There's good news in the dolphin world--three new wildlife sanctuaries have been declared by the government of Bangladesh, with the hopes that they will help to prevent the extinction of the Irrawaddy and Ganges river dolphins, which are both threatened species. Apparently the Yangzte dolphin is already believed to be (native to this area), so leaders are hoping that these sanctuaries will help to protect the remaining two species for a similar fate. These sanctuaries will cover a total of 11 square kilometers, which includes 31 kilometres of channels. The size and location of the sanctuaries was determined using scientific findings from a study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Bangladesh Forest Department. Currently, there are no numbers of exactly how many of the Irrawaddy and Ganges river dolphins there are. They are being considered as on the decline because they have started to disappear in many of their original habitats. Contributing factors are believed to be depletion of their natural prey as well as being tangled in fishing lines.
This is what the director of WCS's Asian Freshwater and Coastal Cetacean Program, Brian D. Smith, has to say about the issue: "Declaration of these Wildlife Sanctuaries is an essential first step in protecting Ganges River and Irrawaddy dolphins in Bangladesh. As biological indicators of ecosystem-level impacts, freshwater dolphins can inform adaptive human-wildlife management to cope with climate change, suggesting a broader potential for conservation and sustainable development.
With these sanctuaries, they are hoping to protect other species as well.
http://blog.arkive.org/2012/02/new-sanctuaries-to-help-threatened-dolphins/
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Bat Habitats or Strip Mining?
Over the past few years, nearly 7 million bats have died due to white-nose syndrome. One of the species that have been hit the hardest is the Indiana bat, an endangered species. So, if these endangered bats are found in an area, isn't it our job to protect them? Well, the Forest Service in Illinois doesn't seem to think so. They have come up with the Shawnee National Forest Plan, which will trade out a parcel of the forest, which happens to be endangered bat habitat, for strip mining for the Peabody Energy Company. The Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club oppose the land swap, and are suing the Forest Service for not consulting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service first to see that this deal would not illegally hurt the species. Just last summer, biologists found 2 types of endangered bat species roosting and foraging: the Indiana bat and the gray bat. So far the dreaded white-nose syndrome hasn't appeared in gray bats yet, but biologists believe that they are susceptible to the disease as well. As far as the Indiana bat goes, their numbers have been reduced by 70% in the Northeastern US. The chair of the Sierra Club's Shawnee National Forest Committee Jim Bensman, has this to say: “The Forest Service has a legal obligation to make protection of endangered species a top priority. When the agency found out last summer there were Indiana bats and gray bats on the land, its first move should have been to safeguard that habitat, not move forward with a plan with Peabody to have it strip-mined.”
I will be on the look-out for what happens with this issue.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Romney Doesn't Seem to Know What He's Talking About...
At least when it comes to the state of Nevada. When interviewed by the editorial staff of the Reno-Gazette Journal, he was asked about whether he would sell public lands back to the state and this is what he said:
Apparently, some one needs to do their homework. Or perhaps someone just needs to tell him that these public lands boost our economy and provide an enormous amount of jobs. In 2010, federally managed public lands in Nevada provided over $1 billion dollars...that may not sound like a lot of money to him but it does to me. Also, many recreational activities take place on these lands, such as skiing, boating, and hiking. He seems to not understand why the government is denying coal (he's interested in mining it), gold, and other resources to the citizens, especially since it's mostly inhabitable deserts and mountains. I'm not one to really follow politics, but I stumbled across this article and thought I'd share.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/03/418141/romney-public-lands/?mobile=nc
"I don’t know the reason that the federal government owns such a large share of Nevada. And when I was in Utah at the Olympics there I heard a similar refrain there. What they were concerned about was that the government would step in and say, “We’re taking this” — which by the way has extraordinary coal reserves — “and we’re not going to let you develop these coal reserves.” I mean, it drove the people nuts. Unless there’s a valid, and legitimate, and compelling governmental purpose, I don’t know why the government owns so much of this land.
So I haven’t studied it, what the purpose is of the land, so I don’t want to say, “Oh, I’m about to hand it over.” But where government ownership of land is designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state, I would find that to be unacceptable."
Apparently, some one needs to do their homework. Or perhaps someone just needs to tell him that these public lands boost our economy and provide an enormous amount of jobs. In 2010, federally managed public lands in Nevada provided over $1 billion dollars...that may not sound like a lot of money to him but it does to me. Also, many recreational activities take place on these lands, such as skiing, boating, and hiking. He seems to not understand why the government is denying coal (he's interested in mining it), gold, and other resources to the citizens, especially since it's mostly inhabitable deserts and mountains. I'm not one to really follow politics, but I stumbled across this article and thought I'd share.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/03/418141/romney-public-lands/?mobile=nc
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
New Foresty Management Plan Weakens Wildlife Protection
http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/05/2141311/new-forest-management-plan-weakens.html#storylink=misearch
In 1982, regulations were set that required the National Forest Service to protect wildlife, especially since logging in old-growth forests were a big issue. In 1990, a Northwest forest plan greatly reduced logging in the region's old-growth forests on federal land. Now, changes are on the horizon. The national planning rule that governs individual national forest plans is about to change, and scientists and environmentalists say many of the changes are improvements, but it changes the way that wildlife is protected.
The plan, which covers all uses of forest(timber harvests, grazing, recreation and wilderness) is expected to become final in early March. However, conservationists say that the wildlife provision is the weakest. Niel Lawrence, an attorney with the Natural Resource Defense Council says that, "This plan is much less protective than the 1982 Reagan-era one on wildlife protection....this provision is the single strongest protection for the national forests, and the agency is not retaining it."
In 1982, the rule stated that the Forest Service was to manage fish and wildlife habitat so that the healthy populations of animals were well distributed through each forest. With the new provision, forest managers are required to maintain habitats. It is up to this one individual whether or not to give species any extra protection or not.
In 1982, regulations were set that required the National Forest Service to protect wildlife, especially since logging in old-growth forests were a big issue. In 1990, a Northwest forest plan greatly reduced logging in the region's old-growth forests on federal land. Now, changes are on the horizon. The national planning rule that governs individual national forest plans is about to change, and scientists and environmentalists say many of the changes are improvements, but it changes the way that wildlife is protected.
The plan, which covers all uses of forest(timber harvests, grazing, recreation and wilderness) is expected to become final in early March. However, conservationists say that the wildlife provision is the weakest. Niel Lawrence, an attorney with the Natural Resource Defense Council says that, "This plan is much less protective than the 1982 Reagan-era one on wildlife protection....this provision is the single strongest protection for the national forests, and the agency is not retaining it."
In 1982, the rule stated that the Forest Service was to manage fish and wildlife habitat so that the healthy populations of animals were well distributed through each forest. With the new provision, forest managers are required to maintain habitats. It is up to this one individual whether or not to give species any extra protection or not.
Brenda Halter-Glenn, who led the team that created the new national plan, said in an interview that the new measure was more realistic about wildlife protection. "The focus of this rule is on ecological conditions or habitat," she said. "Those are the things we think through our management actions we can affect. We can create or maintain or restore habitat, but we can't necessarily ensure that we have viable populations of all species (Shoof)." She also mentioned that there's a lot of accountability factored in, because they require forest managers to show them how they used science to make their decisions. But still, there's a lot of discretion. Scientists are saying that all native species should be protected and that the plan also should require monitoring populations of certain animals that are selected to get a sense of overall wildlife health.
.....I will finish this later!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Pythons continue to be a problem in the Everglades
But the question is, how much longer until these snakes are disturbing other areas besides the Everglades?
As of late, the Burmere pythons, which are native to Asia, are being blamed for most of the mid-sized mammals disappearance in the Everglades. Starting as pets, once these snakes become to large to handle, their owners set them free into the wilderness, riding themselves of their burden. But now that burden is on the native species of the Everglades. According to scientist Michael Dorcas who frequently does vehicle spot counts, there is a 99.3 percent decrease in raccoon observations, 98.9 percent in possums, 94 percent white-tailed deer, and 87.5 percent in bobcats. Although this method isn't always accurate, it gives a good indication of how the other species in the area are adapting to the predator--which is not very well. Some scientists have questioned a disease theory, but there is no evidence to support it. Dorcas points out that there hasn't been a snake this big in the Everglades in millions of years, so the animals that live there, who have been accustomed to seeing snakes, don't see them as being predators (which in turn leaves them being eaten). These snakes have reached to the elite status of being the top predator. There is also concern that these pythons will soon be able to adapt to colder climates, allowing them to spread. Biologist Susan Jewell says, "it's possible Florida's pythons could spread if they learn how to survive in colder weather...this can happen anywhere — and most likely will if these snakes get established."
So what is being done to try and stop this from happening? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are implementing laws so that it is illegal to import Burmese pythons or transport them across state lines (this ban also includes the yellow Anaconda and the northern and southern African pythons). Inter-state trade is still legal. As stated in the article, Jewell says the import ban won't help the Everglades — it's too late there. The ban is simply meant to keep pythons and other constrictors from spreading. Hopefully this means that there's a chance that these snakes will not extend their territory to anywhere else. They could live almost anywhere in the Southern US, and I know for a fact that I do not want to walk onto my dock and see one of these swimming around.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/31/146124073/pythons-blamed-for-everglades-disappearing-animals
As of late, the Burmere pythons, which are native to Asia, are being blamed for most of the mid-sized mammals disappearance in the Everglades. Starting as pets, once these snakes become to large to handle, their owners set them free into the wilderness, riding themselves of their burden. But now that burden is on the native species of the Everglades. According to scientist Michael Dorcas who frequently does vehicle spot counts, there is a 99.3 percent decrease in raccoon observations, 98.9 percent in possums, 94 percent white-tailed deer, and 87.5 percent in bobcats. Although this method isn't always accurate, it gives a good indication of how the other species in the area are adapting to the predator--which is not very well. Some scientists have questioned a disease theory, but there is no evidence to support it. Dorcas points out that there hasn't been a snake this big in the Everglades in millions of years, so the animals that live there, who have been accustomed to seeing snakes, don't see them as being predators (which in turn leaves them being eaten). These snakes have reached to the elite status of being the top predator. There is also concern that these pythons will soon be able to adapt to colder climates, allowing them to spread. Biologist Susan Jewell says, "it's possible Florida's pythons could spread if they learn how to survive in colder weather...this can happen anywhere — and most likely will if these snakes get established."
So what is being done to try and stop this from happening? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are implementing laws so that it is illegal to import Burmese pythons or transport them across state lines (this ban also includes the yellow Anaconda and the northern and southern African pythons). Inter-state trade is still legal. As stated in the article, Jewell says the import ban won't help the Everglades — it's too late there. The ban is simply meant to keep pythons and other constrictors from spreading. Hopefully this means that there's a chance that these snakes will not extend their territory to anywhere else. They could live almost anywhere in the Southern US, and I know for a fact that I do not want to walk onto my dock and see one of these swimming around.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/31/146124073/pythons-blamed-for-everglades-disappearing-animals
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)