile, where he was doing fieldwork.
In 2010, Pimm said, the United Nations declared the International Year of Biodiversity. According to a UN statement, the 193 countries involved agreed to protect 17 percent of Earth's terrestrial ecosystems and 10 percent of marine and coastal areas. Some types of ecosystems still lag behind, Pimm said, but there is reason for hope.
"I hope that this will alert people to the fact that we are living in geologically unprecedented times," Pimm said. "Only five times in Earth's history has life been as threatened as it is now."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/scitech/main20038438.shtml
Monday, February 28, 2011
Amur tigers in population crisis
Monday, 28 February 2011
By Victoria Gill
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
The effective population of the critically endangered Amur tiger is now fewer than 14 animals, say scientists.
Approximately 500 Amur tigers actually survive in the wild, but the effective population is a measure of the genetic diversity of the world's largest cat.
Very low diversity means any vulnerability to disease or rare genetic disorders is likely to be passed on to the next generation.
So these results paint a grim picture for the tiger's chance of survival.
The findings are reported in the journal Mammalian Biology.
The Amur tiger, or Siberian tiger as it is also known, once lived across a large portion of northern China, the Korean peninsula, and the southernmost regions of eastern Russia.
During the early 20th Century, the Amur tiger was almost driven to extinction, as expanding human settlements, habitat loss and poaching wiped out this biggest of cats from over 90% of its range.
By the 1940s, just 20 to 30 individuals survived in the wild. The new study has identified that this recent "genetic bottleneck" - when the breeding population of tigers was so critically low - has decimated the Amur tiger gene pool.
A more genetically diverse population of animals has a much better chance of survival; it is more likely, for example, to contain the genetic resistance to a variety of diseases and less likely to succumb to rare genetic disorders, which can be "cancelled out" by healthy genes.
'Worryingly low'
Scientists in Russia, Spain and Germany worked together to analyse DNA samples from 15 wild Amur tigers in the Russian Far East.
They took blood samples from the animals and screened them for certain "markers" - points in the DNA code that show that an animal had parents that were genetically very different from each other.
The results revealed evidence of the genetic bottleneck during the tigers' recent history, when the variety of genes being passed on dramatically reduced.
Genetically speaking, the Amur tiger has not recovered from this.
"Our results are the first to demonstrate a quite recent genetic bottleneck in Siberian tigers, a result that matches the well-documented severe demographic decline of the Siberian tiger population in the 1940s," the researchers wrote in the paper.
"The worryingly low effective population size challenges the optimism for the recovery of the huge Siberian cat."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9407000/9407744.stm
(Submitted by Dawn Holloway)
By Victoria Gill
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
The effective population of the critically endangered Amur tiger is now fewer than 14 animals, say scientists.
Approximately 500 Amur tigers actually survive in the wild, but the effective population is a measure of the genetic diversity of the world's largest cat.
Very low diversity means any vulnerability to disease or rare genetic disorders is likely to be passed on to the next generation.
So these results paint a grim picture for the tiger's chance of survival.
The findings are reported in the journal Mammalian Biology.
The Amur tiger, or Siberian tiger as it is also known, once lived across a large portion of northern China, the Korean peninsula, and the southernmost regions of eastern Russia.
During the early 20th Century, the Amur tiger was almost driven to extinction, as expanding human settlements, habitat loss and poaching wiped out this biggest of cats from over 90% of its range.
By the 1940s, just 20 to 30 individuals survived in the wild. The new study has identified that this recent "genetic bottleneck" - when the breeding population of tigers was so critically low - has decimated the Amur tiger gene pool.
A more genetically diverse population of animals has a much better chance of survival; it is more likely, for example, to contain the genetic resistance to a variety of diseases and less likely to succumb to rare genetic disorders, which can be "cancelled out" by healthy genes.
'Worryingly low'
Scientists in Russia, Spain and Germany worked together to analyse DNA samples from 15 wild Amur tigers in the Russian Far East.
They took blood samples from the animals and screened them for certain "markers" - points in the DNA code that show that an animal had parents that were genetically very different from each other.
The results revealed evidence of the genetic bottleneck during the tigers' recent history, when the variety of genes being passed on dramatically reduced.
Genetically speaking, the Amur tiger has not recovered from this.
"Our results are the first to demonstrate a quite recent genetic bottleneck in Siberian tigers, a result that matches the well-documented severe demographic decline of the Siberian tiger population in the 1940s," the researchers wrote in the paper.
"The worryingly low effective population size challenges the optimism for the recovery of the huge Siberian cat."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9407000/9407744.stm
(Submitted by Dawn Holloway)
Saturday, February 12, 2011
More Sea Turtles Died Following Gulf Oil Spill Than Any Similar Period In Past Two Decades
MATT SEDENSKY
01/26/11 05:36 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — More sea turtles were killed or injured in the Gulf of Mexico in the months following the BP oil spill than in any similar period during the past two decades, a report released Wednesday found.
While the report suggested many of the 600 turtles were hurt by the spill, it's still not clear exactly how many died from ingesting the crude or how many drowned in fishing nets in the scramble to catch shrimp and fish before the oil ruined them. The sea turtles could have also been killed by cold weather or other factors unrelated to the spill.
The report said the rate of dead, disabled and diseased sea turtles discovered in the months following the massive April 20 spill was four to six times above average. The analysis – by the National Wildlife Federation, the Sea Turtle Conservancy and the Florida Wildlife Federation – was conservative and only took into account turtles found on shore, not those rescued or recovered at sea.
Researchers with the federal government said it would take years to determine the full impact of the spill on sea turtles. Necropsies have been done on more than half of 600 turtle carcasses, and while some may have died from oil, most of the turtles drowned in fishing gear, said Monica Allen, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association spokeswoman.
Unseasonably cold temperatures last winter were also detrimental to sea turtles, most of which are considered endangered, said Gary Appelson, policy coordinator for the Sea Turtle Conservancy.
"Sea turtles have had a tough year," Appelson said.
Doug Inkley, senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation and a co-author of the report, said while some of the turtles' deaths could not be linked to the spill, the much higher-than-usual number indicated the disaster was at least partially responsible.
He said turtles suffered more than other species because their populations are already low and face long odds of reaching adulthood. It takes turtles 10 to 30 years to reach maturity, meaning it could take decades to restore the damage to their population, Inkley said.
"Of all the species affected by the oil spill, those for which I have the greatest concern are the sea turtles," he said.
Wildlife officials undertook Herculean efforts to try to save turtles during the oil spill. All told, hundreds of loggerhead nests containing nearly 15,000 hatchlings were successfully transported and later released along the Atlantic.
Besides urging lawmakers to uphold funding for beach conservation, the report's authors urged the elimination of subsidies for construction projects along coastlines and the protection of less developed areas of the shore.
More than 90 percent of North American sea turtle nesting happens on Florida's beaches. Five of the planet's seven species of sea turtles are found in the state. Four of those – green, hawksbill, leatherback and Kemp's ridley – are considered endangered, or at risk of becoming extinct.
The fourth, loggerheads, is listed as threatened, or likely to become endangered.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/gulf-oil-spill-turtles-di_n_814732.html
01/26/11 05:36 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — More sea turtles were killed or injured in the Gulf of Mexico in the months following the BP oil spill than in any similar period during the past two decades, a report released Wednesday found.
While the report suggested many of the 600 turtles were hurt by the spill, it's still not clear exactly how many died from ingesting the crude or how many drowned in fishing nets in the scramble to catch shrimp and fish before the oil ruined them. The sea turtles could have also been killed by cold weather or other factors unrelated to the spill.
The report said the rate of dead, disabled and diseased sea turtles discovered in the months following the massive April 20 spill was four to six times above average. The analysis – by the National Wildlife Federation, the Sea Turtle Conservancy and the Florida Wildlife Federation – was conservative and only took into account turtles found on shore, not those rescued or recovered at sea.
Researchers with the federal government said it would take years to determine the full impact of the spill on sea turtles. Necropsies have been done on more than half of 600 turtle carcasses, and while some may have died from oil, most of the turtles drowned in fishing gear, said Monica Allen, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association spokeswoman.
Unseasonably cold temperatures last winter were also detrimental to sea turtles, most of which are considered endangered, said Gary Appelson, policy coordinator for the Sea Turtle Conservancy.
"Sea turtles have had a tough year," Appelson said.
Doug Inkley, senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation and a co-author of the report, said while some of the turtles' deaths could not be linked to the spill, the much higher-than-usual number indicated the disaster was at least partially responsible.
He said turtles suffered more than other species because their populations are already low and face long odds of reaching adulthood. It takes turtles 10 to 30 years to reach maturity, meaning it could take decades to restore the damage to their population, Inkley said.
"Of all the species affected by the oil spill, those for which I have the greatest concern are the sea turtles," he said.
Wildlife officials undertook Herculean efforts to try to save turtles during the oil spill. All told, hundreds of loggerhead nests containing nearly 15,000 hatchlings were successfully transported and later released along the Atlantic.
Besides urging lawmakers to uphold funding for beach conservation, the report's authors urged the elimination of subsidies for construction projects along coastlines and the protection of less developed areas of the shore.
More than 90 percent of North American sea turtle nesting happens on Florida's beaches. Five of the planet's seven species of sea turtles are found in the state. Four of those – green, hawksbill, leatherback and Kemp's ridley – are considered endangered, or at risk of becoming extinct.
The fourth, loggerheads, is listed as threatened, or likely to become endangered.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/gulf-oil-spill-turtles-di_n_814732.html
Monday, January 31, 2011
Shark-Catching Nations Fail To Protect Threatened Species
NICOLE WINFIELD 01/27/11 03:10 PM
ROME — Two environmental groups on Thursday accused the 20 countries that catch the most sharks of failing to fulfill promises made to the U.N. to better conserve the animals that are increasingly threatened with extinction.
In 1999, more than 100 governments adopted a plan of action at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to try to stem overfishing of sharks, pledging, among other things, to develop national action plans to ensure that shark catches are sustainable.
The non-governmental groups Traffic and the Pew Environment Group said Thursday that only 13 of the top 20 shark catching countries had developed national plans, and that it was unclear if such plans had done any good where they were adopted.
They issued their report ahead of a meeting next week of government members of the FAO's fisheries committee, which will discuss the state of the world's fisheries in detail.
Some 73 million sharks are killed annually, primarily to meet the high demand in Asia for fins which are used in shark fin soup.
Because sharks are slow growing, late to mature and produce few young, they are unable to replenish their populations as quickly when they are caught. As a result, some 30 percent of all shark species are now threatened or nearly threatened with extinction.
Traffic and Pew analyzed fisheries data and made a list of the top 20 shark catchers which account for nearly 80 percent of the total shark catch reported globally. In order, the top 10 are Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, United States, Japan, and Malaysia. Yet according to the two groups, Indonesia has only made a draft national plan and India is developing one. Other countries have adopted them but, because reporting is voluntary, it's not clear if they've been implemented or have done any good.
The groups urged governments at the FAO meeting next week to have the U.N. agency complete a thorough review to determine what countries have and haven't done to comply with their pledges to manage their fisheries.
"The fate of the world's sharks is in the hands of the top 20 shark catchers, most of whom have failed to demonstrate what, if anything, they are doing to save these imperiled species," said Glenn Sant, Traffic's global marine program leader.
Jill Hepp, manager of shark conservation for Pew, said sharks play a critical role in the ocean environment.
"Where shark populations are healthy, marine life thrives; but where they have been overfished, ecosystems fall out of balance," she said.
The report suggests that national action plans with lofty goals that are never implemented might not be the answer to saving sharks. Rather, countries that take smaller, incremental steps toward conservation might achieve better results.
It noted that Palau had announced in 2009 it would create the world's first shark sanctuary by banning all commercial shark fishing in its territorial waters and that Honduras had announced a moratorium on shark fishing last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/sharkcatching-nations-fai_n_815064.html
ROME — Two environmental groups on Thursday accused the 20 countries that catch the most sharks of failing to fulfill promises made to the U.N. to better conserve the animals that are increasingly threatened with extinction.
In 1999, more than 100 governments adopted a plan of action at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to try to stem overfishing of sharks, pledging, among other things, to develop national action plans to ensure that shark catches are sustainable.
The non-governmental groups Traffic and the Pew Environment Group said Thursday that only 13 of the top 20 shark catching countries had developed national plans, and that it was unclear if such plans had done any good where they were adopted.
They issued their report ahead of a meeting next week of government members of the FAO's fisheries committee, which will discuss the state of the world's fisheries in detail.
Some 73 million sharks are killed annually, primarily to meet the high demand in Asia for fins which are used in shark fin soup.
Because sharks are slow growing, late to mature and produce few young, they are unable to replenish their populations as quickly when they are caught. As a result, some 30 percent of all shark species are now threatened or nearly threatened with extinction.
Traffic and Pew analyzed fisheries data and made a list of the top 20 shark catchers which account for nearly 80 percent of the total shark catch reported globally. In order, the top 10 are Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, United States, Japan, and Malaysia. Yet according to the two groups, Indonesia has only made a draft national plan and India is developing one. Other countries have adopted them but, because reporting is voluntary, it's not clear if they've been implemented or have done any good.
The groups urged governments at the FAO meeting next week to have the U.N. agency complete a thorough review to determine what countries have and haven't done to comply with their pledges to manage their fisheries.
"The fate of the world's sharks is in the hands of the top 20 shark catchers, most of whom have failed to demonstrate what, if anything, they are doing to save these imperiled species," said Glenn Sant, Traffic's global marine program leader.
Jill Hepp, manager of shark conservation for Pew, said sharks play a critical role in the ocean environment.
"Where shark populations are healthy, marine life thrives; but where they have been overfished, ecosystems fall out of balance," she said.
The report suggests that national action plans with lofty goals that are never implemented might not be the answer to saving sharks. Rather, countries that take smaller, incremental steps toward conservation might achieve better results.
It noted that Palau had announced in 2009 it would create the world's first shark sanctuary by banning all commercial shark fishing in its territorial waters and that Honduras had announced a moratorium on shark fishing last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/sharkcatching-nations-fai_n_815064.html
Shark-Catching Nations Fail To Protect Threatened Species
NICOLE WINFIELD 01/27/11 03:10 PM
ROME — Two environmental groups on Thursday accused the 20 countries that catch the most sharks of failing to fulfill promises made to the U.N. to better conserve the animals that are increasingly threatened with extinction.
In 1999, more than 100 governments adopted a plan of action at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to try to stem overfishing of sharks, pledging, among other things, to develop national action plans to ensure that shark catches are sustainable.
The non-governmental groups Traffic and the Pew Environment Group said Thursday that only 13 of the top 20 shark catching countries had developed national plans, and that it was unclear if such plans had done any good where they were adopted.
They issued their report ahead of a meeting next week of government members of the FAO's fisheries committee, which will discuss the state of the world's fisheries in detail.
Some 73 million sharks are killed annually, primarily to meet the high demand in Asia for fins which are used in shark fin soup.
Because sharks are slow growing, late to mature and produce few young, they are unable to replenish their populations as quickly when they are caught. As a result, some 30 percent of all shark species are now threatened or nearly threatened with extinction.
Traffic and Pew analyzed fisheries data and made a list of the top 20 shark catchers which account for nearly 80 percent of the total shark catch reported globally. In order, the top 10 are Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, United States, Japan, and Malaysia. Yet according to the two groups, Indonesia has only made a draft national plan and India is developing one. Other countries have adopted them but, because reporting is voluntary, it's not clear if they've been implemented or have done any good.
The groups urged governments at the FAO meeting next week to have the U.N. agency complete a thorough review to determine what countries have and haven't done to comply with their pledges to manage their fisheries.
"The fate of the world's sharks is in the hands of the top 20 shark catchers, most of whom have failed to demonstrate what, if anything, they are doing to save these imperiled species," said Glenn Sant, Traffic's global marine program leader.
Jill Hepp, manager of shark conservation for Pew, said sharks play a critical role in the ocean environment.
"Where shark populations are healthy, marine life thrives; but where they have been overfished, ecosystems fall out of balance," she said.
The report suggests that national action plans with lofty goals that are never implemented might not be the answer to saving sharks. Rather, countries that take smaller, incremental steps toward conservation might achieve better results.
It noted that Palau had announced in 2009 it would create the world's first shark sanctuary by banning all commercial shark fishing in its territorial waters and that Honduras had announced a moratorium on shark fishing last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/sharkcatching-nations-fai_n_815064.html
ROME — Two environmental groups on Thursday accused the 20 countries that catch the most sharks of failing to fulfill promises made to the U.N. to better conserve the animals that are increasingly threatened with extinction.
In 1999, more than 100 governments adopted a plan of action at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to try to stem overfishing of sharks, pledging, among other things, to develop national action plans to ensure that shark catches are sustainable.
The non-governmental groups Traffic and the Pew Environment Group said Thursday that only 13 of the top 20 shark catching countries had developed national plans, and that it was unclear if such plans had done any good where they were adopted.
They issued their report ahead of a meeting next week of government members of the FAO's fisheries committee, which will discuss the state of the world's fisheries in detail.
Some 73 million sharks are killed annually, primarily to meet the high demand in Asia for fins which are used in shark fin soup.
Because sharks are slow growing, late to mature and produce few young, they are unable to replenish their populations as quickly when they are caught. As a result, some 30 percent of all shark species are now threatened or nearly threatened with extinction.
Traffic and Pew analyzed fisheries data and made a list of the top 20 shark catchers which account for nearly 80 percent of the total shark catch reported globally. In order, the top 10 are Indonesia, India, Spain, Taiwan, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, United States, Japan, and Malaysia. Yet according to the two groups, Indonesia has only made a draft national plan and India is developing one. Other countries have adopted them but, because reporting is voluntary, it's not clear if they've been implemented or have done any good.
The groups urged governments at the FAO meeting next week to have the U.N. agency complete a thorough review to determine what countries have and haven't done to comply with their pledges to manage their fisheries.
"The fate of the world's sharks is in the hands of the top 20 shark catchers, most of whom have failed to demonstrate what, if anything, they are doing to save these imperiled species," said Glenn Sant, Traffic's global marine program leader.
Jill Hepp, manager of shark conservation for Pew, said sharks play a critical role in the ocean environment.
"Where shark populations are healthy, marine life thrives; but where they have been overfished, ecosystems fall out of balance," she said.
The report suggests that national action plans with lofty goals that are never implemented might not be the answer to saving sharks. Rather, countries that take smaller, incremental steps toward conservation might achieve better results.
It noted that Palau had announced in 2009 it would create the world's first shark sanctuary by banning all commercial shark fishing in its territorial waters and that Honduras had announced a moratorium on shark fishing last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/sharkcatching-nations-fai_n_815064.html
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Whale Activist Vows To Fast Till Death
by brightpathvideo
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Tom Falvey is a friend of mine. We go way back to Greenpeace days. Tom is determined to hold onto this life threatening fast until Japan ends its hostile aggression against both the whales in the arctic seas (Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and against the brave Sea Shepherd crew desperately trying to protect the whales.
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
- The rule of law must prevail, and
- Armed aggression on the high seas is unacceptable
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Whale Activist Vows To Fast Till Death
by brightpathvideo
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Tom Falvey is a friend of mine. We go way back to Greenpeace days. Tom is determined to hold onto this life threatening fast until Japan ends its hostile aggression against both the whales in the arctic seas (Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary) and against the brave Sea Shepherd crew desperately trying to protect the whales.
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Tuesday Jan 18th, 2011 3:17 PM
Please help him by writing letters to the Secretary of State and Embassy of Japan. Addresses below.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent armed cost guard personnel with them in response to nonviolent activists upholding the law. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has deployed the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists' ships. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until death unless Japan renounces the use of force against those defending the integrity of the Sanctuary.
If Japan does so I will gladly end my fast. If it refuses then it will be clear that Japan intends to physically subdue them. In that case the world community will be forewarned and have a duty to prevent such violence.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
- The rule of law must prevail, and
- Armed aggression on the high seas is unacceptable
For the 2010/11 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke, 50 Fin and 50 Humpback whales, in an “objection” to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation; an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
This year Japan has also sent armed coast guard personnel with its fleet. This is in response to nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. Japan has not stated its intentions. The fact remains that it has mobilized the capability to forcibly board or disable the activists’ ships. Obviously such tactics would put human life at risk.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. Antarctica itself is a desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case, Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It claims the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. Its military presence implies a right to physically subdue anyone who stands in its way. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 miles from Japan.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are far higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this then it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Current Situation – January 17, 2011
The Sea Shepherd activists are now with the whalers' supply ship. They will block any attempt at refueling. That means the whalers would have to return home at least a month early, thus saving hundreds of whales. During this process the Sea Shepherd ships will be essentially immobile and thus vulnerable to whatever action the armed coast guard personnel may have planned. This moment of truth could come at any time.
World governments have a duty to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. Failure to act means they would share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
To express your concern please contact:
Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki
Embassy of Japan
2520 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20008-2869
Tel: (202) 238-6700
Fax: (202) 328-2187
Email: jicc [at] ws.mofa.go.jp
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
2201 C St, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Tel: (202) 647-9572
Fax: (202) 647-1579
Email: colemancl [at] state.gov (her personal assistant)
Or the appropriate officials in your country.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 61, is an environmentalist and writer in San Diego, CA. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
Email: tefalvey [at] gmail.com
About this Hunger Strike
I began this hunger strike at noon on December 28, 2010.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan renounces the use of force against nonviolent activists upholding the integrity of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/18/18669504.php
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Dead Species Can Indeed Tell Tales
January 15th, 2011, 08:57 GMT | By Tudor Vieru
Research scientists have over the years developed methods of using the fossil record for studies of the future. The analysis of extinct species is allowing them to gain more insight into how modern-day animals response to changes in their environments and ecosystems, and scientists are on it 24/7.
Paleobiologists and paleontologists basically use the same approach to teasing out the future response of ecosystems from available data as climate scientists do when determining the future of the climate from old records inscribed in ancient ices.
In a new, extensive review of the scientific literature covering the fossil record, scientists have determined that the remains of ancient creatures can be used to boost modern science in a variety of ways.
One possible application could be to assess the potential environmental impacts that events similar to ones that happened in the past could have on a modern ecosystem, habitat or on species.
Using data from Earth's distant past could also help scientists predict which species will be most vulnerable to changes in the environment. In turn, this may provide thorough guidelines for restoration efforts currently being conducted by conservationists.
The review effort was funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and led by Gregory Dietl and Karl Flessa. A paper detailing the findings was published in the January issue of the scientific journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Gregory Dietl is a conservation paleobiologist at the Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and also at the Paleontological Research Institution, whereas Karl Flessa occupies an identical position at the University of Arizona.
“Conservation paleobiologists apply the data and tools of paleontology to today's problems in biodiversity conservation,” says Dietl.
“A conservation paleobiology perspective has the unique advantage of being able to identify phenomena beyond time scales of direct observation,” he explains.
“Historically, paleontologists have focused their efforts on understanding the deep-time geological record of ancient life on Earth, but these authors turn that focus 180 degrees,” H. Richard Lane says.
“In putting the dead to work, they identify the significant impact knowledge of fossil life can have on interpreting modern biodiversity and ecological trends,” explains the expert, who is the program director of the NSF Division of Earth Sciences.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dead-Species-Can-Indeed-Tell-Tales-178432.shtml
Research scientists have over the years developed methods of using the fossil record for studies of the future. The analysis of extinct species is allowing them to gain more insight into how modern-day animals response to changes in their environments and ecosystems, and scientists are on it 24/7.
Paleobiologists and paleontologists basically use the same approach to teasing out the future response of ecosystems from available data as climate scientists do when determining the future of the climate from old records inscribed in ancient ices.
In a new, extensive review of the scientific literature covering the fossil record, scientists have determined that the remains of ancient creatures can be used to boost modern science in a variety of ways.
One possible application could be to assess the potential environmental impacts that events similar to ones that happened in the past could have on a modern ecosystem, habitat or on species.
Using data from Earth's distant past could also help scientists predict which species will be most vulnerable to changes in the environment. In turn, this may provide thorough guidelines for restoration efforts currently being conducted by conservationists.
The review effort was funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and led by Gregory Dietl and Karl Flessa. A paper detailing the findings was published in the January issue of the scientific journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Gregory Dietl is a conservation paleobiologist at the Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and also at the Paleontological Research Institution, whereas Karl Flessa occupies an identical position at the University of Arizona.
“Conservation paleobiologists apply the data and tools of paleontology to today's problems in biodiversity conservation,” says Dietl.
“A conservation paleobiology perspective has the unique advantage of being able to identify phenomena beyond time scales of direct observation,” he explains.
“Historically, paleontologists have focused their efforts on understanding the deep-time geological record of ancient life on Earth, but these authors turn that focus 180 degrees,” H. Richard Lane says.
“In putting the dead to work, they identify the significant impact knowledge of fossil life can have on interpreting modern biodiversity and ecological trends,” explains the expert, who is the program director of the NSF Division of Earth Sciences.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dead-Species-Can-Indeed-Tell-Tales-178432.shtml
Dead Species Can Indeed Tell Tales
January 15th, 2011, 08:57 GMT | By Tudor Vieru
Research scientists have over the years developed methods of using the fossil record for studies of the future. The analysis of extinct species is allowing them to gain more insight into how modern-day animals response to changes in their environments and ecosystems, and scientists are on it 24/7.
Paleobiologists and paleontologists basically use the same approach to teasing out the future response of ecosystems from available data as climate scientists do when determining the future of the climate from old records inscribed in ancient ices.
In a new, extensive review of the scientific literature covering the fossil record, scientists have determined that the remains of ancient creatures can be used to boost modern science in a variety of ways.
One possible application could be to assess the potential environmental impacts that events similar to ones that happened in the past could have on a modern ecosystem, habitat or on species.
Using data from Earth's distant past could also help scientists predict which species will be most vulnerable to changes in the environment. In turn, this may provide thorough guidelines for restoration efforts currently being conducted by conservationists.
The review effort was funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and led by Gregory Dietl and Karl Flessa. A paper detailing the findings was published in the January issue of the scientific journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Gregory Dietl is a conservation paleobiologist at the Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and also at the Paleontological Research Institution, whereas Karl Flessa occupies an identical position at the University of Arizona.
“Conservation paleobiologists apply the data and tools of paleontology to today's problems in biodiversity conservation,” says Dietl.
“A conservation paleobiology perspective has the unique advantage of being able to identify phenomena beyond time scales of direct observation,” he explains.
“Historically, paleontologists have focused their efforts on understanding the deep-time geological record of ancient life on Earth, but these authors turn that focus 180 degrees,” H. Richard Lane says.
“In putting the dead to work, they identify the significant impact knowledge of fossil life can have on interpreting modern biodiversity and ecological trends,” explains the expert, who is the program director of the NSF Division of Earth Sciences.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dead-Species-Can-Indeed-Tell-Tales-178432.shtml
Research scientists have over the years developed methods of using the fossil record for studies of the future. The analysis of extinct species is allowing them to gain more insight into how modern-day animals response to changes in their environments and ecosystems, and scientists are on it 24/7.
Paleobiologists and paleontologists basically use the same approach to teasing out the future response of ecosystems from available data as climate scientists do when determining the future of the climate from old records inscribed in ancient ices.
In a new, extensive review of the scientific literature covering the fossil record, scientists have determined that the remains of ancient creatures can be used to boost modern science in a variety of ways.
One possible application could be to assess the potential environmental impacts that events similar to ones that happened in the past could have on a modern ecosystem, habitat or on species.
Using data from Earth's distant past could also help scientists predict which species will be most vulnerable to changes in the environment. In turn, this may provide thorough guidelines for restoration efforts currently being conducted by conservationists.
The review effort was funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and led by Gregory Dietl and Karl Flessa. A paper detailing the findings was published in the January issue of the scientific journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Gregory Dietl is a conservation paleobiologist at the Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York, and also at the Paleontological Research Institution, whereas Karl Flessa occupies an identical position at the University of Arizona.
“Conservation paleobiologists apply the data and tools of paleontology to today's problems in biodiversity conservation,” says Dietl.
“A conservation paleobiology perspective has the unique advantage of being able to identify phenomena beyond time scales of direct observation,” he explains.
“Historically, paleontologists have focused their efforts on understanding the deep-time geological record of ancient life on Earth, but these authors turn that focus 180 degrees,” H. Richard Lane says.
“In putting the dead to work, they identify the significant impact knowledge of fossil life can have on interpreting modern biodiversity and ecological trends,” explains the expert, who is the program director of the NSF Division of Earth Sciences.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Dead-Species-Can-Indeed-Tell-Tales-178432.shtml
Invasive species are 'waiting on the doorstep' of the Great Lakes, scientists say
Published: Friday, January 14, 2011
Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
While public attention has been riveted on the Asian carp’s progress toward Lake Michigan, scientists are mapping out just what the next invasion might be and what, if anything, could be done to stop it.
A team of university and government researchers has identified 75 species that could find their way into the Great Lakes basin over time. Some of them are bad actors.
The next invasion could arrive in the murky ballast waters of ocean-going ships. It could come via the aquarium trade, sold at a pet store and later released. The next invader, experts say, could arrive in a truck selling bait, fish or water lilies for country ponds or urban water gardens. It could even arrive as live food at market.
“There are lots of other species waiting on our doorstep,” said Ed Rutherford, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
Rutherford recently addressed a group of charter captains in Ludington about the subject. He is part of a group of scientists who did the research and is now collaborating with others from the University of Notre Dame and The Nature Conservancy to identify the species that are most likely to arrive, how they might affect the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the routes they would take to get here.
Their concern, among others, is what invading species might do to the food web in the lakes, which could harm Michigan’s native species and $7 billion fishing industry.
The scientists’ current hit list of several high-priority, if low-profile, rogue species, includes the northern snakehead, monkey goby, New Zealand mudsnail, killer shrimp, golden mussel and hydrilla.
The snakehead has gained particular attention from the scientists. Rutherford said it is a voracious predator from Asia that can grow to 33 inches in length, survive out of water, move on land and breathe air.
In 2001 it was unheard of in the U.S., but it is now established in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York waters, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The fish have also been found in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas and North Carolina.
The fish was discovered in a Maryland pond in 2002, having been stocked by a man who bought two adults in a New York market. Maryland officials that were notified about the fish drained the pond and found two adults and more than 100 young. Considered a threat to the Chesapeake Bay fishery, all were destroyed.
“I think this one is coming,” Rutherford said. “People will bring them in live for the aquarium trade. It’s also been found in live markets around Toronto.”
The snakehead poses no threat to humans, but fish biologists worry they could threaten near-shore Great Lakes sport fish populations. They could easily dominate drowned river mouths or inland lakes and ponds, experts say.
The snakehead is a prolific breeder, producing 40,000 eggs when it spawns. Young snakeheads enjoy a higher than average survival rate, Rutherford said. The adults zealously guard the young after hatching.
Experts also are concerned about a familiar aquarium plant — the hydrilla. Call it “oxygen weed,” the name under which it is often sold, said Lindsay Chadderton, a collaborator on the project and the aquatic invasive species director for The Nature Conservancy.
Chadderton called it a “well-known invasive around the world that is problematic in many countries.”
If it gets established in shallow wetlands or bays, it can choke out all other native vegetation, he said. That, in turn, can harm species that either feed on or live in the habitat that is destroyed.
Hydrilla was imported into the U.S. as part of the aquarium trade and sold to customers to keep their tanks healthy. But people eventually tire of it and dump it out in wet places, where it takes root. Or it gets moved on boats and outboard engine propellers. It has also been spread “as a contaminant” when water lilies are sold for backyard water gardens, according to Chadderton.
“This is one I want to add because we’ve recently detected a number of populations on the doorstep of the Great Lakes, Chadderton said.
Not every invasive species causes big trouble, Rutherford said. The ruffe and tubenose goby are two examples of species that arrived but didn’t flourish or cause as much trouble as was anticipated.
And ballast water isn’t the only route invasives take into the Great Lakes.
What the scientists’ research illustrates is which species are likely to arrive given their survival needs and capabilities, and the available means for their transport or spread. They are also examining loopholes or inconsistent regulations from state to state that, for example, allow people to buy a live invasive species at fish market or pet store and release it.
State fisheries officials said the research will be highly beneficial for Michigan, which invests heavily in its Great Lakes and inland fisheries.
“If we understand the pathways to stop their entry, or if they do come and we have some pre-knowledge of how to manage the situation, it will help,” said Kelly Smith, state fisheries chief with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
“The one that really troubles me is the snakehead. It’s scary how that thing has progressed across the U.S. I think it’s only matter of time (before it arrives) and I am not sure what we would do if it gets here.”
Smith said he has had his hands full dealing with the immediate threat of the Asian carp. Recent DNA testing found no evidence of their presence in the St. Joseph River below the dam at Berrien Springs. The St. Joe is the first Michigan stream Asian carp would encounter moving along the southern shore of Lake Michigan.
Testing was conducted for evidence of the bighead and silver carp. The work was funded by Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smith said he is waiting for test results from the Paw Paw and Galien rivers and the lower St. Joe River. The western basin of Lake Erie will be tested in the spring.
E-mail Howard Meyerson: hmeyerson@grpress.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/HMeyerson
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/01/invasive_species_are_waiting_o.html
Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
While public attention has been riveted on the Asian carp’s progress toward Lake Michigan, scientists are mapping out just what the next invasion might be and what, if anything, could be done to stop it.
A team of university and government researchers has identified 75 species that could find their way into the Great Lakes basin over time. Some of them are bad actors.
The next invasion could arrive in the murky ballast waters of ocean-going ships. It could come via the aquarium trade, sold at a pet store and later released. The next invader, experts say, could arrive in a truck selling bait, fish or water lilies for country ponds or urban water gardens. It could even arrive as live food at market.
“There are lots of other species waiting on our doorstep,” said Ed Rutherford, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
Rutherford recently addressed a group of charter captains in Ludington about the subject. He is part of a group of scientists who did the research and is now collaborating with others from the University of Notre Dame and The Nature Conservancy to identify the species that are most likely to arrive, how they might affect the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the routes they would take to get here.
Their concern, among others, is what invading species might do to the food web in the lakes, which could harm Michigan’s native species and $7 billion fishing industry.
The scientists’ current hit list of several high-priority, if low-profile, rogue species, includes the northern snakehead, monkey goby, New Zealand mudsnail, killer shrimp, golden mussel and hydrilla.
The snakehead has gained particular attention from the scientists. Rutherford said it is a voracious predator from Asia that can grow to 33 inches in length, survive out of water, move on land and breathe air.
In 2001 it was unheard of in the U.S., but it is now established in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York waters, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The fish have also been found in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas and North Carolina.
The fish was discovered in a Maryland pond in 2002, having been stocked by a man who bought two adults in a New York market. Maryland officials that were notified about the fish drained the pond and found two adults and more than 100 young. Considered a threat to the Chesapeake Bay fishery, all were destroyed.
“I think this one is coming,” Rutherford said. “People will bring them in live for the aquarium trade. It’s also been found in live markets around Toronto.”
The snakehead poses no threat to humans, but fish biologists worry they could threaten near-shore Great Lakes sport fish populations. They could easily dominate drowned river mouths or inland lakes and ponds, experts say.
The snakehead is a prolific breeder, producing 40,000 eggs when it spawns. Young snakeheads enjoy a higher than average survival rate, Rutherford said. The adults zealously guard the young after hatching.
Experts also are concerned about a familiar aquarium plant — the hydrilla. Call it “oxygen weed,” the name under which it is often sold, said Lindsay Chadderton, a collaborator on the project and the aquatic invasive species director for The Nature Conservancy.
Chadderton called it a “well-known invasive around the world that is problematic in many countries.”
If it gets established in shallow wetlands or bays, it can choke out all other native vegetation, he said. That, in turn, can harm species that either feed on or live in the habitat that is destroyed.
Hydrilla was imported into the U.S. as part of the aquarium trade and sold to customers to keep their tanks healthy. But people eventually tire of it and dump it out in wet places, where it takes root. Or it gets moved on boats and outboard engine propellers. It has also been spread “as a contaminant” when water lilies are sold for backyard water gardens, according to Chadderton.
“This is one I want to add because we’ve recently detected a number of populations on the doorstep of the Great Lakes, Chadderton said.
Not every invasive species causes big trouble, Rutherford said. The ruffe and tubenose goby are two examples of species that arrived but didn’t flourish or cause as much trouble as was anticipated.
And ballast water isn’t the only route invasives take into the Great Lakes.
What the scientists’ research illustrates is which species are likely to arrive given their survival needs and capabilities, and the available means for their transport or spread. They are also examining loopholes or inconsistent regulations from state to state that, for example, allow people to buy a live invasive species at fish market or pet store and release it.
State fisheries officials said the research will be highly beneficial for Michigan, which invests heavily in its Great Lakes and inland fisheries.
“If we understand the pathways to stop their entry, or if they do come and we have some pre-knowledge of how to manage the situation, it will help,” said Kelly Smith, state fisheries chief with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
“The one that really troubles me is the snakehead. It’s scary how that thing has progressed across the U.S. I think it’s only matter of time (before it arrives) and I am not sure what we would do if it gets here.”
Smith said he has had his hands full dealing with the immediate threat of the Asian carp. Recent DNA testing found no evidence of their presence in the St. Joseph River below the dam at Berrien Springs. The St. Joe is the first Michigan stream Asian carp would encounter moving along the southern shore of Lake Michigan.
Testing was conducted for evidence of the bighead and silver carp. The work was funded by Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smith said he is waiting for test results from the Paw Paw and Galien rivers and the lower St. Joe River. The western basin of Lake Erie will be tested in the spring.
E-mail Howard Meyerson: hmeyerson@grpress.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/HMeyerson
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/01/invasive_species_are_waiting_o.html
Invasive species are 'waiting on the doorstep' of the Great Lakes, scientists say
Published: Friday, January 14, 2011
Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
While public attention has been riveted on the Asian carp’s progress toward Lake Michigan, scientists are mapping out just what the next invasion might be and what, if anything, could be done to stop it.
A team of university and government researchers has identified 75 species that could find their way into the Great Lakes basin over time. Some of them are bad actors.
The next invasion could arrive in the murky ballast waters of ocean-going ships. It could come via the aquarium trade, sold at a pet store and later released. The next invader, experts say, could arrive in a truck selling bait, fish or water lilies for country ponds or urban water gardens. It could even arrive as live food at market.
“There are lots of other species waiting on our doorstep,” said Ed Rutherford, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
Rutherford recently addressed a group of charter captains in Ludington about the subject. He is part of a group of scientists who did the research and is now collaborating with others from the University of Notre Dame and The Nature Conservancy to identify the species that are most likely to arrive, how they might affect the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the routes they would take to get here.
Their concern, among others, is what invading species might do to the food web in the lakes, which could harm Michigan’s native species and $7 billion fishing industry.
The scientists’ current hit list of several high-priority, if low-profile, rogue species, includes the northern snakehead, monkey goby, New Zealand mudsnail, killer shrimp, golden mussel and hydrilla.
The snakehead has gained particular attention from the scientists. Rutherford said it is a voracious predator from Asia that can grow to 33 inches in length, survive out of water, move on land and breathe air.
In 2001 it was unheard of in the U.S., but it is now established in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York waters, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The fish have also been found in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas and North Carolina.
The fish was discovered in a Maryland pond in 2002, having been stocked by a man who bought two adults in a New York market. Maryland officials that were notified about the fish drained the pond and found two adults and more than 100 young. Considered a threat to the Chesapeake Bay fishery, all were destroyed.
“I think this one is coming,” Rutherford said. “People will bring them in live for the aquarium trade. It’s also been found in live markets around Toronto.”
The snakehead poses no threat to humans, but fish biologists worry they could threaten near-shore Great Lakes sport fish populations. They could easily dominate drowned river mouths or inland lakes and ponds, experts say.
The snakehead is a prolific breeder, producing 40,000 eggs when it spawns. Young snakeheads enjoy a higher than average survival rate, Rutherford said. The adults zealously guard the young after hatching.
Experts also are concerned about a familiar aquarium plant — the hydrilla. Call it “oxygen weed,” the name under which it is often sold, said Lindsay Chadderton, a collaborator on the project and the aquatic invasive species director for The Nature Conservancy.
Chadderton called it a “well-known invasive around the world that is problematic in many countries.”
If it gets established in shallow wetlands or bays, it can choke out all other native vegetation, he said. That, in turn, can harm species that either feed on or live in the habitat that is destroyed.
Hydrilla was imported into the U.S. as part of the aquarium trade and sold to customers to keep their tanks healthy. But people eventually tire of it and dump it out in wet places, where it takes root. Or it gets moved on boats and outboard engine propellers. It has also been spread “as a contaminant” when water lilies are sold for backyard water gardens, according to Chadderton.
“This is one I want to add because we’ve recently detected a number of populations on the doorstep of the Great Lakes, Chadderton said.
Not every invasive species causes big trouble, Rutherford said. The ruffe and tubenose goby are two examples of species that arrived but didn’t flourish or cause as much trouble as was anticipated.
And ballast water isn’t the only route invasives take into the Great Lakes.
What the scientists’ research illustrates is which species are likely to arrive given their survival needs and capabilities, and the available means for their transport or spread. They are also examining loopholes or inconsistent regulations from state to state that, for example, allow people to buy a live invasive species at fish market or pet store and release it.
State fisheries officials said the research will be highly beneficial for Michigan, which invests heavily in its Great Lakes and inland fisheries.
“If we understand the pathways to stop their entry, or if they do come and we have some pre-knowledge of how to manage the situation, it will help,” said Kelly Smith, state fisheries chief with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
“The one that really troubles me is the snakehead. It’s scary how that thing has progressed across the U.S. I think it’s only matter of time (before it arrives) and I am not sure what we would do if it gets here.”
Smith said he has had his hands full dealing with the immediate threat of the Asian carp. Recent DNA testing found no evidence of their presence in the St. Joseph River below the dam at Berrien Springs. The St. Joe is the first Michigan stream Asian carp would encounter moving along the southern shore of Lake Michigan.
Testing was conducted for evidence of the bighead and silver carp. The work was funded by Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smith said he is waiting for test results from the Paw Paw and Galien rivers and the lower St. Joe River. The western basin of Lake Erie will be tested in the spring.
E-mail Howard Meyerson: hmeyerson@grpress.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/HMeyerson
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/01/invasive_species_are_waiting_o.html
Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
While public attention has been riveted on the Asian carp’s progress toward Lake Michigan, scientists are mapping out just what the next invasion might be and what, if anything, could be done to stop it.
A team of university and government researchers has identified 75 species that could find their way into the Great Lakes basin over time. Some of them are bad actors.
The next invasion could arrive in the murky ballast waters of ocean-going ships. It could come via the aquarium trade, sold at a pet store and later released. The next invader, experts say, could arrive in a truck selling bait, fish or water lilies for country ponds or urban water gardens. It could even arrive as live food at market.
“There are lots of other species waiting on our doorstep,” said Ed Rutherford, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
Rutherford recently addressed a group of charter captains in Ludington about the subject. He is part of a group of scientists who did the research and is now collaborating with others from the University of Notre Dame and The Nature Conservancy to identify the species that are most likely to arrive, how they might affect the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the routes they would take to get here.
Their concern, among others, is what invading species might do to the food web in the lakes, which could harm Michigan’s native species and $7 billion fishing industry.
The scientists’ current hit list of several high-priority, if low-profile, rogue species, includes the northern snakehead, monkey goby, New Zealand mudsnail, killer shrimp, golden mussel and hydrilla.
The snakehead has gained particular attention from the scientists. Rutherford said it is a voracious predator from Asia that can grow to 33 inches in length, survive out of water, move on land and breathe air.
In 2001 it was unheard of in the U.S., but it is now established in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York waters, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
The fish have also been found in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas and North Carolina.
The fish was discovered in a Maryland pond in 2002, having been stocked by a man who bought two adults in a New York market. Maryland officials that were notified about the fish drained the pond and found two adults and more than 100 young. Considered a threat to the Chesapeake Bay fishery, all were destroyed.
“I think this one is coming,” Rutherford said. “People will bring them in live for the aquarium trade. It’s also been found in live markets around Toronto.”
The snakehead poses no threat to humans, but fish biologists worry they could threaten near-shore Great Lakes sport fish populations. They could easily dominate drowned river mouths or inland lakes and ponds, experts say.
The snakehead is a prolific breeder, producing 40,000 eggs when it spawns. Young snakeheads enjoy a higher than average survival rate, Rutherford said. The adults zealously guard the young after hatching.
Experts also are concerned about a familiar aquarium plant — the hydrilla. Call it “oxygen weed,” the name under which it is often sold, said Lindsay Chadderton, a collaborator on the project and the aquatic invasive species director for The Nature Conservancy.
Chadderton called it a “well-known invasive around the world that is problematic in many countries.”
If it gets established in shallow wetlands or bays, it can choke out all other native vegetation, he said. That, in turn, can harm species that either feed on or live in the habitat that is destroyed.
Hydrilla was imported into the U.S. as part of the aquarium trade and sold to customers to keep their tanks healthy. But people eventually tire of it and dump it out in wet places, where it takes root. Or it gets moved on boats and outboard engine propellers. It has also been spread “as a contaminant” when water lilies are sold for backyard water gardens, according to Chadderton.
“This is one I want to add because we’ve recently detected a number of populations on the doorstep of the Great Lakes, Chadderton said.
Not every invasive species causes big trouble, Rutherford said. The ruffe and tubenose goby are two examples of species that arrived but didn’t flourish or cause as much trouble as was anticipated.
And ballast water isn’t the only route invasives take into the Great Lakes.
What the scientists’ research illustrates is which species are likely to arrive given their survival needs and capabilities, and the available means for their transport or spread. They are also examining loopholes or inconsistent regulations from state to state that, for example, allow people to buy a live invasive species at fish market or pet store and release it.
State fisheries officials said the research will be highly beneficial for Michigan, which invests heavily in its Great Lakes and inland fisheries.
“If we understand the pathways to stop their entry, or if they do come and we have some pre-knowledge of how to manage the situation, it will help,” said Kelly Smith, state fisheries chief with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
“The one that really troubles me is the snakehead. It’s scary how that thing has progressed across the U.S. I think it’s only matter of time (before it arrives) and I am not sure what we would do if it gets here.”
Smith said he has had his hands full dealing with the immediate threat of the Asian carp. Recent DNA testing found no evidence of their presence in the St. Joseph River below the dam at Berrien Springs. The St. Joe is the first Michigan stream Asian carp would encounter moving along the southern shore of Lake Michigan.
Testing was conducted for evidence of the bighead and silver carp. The work was funded by Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smith said he is waiting for test results from the Paw Paw and Galien rivers and the lower St. Joe River. The western basin of Lake Erie will be tested in the spring.
E-mail Howard Meyerson: hmeyerson@grpress.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/HMeyerson
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/01/invasive_species_are_waiting_o.html
Monday, January 10, 2011
Bugging the bugs to save threatened species
Published Date: 10 January 2011
By John von Radowitz
Scientists involved in a conservation project have been bugging the homes of stag beetle larvae.
Tiny microphones are being used to eavesdrop on the white grubs that live in buried rotting wood. The larvae make rasping sounds known as "stridulation", which experts believe are used as a form of communication.
Listening to the larvae is one new technique being tried out to get a better idea of stag beetle numbers.
The stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, can reach a length of several centimetres. Well known for the dramatic "antlers" sported by males, it was once common but is now classified as "nationally scarce" in the UK.
Attempts to conserve it have been hampered by the lack of reliable population monitoring.
Scientists are also experimenting with ginger to lure flying beetles into aerial traps to be counted. They discovered adult stag beetles find ginger irresistible. It contains large amounts of alpha copaene, a chemical known to attract insects that live in dead and decaying wood.
The mini-microphones provide a means of detecting and tracking larvae without damaging their underground habitats.
They are being used alongside sensors that detect chemicals emitted by the grubs.
The team found stag beetle larvae stridulation patterns are very different from those of other insect species.
"Stridulation is likely to be a form of communication between larvae," said study leader Dr Deborah Harvey, from Royal Holloway, University of London. "It increases if larvae are handled or placed in solitary confinement."
The new technique could help conserve other rare species, she said, adding: "Acoustic detection of insects as a sampling method is very underused, but we believe it could have great potential in detecting larvae in the field."
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Bugging-the-bugs-to-save.6684903.jp
By John von Radowitz
Scientists involved in a conservation project have been bugging the homes of stag beetle larvae.
Tiny microphones are being used to eavesdrop on the white grubs that live in buried rotting wood. The larvae make rasping sounds known as "stridulation", which experts believe are used as a form of communication.
Listening to the larvae is one new technique being tried out to get a better idea of stag beetle numbers.
The stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, can reach a length of several centimetres. Well known for the dramatic "antlers" sported by males, it was once common but is now classified as "nationally scarce" in the UK.
Attempts to conserve it have been hampered by the lack of reliable population monitoring.
Scientists are also experimenting with ginger to lure flying beetles into aerial traps to be counted. They discovered adult stag beetles find ginger irresistible. It contains large amounts of alpha copaene, a chemical known to attract insects that live in dead and decaying wood.
The mini-microphones provide a means of detecting and tracking larvae without damaging their underground habitats.
They are being used alongside sensors that detect chemicals emitted by the grubs.
The team found stag beetle larvae stridulation patterns are very different from those of other insect species.
"Stridulation is likely to be a form of communication between larvae," said study leader Dr Deborah Harvey, from Royal Holloway, University of London. "It increases if larvae are handled or placed in solitary confinement."
The new technique could help conserve other rare species, she said, adding: "Acoustic detection of insects as a sampling method is very underused, but we believe it could have great potential in detecting larvae in the field."
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Bugging-the-bugs-to-save.6684903.jp
Bugging the bugs to save threatened species
Published Date: 10 January 2011
By John von Radowitz
Scientists involved in a conservation project have been bugging the homes of stag beetle larvae.
Tiny microphones are being used to eavesdrop on the white grubs that live in buried rotting wood. The larvae make rasping sounds known as "stridulation", which experts believe are used as a form of communication.
Listening to the larvae is one new technique being tried out to get a better idea of stag beetle numbers.
The stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, can reach a length of several centimetres. Well known for the dramatic "antlers" sported by males, it was once common but is now classified as "nationally scarce" in the UK.
Attempts to conserve it have been hampered by the lack of reliable population monitoring.
Scientists are also experimenting with ginger to lure flying beetles into aerial traps to be counted. They discovered adult stag beetles find ginger irresistible. It contains large amounts of alpha copaene, a chemical known to attract insects that live in dead and decaying wood.
The mini-microphones provide a means of detecting and tracking larvae without damaging their underground habitats.
They are being used alongside sensors that detect chemicals emitted by the grubs.
The team found stag beetle larvae stridulation patterns are very different from those of other insect species.
"Stridulation is likely to be a form of communication between larvae," said study leader Dr Deborah Harvey, from Royal Holloway, University of London. "It increases if larvae are handled or placed in solitary confinement."
The new technique could help conserve other rare species, she said, adding: "Acoustic detection of insects as a sampling method is very underused, but we believe it could have great potential in detecting larvae in the field."
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Bugging-the-bugs-to-save.6684903.jp
By John von Radowitz
Scientists involved in a conservation project have been bugging the homes of stag beetle larvae.
Tiny microphones are being used to eavesdrop on the white grubs that live in buried rotting wood. The larvae make rasping sounds known as "stridulation", which experts believe are used as a form of communication.
Listening to the larvae is one new technique being tried out to get a better idea of stag beetle numbers.
The stag beetle, Lucanus cervus, can reach a length of several centimetres. Well known for the dramatic "antlers" sported by males, it was once common but is now classified as "nationally scarce" in the UK.
Attempts to conserve it have been hampered by the lack of reliable population monitoring.
Scientists are also experimenting with ginger to lure flying beetles into aerial traps to be counted. They discovered adult stag beetles find ginger irresistible. It contains large amounts of alpha copaene, a chemical known to attract insects that live in dead and decaying wood.
The mini-microphones provide a means of detecting and tracking larvae without damaging their underground habitats.
They are being used alongside sensors that detect chemicals emitted by the grubs.
The team found stag beetle larvae stridulation patterns are very different from those of other insect species.
"Stridulation is likely to be a form of communication between larvae," said study leader Dr Deborah Harvey, from Royal Holloway, University of London. "It increases if larvae are handled or placed in solitary confinement."
The new technique could help conserve other rare species, she said, adding: "Acoustic detection of insects as a sampling method is very underused, but we believe it could have great potential in detecting larvae in the field."
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Bugging-the-bugs-to-save.6684903.jp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)