Wolves & Sharks: key predators at risk from sport

From time to time in this blog, I have cited the role that ocean predators such as sharks play in maintaining a balanced ecosystem - whether we personally care for the animal or not. In fact when I would speak to groups about sharks, I would acknowledge the fears and distaste that some people in the audience might have but would then focus on the critical importance of the shark. You may not love them, but they are indispensable.

And from time to time, I have mentioned the ongoing situation regarding endangered wolves in the U.S. The designation of wolves as endangered in the Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain areas has been a flip-flopping issue with certain populations faced with extinction at the hands of hunters, backed by the support of concerned ranchers who have lost cattle to predation.

There are strong parallels between sharks and wolves both socially, with their interaction with mankind, and ecologically. First, ecologically, they serve the same functions as apex predators, maintaining a proper balance of fauna and even flora within their respective ecosystems. Without sharks, the numbers of their primary prey would increase, feeding on smaller prey that are often herbivores. And so there is a potential shift in a marine community and a potential increase in vegetation and algae that can threaten other life forms like coral - all part of the non-linear cascade effect.

Wolves serve a similar function, maintaining balance between prey ranging from small "varmints" to deer, elk, and moose. In the past when the wolves were not provided protection as endangered species, there was both an explosion in the small animal or rodent population and a decline in grazing land as more and more large animals like deer and elk would de-nude the grasslands.

Secondly, sharks have been exposed to senseless hunting through "shark tournaments" wherein large numbers of both juvenile and mature breeding sharks were hauled in, often times the catch being sharks of no tournament or commercial value. With organizations like the Shark-Free Marinas Initiative, there are efforts being made to at least alter the decisively fatal outcome generated by shark tournaments through the implementation of catch-and-release techniques. With the current state of regulations and protections for wolves being in somewhat disarray (see prior post), there are now similar tournaments, "wolf-killing derbies," that leave dwindling populations of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rocky areas, including Idaho and Montana, at great risk.

The Defenders of Wildlife, through their www.savewolves.org campaign, are working to protect these threatened land predators by educating people to their importance and by focusing public awareness towards the businesses and corporations that sponsor or support the wolf-killing derbies.

According to Defenders of Wildlife president, Rodger Schlickeisen, "Since wolves were reintroduced to Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho fifteen years ago, we’ve seen local ecosystems rebound as these top predators helped prevent overgrazing of foliage by elk and deer. According to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, there are 150,000 elk in Montana, compared to 90,000 in the mid 1980s when wolves started to make their way back to the state. Wyoming's elk population is up 35% since then to 95,000, while Idaho's is up 5% to 115,000."

Sharks and wolves - critically important predators that bring balance to nature's ecosystems but whose image, from Jaws to Little Miss Riding Hood, have placed them on a collision course with man - are at risk of extinction. And, because of the complexity of nature's web, man's attempts to artificially achieve balance (eliminate the predator, then control the increasing prey populations) have not been particularly productive. The challenge is to find methods not to control nature's balance but to work with it, allowing it to flourish in it's infinitely more successful ways.

To learn more about the campaign to save the wolves, click here.
To learn more about the campaign to eliminate wolf-killing derbies, click here.

Crocodile Hunting: Australia rejects safaris to manage population

Sharks are not the only predators subject to discussions regarding their numbers and possible interactions with man. In the Northern Territory of Australia, crocodile populations have increased from a record low of 3000 in the 1970's, for both salt and fresh water species, to an estimated number today of 80,000 for just the saltwater species alone. The increase was the result of legislation that protected the crocodiles and limited any government-sanctioned culling to 600 per year.

But with that apparent ecological success story and the unfortunate deaths of four people by crocodiles, all in the month of March of this year, the Northern Territory government proposed "crocodile safaris" to allow tourists and trophy hunters to increase the number of crocodiles hunted with the idea that would correct the problem of crocodile-human interactions.

The proposal was rejected by Australia's environment minister who has, instead, increased the number of eggs that can be harvested and the number of crocodiles that can be legally culled.

Peter Garrett, environment minister, said, “I am of the view that safari hunting is not a suitable approach for the responsible management of crocodiles.” The prime minister of the Northern Territory has said that he would continue to press for the safaris.

This situation brings into question the entire issue of how does one "manage" any species to sustain its population, if management is required at all? With tourists and hunters entering the picture, one could not guarantee that the most "appropriate" animals would be taken - appropriate meaning older mature males or females who have had the opportunity to reproduce (if this is applicable to crocodiles; and I must admit I know little about them).

Another issue to consider is the circumstances behind the rash of human fatalities. Are crocodiles encroaching upon humans? Are humans, through increasing development or urbanization, encroaching upon the reptiles? Is the Northern Territory, when in a healthy environmental condition, an area where these and other types of animal interactions are to be expected? (A crocodile cruising down the main street in Miami is one thing; a croc resting near the green at the 9th hole of a golf course next to the Everglades is a different story.)

And then there's the concept, suggested by some, to let nature take its course, that the growing population of crocodiles would ultimately self-regulate based on available prey and natural selection (an increased population can also mean more sick and less "successful" crocodiles which would, over time, ultimately impact the population and balance it out in line with the overall ecosystem). The counter-argument would question how long this natural selection would take, since the current Northern Territory crocodile population has been growing steadily for over 30 years.

Sharks in the oceans, mountain lions and coyotes in the hills, even lions in the savannahs - all have populations at risk and all have the potential for human interaction. If we choose to regulate the species ourselves, we must do it with an eye on the entire health of the ecosystem in which they live and to remind ourselves who is encroaching on who.
Read entire article in Embrace Australia.

Northern Rockies Wolves: once again under the gun

Wolves are under the gun again, literally.

Until recently, Northern Rockies gray wolves had been on the Endangered Species List and therefore protected from extermination. While their numbers had been recovering, many conservation organizations felt the the government's decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list was premature. It was questionable as to whether there are sufficient number of breeding pairs. But, with the increasing numbers there is the inevitable occasional loss of livestock, and so the future fate of the wolf was put into question once again as pressure mounted to find a way to placate ranchers with some sort of "acceptable" sustainable population figure.

Unfortunately, it was decided that the magic number was to be less than the current population. In August, it was reported that Idaho was issuing over 10,000 hunting licenses for the taking of 220 wolves - out of a population reported to be somewhere between 846 and 1,000. Conservation organizations rallied their legal forces to reinstate the wolves' former status and a final decision is in the hands of a judge as to an injunction against the Idaho hunt.

But in the meantime, the hunt has begun and the first kills have been reported.

And the issue is spilling over into other states. Montana is preparing to open up wolf hunting on September 15th. And there has been concern emanating from Oregon where a very small number of wolves exists, a fledgling splinter group from the larger Northern Rockies population. Conservationists are concerned that, with the reduction of wolves through open hunting, the populations ranging across all these states will be threatened due to a lack of mating prospects and lost continuum of a healthy genetic pool.

Interestingly, this is the same issue expressed regarding the loss of oceanic predators like great whites - that the loss of one population can impact another population many miles away, perhaps a population even in so-called "protected" waters, due to a loss of the gene pool mix within these migratory animals.

According to Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, "Idaho hosts the core of the Northern Rockies wolf population, with approximately 1,000 wolves. By wiping out 220 wolves, the state will cripple the regional wolf population by isolating wolves into disconnected subgroups incapable of genetic or ecological sustainability."

"It's only a matter of time," warned Stone, "before Idaho's state legislature enforces their demand that all wolves be removed 'by whatever means necessary,' which is still the state's official policy on wolves."

Read story in Environmental News Service.

Lionfish and Pythons: invasive species paying the ultimate price

Well, I'm back from a very successful trip to Chattanooga, Tennessee. Hopefully I will have impressed a few listeners before they watch shark television programming that seems to be obsessed with one thing this year: shark attacks.

I caught two interesting news bits on invasive species. The introduction of foreign animal and plant life into an ecosystem can have disastrous effects either on the ecosystem itself - as in the case of invasive seaweeds or predators like the lionfish - or on our man-made infrastructures - like the damage caused to water pipes from freshwater mussels.

1. Speaking of lionfish: their population has been exploding in the warm waters off Florida and the Caribbean, ever since their introduction by aquarists who could no longer care for them at home and released them into the wild. Voracious by nature, the beautiful lionfish was thought to possibly be held in check through predation by larger animals like groupers. While that still may be the case someday, at the moment it's a losing battle. One that has prompted the development of "lionfish tournaments" which have netted as many as 1200+ lionfish in a single event.

2. TIME magazine just reported on a government-sanctioned program to rid the Florida Everglades of exotic Asian pythons - again, introduced into the wild by owners who could no longer manage them at home. These reptiles, like the Burmese python, can reach a length of up to 18 feet and can disrupt the Everglade's predator-prey hierarchy by feeding on everything from small rodents all the way up to the typical apex predator of the Everglades, the alligator. Officials from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation are working with snake experts to round up some of the estimated 150,000 pythons and are considering even issuing bounty hunter permits.

It's a sad price that has to be paid by all invasive species, whether plant or animal, when the result is their wholesale destruction. But the real villain lies with man either through his thoughtlessness, negligence, or perverse need to own exotic animals as pets. And because of it, we must then cover our tracks at the end of a spear or the barrel of a gun.