radiofree.asia

Category: animals

  • Biodiversity Study Highlights Destructive Global Impact Of Humans

    One of the largest studies ever conducted on biodiversity loss worldwide has revealed that humans are having a severely detrimental impact on global wildlife.

    The number of species is declining, as well as the composition of populations.

    “Biological diversity is under threat. More and more plant and animal species are disappearing worldwide, and humans are responsible. Until now, however, there has been no synthesis of the extent of human intervention in nature and whether the effects can be found everywhere in the world and in all groups of organisms,” a press release from University of Zurich (UZH) said.

    The post Biodiversity Study Highlights Destructive Global Impact Of Humans appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • How A Worker Cooperative Is Mitigating The Stray Animal Crisis

    The popularity of support animals attests to the mental health benefits of bonding with a pet, such as decreased stress, anxiety, and loneliness. According to the Mayo Clinic, having pets may also positively impact cardiovascular health and blood pressure control.

    Unfortunately, many animals that could be treasured companions never get that opportunity. This is especially true in the state of Texas. According to the animal welfare group Best Friends Animal Society, approximately 568,325 cats and dogs entered Texas shelters in 2023, and an estimated 82,681 of these animals were killed.

    The post How A Worker Cooperative Is Mitigating The Stray Animal Crisis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • At Least 330 Species Are Contaminated With Cancer-Causing “Forever Chemicals”

    A class of chemicals linked to multiple health hazards in humans have been detected in hundreds of wildlife species across the United States, according to a report issued Wednesday. The report was released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) along with a map demonstrating that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are contaminating wildlife on every continent except…

    Source

  • Second whistleblower says decision to evacuate animals from Afghanistan did come from PM

    A second Foreign Office whistleblower has backed up claims that Boris Johnson was directly involved in the decision to evacuate cats and dogs from Afghanistan.

    The evacuation of animals from the Nowzad charity sparked controversy last year as thousands trying to flee the Taliban after the fall of Kabul were left behind.

    But the Prime Minister has repeatedly denied he was directly involved in the decision to bring the animals out of the country, saying claims were “complete nonsense”, despite emails and whistleblower evidence suggesting the opposite.

    Further evidence

    Raphael Marshall, who worked for the Foreign Office at the time, previously gave evidence and revealed an email showing an official in Foreign Office minister lord Goldsmith’s private office telling colleagues on August 25 that “the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.

    Now, a second Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) civil servant has given evidence to a Commons committee backing up his claims.

    Josie Stewart, who has worked for the FCDO since 2015 including for the British Embassy in Kabul, said she expected she would lose her job for the revelations.

    Stewart, a senior staff member, volunteered on the Afghanistan response and worked on the special cases team where those potentially eligible to come to the UK were assessed on an individual basis.

    She said:

    It was widespread ‘knowledge’ in the FCDO crisis centre that the decision on Nowzad’s Afghan staff came from the Prime Minister.

    Stewart told the Foreign Affairs Committee she:

    saw messages to this effect on Microsoft Teams, I heard it discussed in the crisis centre including by senior civil servants, and I was copied on numerous emails which clearly suggested this.

    Caught

    She said no one challenged this, including Nigel Casey, the Prime Minister’s special representative for Afghanistan.

    Casey has claimed that after checking his emails he “could not find any that referred to any prime ministerial intervention on the subject of Nowzad”.

    But Stewart said that “yet when I searched my emails for ‘PM’ and ‘Nowzad’ I found more than one email referencing ‘the PM’s decision on Nowzad’ and with Nigel Casey in copy”.

    Johnson and ministers have repeatedly denied that the PM had any involvement in the evacuation of the Nowzad animals from Kabul.

    Stewart, however, said civil servants had “intentionally lied” to the Commons committee. Stewart continued:

    It is possible, although it would be surprising, that neither (Foreign Office permanent under-secretary) Philip Barton nor Nigel Casey remembered seeing the emails about supposed PM involvement on the day they were sent.

    Stewart made it clear:

    I cannot see how it is possible that they would not have found the extensive evidence of this when asked about it later.

    She said in order to make his claim Casey must have either deleted his emails against instructions, did not know how to use the search function in email client Outlook, “found the emails but somehow concluded they were not relevant”, or “he was lying”.

    Lobbying

    Stewart also hit out at other aspects of the response to the Afghanistan crisis.

    She said the sheer amount of lobbying done by MPs on behalf of cases that had been highlighted to them meant

    that most of the focus of the special cases team was on tracking down correspondence or data on individuals with connections, when it could otherwise have been spent identifying and ensuring we helped the most vulnerable people.

    She said:

    We were all desperately trying to help people we knew. Doubtless I would have done the same, had I been in a position of political influence. But the cost and implications of this should not be overlooked.

    She also said there was confusion on who fit into which category for prioritisation, the rota was not fit for purpose with staff taking scheduling into their own hands.

    Stewart said there was “no central process or system for handling correspondence” with six inboxes she was aware of being used:

    The very existence of some mailboxes was forgotten about entirely between shifts.

    The whistleblower said the “only urgency” she saw applied to managing correspondence was when then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab pledged that all MPs would receive an answer to their cases by September 6:

    This was purely in order to enable the Foreign Secretary to say that all emails from MPs had been read, and to issue a generic response.

    Culture

    Stewart said she did not believe that anything was done with any of the information in the emails at that time.

    She said that in the FCDO’s priorities it

    did not seem to be considered important to respond to individuals in distress, even just to acknowledge their situation.

    She added that when she was able to respond to a handful of emails, she was met with

    replies brimming with gratitude, for the simple fact that someone noticed, and responded.

    She said she came to believe that the evacuation was not a humanitarian response but

    was to protect the UK from reputational damage and to manage domestic political fallout.

    Stewart also spoke about the culture in the FCDO, as she said:

    they know there is no space for speaking up, and no prospect of being able to make things any better even if they do.

    She said the death of FCDO diplomat Richard Morris, who took his own life in August 2020 with the coroner concluding that work stress was at least in part a factor, was:

    tragically resonant in terms of the sense of appalling responsibility within a broken system.

    By The Canary

  • Wolves Remain at Risk as Hunters and Their State-Level Allies Call the Shots

    Alpha female Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) does a teasing dance with a beta male in fresh falling snow in Montana.

    In case you missed it, in February, hunters killed more than 200 wolves in Wisconsin in three days. When the smoke cleared, at least 20 percent of the state’s wolves were dead.

    It started when the Trump administration removed federal protections for wolves in January, triggering a Wisconsin law which requires that a wolf hunt be held beginning in November and running through February, or until the quota of killed wolves is reached. Wildlife managers dutifully began planning a hunt for the fall, but a hunting group sued and a judge said that the killing needed to get started immediately.

    More than 27,000 people jumped at the chance to get one of roughly 2,400 available permits. The hunt was supposed to last a week but the wolves didn’t stand a chance. A reported 216 wolves were killed, blowing past the quota by 82 percent. Most of the wolves were killed by hunters patrolling roads looking for wolf tracks in the snow, and then releasing radio-collared dogs to run them down. It was wolf mating season, so it’s a safe assumption that many of the wolves killed were pregnant or caring for pups already born.

    Let’s call this “hunt” what it was — a slaughter. Ethical hunters eat what they kill. Nobody eats wolves. Maybe some pelts were kept as trophies or rugs. The fact is, most of these smart animals were killed simply because a lot of people want to put a bullet in a wolf, and states like Wisconsin are happy to accommodate them.

    Of course, the usual justifications for the hunt were put forth. Wolves, it was said, needed to be killed to reduce attacks on livestock, or to increase deer populations, or simply to keep them from running amok. None of these reasons is supported by modern science.

    The number of wolf attacks on livestock and pets in 2020 in Wisconsin was miniscule — less than 100. Even if that number were higher, studies show that killing wolves randomly wherever hunters can find them is not an ineffective way to reduce conflicts with livestock. As for Wisconsin’s 1 million plus deer, predation by wolves is insignificant compared to the more than 300,000 deer taken by hunters each year. The idea that wolves need to be killed by humans to keep their numbers from growing out of control is one of the big lies in wildlife management today. Research shows that top carnivores like wolves regulate their own numbers through actions, such as defending territories and restricting breeding to the alpha pair.

    There are plenty of reasons not to kill wolves. They keep game populations healthy by preying on the sick and infirm. They can reduce the prevalence of Lyme disease and other diseases. They shape ecosystems in ways that benefit a host of species, from songbirds to beavers. They are intelligent, family–oriented creatures.

    But even if none of these things were true, there is another reason: it is wrong. Wolves have a right to live, and don’t deserve to die because some people, whether out of fear, hatred, sadism or misplaced anger at urban elites, want to kill them.

    The Wisconsin wolf debacle reveals the ugly nature of wildlife management in the U.S. today. It was an act of extreme injustice sanctioned by a system in which such acts have long been the norm. The system is controlled by the tiny minority (4 percent) of Americans who hunt, a group that tends to be older white men with conservative values that skew toward a view of wild animals as resources to be dominated and exploited rather than sentient beings with intrinsic rights to exist. Not all hunters hold these views, of course, but certainly many wolf shooters do.

    Hunters have long had a stranglehold on wildlife governance. In every state, wildlife policy is shaped by appointed commissions populated mostly by hunters. Wildlife agency staff are often hunters themselves who have been steeped in the “hook and bullet” dogma that wild animals cannot be left to their own devices, but must instead be “managed” (i.e., controlled), usually through the violence of hunting and trapping.

    Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans who do not hunt, and the values they tend to hold of coexistence and respect for animals, are excluded when it comes to making decisions about how wild animals ought to be treated.

    One would think that bringing more compassion and democracy to our dealings with wild animals would be higher on the progressive agenda, but that is not the case. For whatever reason, perhaps out of fear of rural voters, or the NRA, or the ordinary speciesism that is so rampant in our society, Democrats have ceded control of wildlife issues to conservatives.

    This is evident in the membership of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC), a pro-hunting, pro-gun group whose positions on a wide range of issues are difficult to square with a broader justice agenda. CSC supports a slew of controversial practices that the public finds objectionable, such as trapping, using dogs to hunt bears, and wildlife killing contests, which the CSC describes as “time-honored traditions.”

    CSC is unabashedly anti-democratic. It labels anyone who questions the status quo in wildlife management as “anti-hunting” and opposes the appointment of nonhunters to wildlife commissions. It promotes “right to hunt” laws that enshrine hunting as the preferred way to manage wildlife. It applauded the Wisconsin wolf hunt as “successful,” and reaffirmed its support for state control of wildlife management.

    One would not expect progressives to be part of such a group, yet they comprise a fifth of the CSC’s membership, including such prominent leaders as Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi).

    It’s time for progressives to embrace the fight for wildlife and recognize the systemic inequities in wildlife management in the U.S. In what other social justice arenas would they stand with the group that seeks to retain its privilege through policies intended to marginalize and brutalize? It is wolves that need our protection, not the people who shoot them. Justice for all means justice for all.

    There is hope that the Biden administration will reinstate federal protection for wolves under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before more wolves die in Wisconsin and other states like Michigan, where (mostly) Republicans are pushing for hunts. Wolf delisting is one of many Trump environmental rollbacks currently under review. Meanwhile, wildlife advocates are challenging the delisting in court.

    But the on-again, off-again protection of the ESA is not a long-term solution. Wolves will never be safe as long as hunters and their allies at the state level call the shots.

    Grassroots activists in a growing number of states are agitating for reforms that would give nonhunters a greater voice in wildlife decisions. Federal action could give these efforts a tremendous boost. One possibility is using federal funds to incentivize change through vehicles like the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act which, if passed, would flood states with new money for wildlife conservation. That money should come with strings tied to reforms, such as guaranteeing nonhunters greater representation on state wildlife commissions and expanding the legal authority of state wildlife agencies to manage all species, not just game animals. Another possibility is for the Biden administration to break tradition and assert jurisdiction over wildlife on federal public lands to end controversial practices like wolf hunting on those properties.

    The first step, however, is for progressives to understand that wildlife issues are part of the larger struggle for justice, and to figure out which side of the fight they are on.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Animal charity which employs PM’s fiancee Carrie Symonds probed by regulator

    An investigation has been launched by the Charity Commission into an animal conservation group which employs the prime minister’s fiancee Carrie Symonds amid “serious concerns” about its “governance and financial management”.

    Concerning

    The government watchdog has announced it began probing the Aspinall Foundation in July 2020 in relation to claims of “unauthorised trustee benefit” and whether trustees “have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law”.

    The Aspinall Foundation was founded in 1984 and runs breeding sanctuaries for endangered animals as well as operating the Howletts and Port Lympne animal parks in Kent, which were set up by gambling club host and animal enthusiast John Aspinall.

    Symonds was appointed head of communications for the foundation earlier this year, although the subject of the inquiry dates from before she joined the organisation.

    Carrie Symonds animal charity appointment
    Carrie Symonds is head of communications at the Aspinall Foundation (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

    A statement from the charity regulator says:

    The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into the Aspinall Foundation over serious concerns about the charity’s governance and financial management. The regulator began examining the charity in July 2020 over concerns about the management of conflicts of interest and related-party transactions.

    It opened a regulatory compliance case and began engaging with the trustees regarding these concerns in November of last year, and the trustees have been fully co-operating with the commission.

    Since that time, the regulator has identified further questions regarding the charity’s governance, and it will now examine all these issues as part of a formal statutory inquiry.

    The inquiry will examine the administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees with specific regard to how conflicts of interest have been dealt with and managed, whether or not there has been any unauthorised trustee benefit and whether or not the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities under charity law.

    Charity

    The statement adds that the launch of the inquiry “is not a finding of wrongdoing”.

    A spokesperson for the charity, which has launched its own internal review led by independent specialists, said:

    The Aspinall Foundation remains firmly committed to its ethical and legal duties as a charitable body. Our trustees will continue to work openly and transparently with the Charity Commission to ensure best practice governance and compliance.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Evidence points to huge sums of unaccounted for cash in Zimbabwe’s cruel elephant sales

    The controversial sale of elephants from Zimbabwe to other countries, mostly China, is again in the spotlight. The renewed scrutiny comes due to author and filmmaker Karl Ammann highlighting related trading documents. They suggest there’s vast amounts of unaccounted for cash connected to the trades.

    The attention comes at a bad time for China. The country is due to host a high profile biodiversity conference in May. These revelations will also do little to lessen criticism of Zimbabwe’s decision to capture wild elephants and sell them off to foreign zoos. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is unlikely to take pleasure in the scrutiny either. The global wildlife trading body oversees the system through which these elephant trades happen. Moreover, it’s already facing legal complaints over alleged violations of its rules.

    Most of all, however, the fresh controversy is a further indictment of the wildlife trade. It’s an industry that has already proved to be devastating for humans and other animals. So the last thing it needs is further marks against its name.

    The numbers don’t add up

    Zimbabwe exported 32 young elephants to China in 2019. The sale caused an uproar as it happened amid legal action to halt the shipment. Zimbabwe also went ahead with the export just before CITES implemented a landmark rule change that would have made it near impossible to push through.

    In response to the furore, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) released a list of elephant sales since 2016. On the list, ZimParks declared the income it earned from the elephants and what it spent the money on. It also named individuals in connection to the trades. ZimParks named Liang Zhao as being involved in the 2016 and 2019 trades. It named Qin Wei and Elske Burger in the 2017 and 2018 trades, respectively. Most of the sales were to venues in China, with one additionally to the UAE.

    ZimParks declared an income per elephant of between $31k and $41.5k. But Ammann, who’s been investigating the international trade in elephants for years, has now brought attention to trading documents connected to the sales. They appear to show that some of the Chinese recipient venues declared a cost per elephant of around $125k.

    That seems to be the case, for example, for both Longemont Animal World and Xiongsen Animal World. These venues received the elephants controversially sold in 2019, but ZimParks said the payment it received for the elephants going to those venues was $31k each. This means a discrepancy of $94k per elephant in those cases.

    Duty-free imports

    Ammann has further highlighted a document that shows China set “duty free import quotas for elephant, rhinos and pretty much everything else” in 2019. As such, he said, there would be “no need for a buyer to under or over declare the purchase price”.

    Meanwhile, the filmmaker says a “well-informed animal dealer” in South Africa told him that there was a “$100,000 price tag” on the elephants Zimbabwe sold to Dubai Safari Park in 2018. But Zimbabwe said the payment for each elephant going there was $41.5k. So there’s a $58.5k discrepancy per elephant in that transaction.

    What’s the problem?

    A major concern in relation to these unaccounted for funds is that allegations of bribery and kickbacks abound within the CITES wildlife trading system. One current legal complaint against CITES, for example, involves allegations of corruption in Asian elephant trading between Laos and China. The UK law firm Advocates for Animals has raised this complaint with CITES on behalf of Ammann.

    As The Canary previously reported, the legal complaint asserts that trafficking of elephants between the two countries “involved bribes with officials” in some cases. These bribes were allegedly sometimes connected with preparing the ‘paperwork’ for CITES permits. Within CITES, countries authorise trade through a permitting system.

    In the case of the unaccounted for funds in Zimbabwe’s exports, Ammann says that “a range of players”, including brokers, could have cashed in via “kickbacks, bribes and commissions”. He alleges that “several sources” in China have told him that there are costs in the region “of US $160,000 per permit and per shipment” involved in international wildlife trading there.

    The UK government lists the basic cost for a single CITES import and export permit as being less than £70.

    Ammann’s investigations into elephant trading between Laos and China have shown similar price discrepancies to those apparent in the Zimbabwe to China trading. Although Chinese dealers may purchase a Laotian elephant for around $25k, the price Chinese zoos pay for them can be up to $500k.

    So where’s the missing money?

    The Canary contacted CITES about the price discrepancies in the Zimbabwe elephant trades. Among other things, we asked if the body had any knowledge of where the opaque money from these transactions could have gone. We also asked if the unaccounted for funds could have paid for associated costs of the trade. And, if so, who should have declared them – and where – under the CITES system. Of course, trading often involves associated costs. In this situation, for example, transporting the elephants from Zimbabwe to China would have cost money. CITES, however, declined to comment.

    The Canary further contacted the Chinese CITES authorities and the country’s Endangered Species Scientific Commission. We asked about the unaccounted for funds and where associated costs should be recorded if they fall on the Chinese side of the transaction. We also asked about the country’s tax-free import quota. Specifically, we inquired whether the country takes steps to ensure such an incentive to import species doesn’t negatively impact those species’ conservation status in potential exporting countries. But they did not respond to The Canary either.

    ZimParks’ response

    The Canary contacted ZimParks too. We asked what role the named individuals had in the trades, such as animal traders or brokers. And we also asked whether the authority could explain the price discrepancy. Moreover, we raised an error in its list of elephant sales in 2017. It said ZimParks sold 30 elephants that year, whereas records show it in fact sold 38. The Canary further noted that four of the elephants sold in 2017 appear to have been subject to onward trading, as the documents Ammann highlighted showed. A tender announcement appears to show Ordos City Longsheng Wildlife Park purchased the four elephants from Tianjin Junheng International, in the same year that Tianjin Junheng International bought elephants from ZimParks. We asked the authority if it had assessed this onward trading venue’s suitability for the elephants.

    ZimParks didn’t provide a response to our questions by the time of publication. However, when the authority released its list of elephant sales in 2019, it provided comments to the media. It said at the time that any claims money from the sales are misappropriated by officials were “false and unfounded”. ZimParks insisted that its finances were “audited by both internal and external auditors”.

    On the destination venues, ZimParks said that receiving sites are “subjected to suitability assessment by a Zimbabwe team”. CITES secretary-general Ivonne Higuero has also previously said that a ZimParks veterinarian is sent with the elephants to China and stays with them for a month.

    Zimbabwe’s record

    Zimbabwe had a score of 24/100 on Transparency International’s 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index. ZimParks, for its part, has faced its fair share of corruption allegations. As a recent AllAfrica article noted, for example, some have accused its officials “of succumbing to coercion and bribery from powerful politicians and mining cartels” in relation to illegal gold digging in the country.

    In 2015, environmental activists raised concerns over non-transparency and exploitation in the government’s elephant trading. Those concerns centred on the suspected involvement of a Chinese woman with Zimbabwean citizenship named Song Li. Having founded the Sino-Zim Wildlife Foundation, she appears to be heavily involved in wildlife initiatives in Zimbabwe. The foundation has reportedly donated to conservation efforts in the country, as has the Chinese government. China’s foreign affairs ministry has also provided assistance to a Chinese NGO called Blue Sky Rescue to conduct an anti-poaching programme in Zimbabwe. In short, the two countries have strong ties in relation to Zimbabwe’s wildlife sector.

    In a 2015 article, Li admitted she had facilitated elephant trades between Zimbabwe and China. But she said she had earned nothing from it. A 2019 media report, meanwhile, claimed that a document named her as a facilitator in the 2016 trade. The Standard wrote:

    Li reportedly facilitated the deal according to the first leaked ZimParks document whereas in the second document Liang Zhao was named as the facilitator.

    Neither appropriate nor acceptable

    The fact that these elephant sales are seemingly up to their neck in opaque cash isn’t the only issue though. There are numerous problems with the trades.

    In a 2020 report, CITES members Niger and Burkina Faso accused Zimbabwe of contravening the Convention’s rules with the 2019 exports. Under the rules, Zimbabwe can only export elephants to ‘appropriate and acceptable destinations’ that are “suitably equipped to house and care” for them. In the report, the CITES members asserted that:

    there is no publicly available evidence suggesting that the safari park in Shanghai [Longemont Animal World] which received the 32 young elephants from Zimbabwe in October 2019 –or any of the likely further destinations –can be considered as “suitably equipped to house and care for” live elephants

    The report also noted that ZimParks officials and the chief inspector of the Zimbabwe National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ZNSPCA) had previously assessed eight Chinese venues in 2016, as ZimParks indicated in its 2019 comments. It explained that the inspectors “expressed concerns over the poor treatment and unacceptable facilities for elephants”. But the minister of environment authorised the exports nonetheless, the report said.

    South African journalist Adam Cruise also pointed out to The Canary that none of these Chinese venues were “members of global zoo organisations like WAZA [World Association of Zoos and Aquariums]”. He said “that in itself is telling”.

    Suffering “throughout their most likely significantly shortened lives”

    Ammann has secured footage of 11 of the elephants in the 2019 export at their further destination, namely Xiongsen Animal World. In November 2020, The Canary sought an assessment of the footage from a number of wildlife experts. They included an elephant specialist with 37 years of experience. The experts concluded that the situation these elephants are in has caused a “dramatic negative change in their welfare”. That negative change is evident in heartbreaking signs of stress that they’re exhibiting. The experts said these elephants will suffer “throughout their most likely significantly shortened lives”. The overwhelming reaction of the experts was that Xiongsen isn’t an ‘appropriate or acceptable’ destination.

    The trades have also faced hefty criticism for the brutality involved in abducting young elephants from their families. The young age of the elephants is also an area of controversy. Meanwhile, the scale of mortality in the trades is disturbing. Of eight young elephants exported in 2012, the 2020 report says seven are now dead or presumed dead. As of 2019, the remaining elephant was enduring a lonely existence in Taiyuan Zoo. He was in extremely inadequate conditions and had a history of poor health both mentally and physically. Meanwhile, the 2020 report said that of the 27 elephants Zimbabwe exported in 2015, 12 are now dead or presumed dead. The exact reasons for export-related deaths are often unclear. But injuries and illnesses sustained during capture, transport, and quarantine could have contributed to them.

    The highest price

    As The Canary has previously reported, the CITES system is full of holes that appear to be ripe for exploitation. The fact that huge sums of money may have disappeared through its cracks in relation to these trades is very concerning. It raises serious questions about the legality of these sales. Because an infraction of the domestic wildlife protection laws in the involved countries, such as those pertaining to corruption, could render the trades illegal under CITES’ rules. Right now, however, it appears few of those involved in the trades are willing to answer those questions. Clearly, though, the money isn’t just disappearing into thin air. There are apparently some winners in these less than transparent trades.

    Exactly who those winners are may not be known yet, but we do know who isn’t coming out on top. The families of the abducted elephants aren’t, as they’re left bereft and traumatised by the loss of their young. Neither, of course, are the young elephants themselves. Ripped from their homes and loved ones, they’re now enduring an unnatural life in captivity. One that’s potentially filled with all the horrors – such as brutal training and demeaning performances – that such an existence can hold.

    Featured image via Karl Ammann

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The most chilling aspect of the Tories’ plan to ‘edit’ the animals headed for people’s plates

    The Conservative government wants to loosen the rules around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in England. It’s pushing for organisms that are a result of ‘gene-editing’ (GE) and fit certain criteria to no longer be classified as GMOs.

    The organisms it’s referring to are, for example, animals that farmers raise for slaughter. The classification change would mean the rules for GMOs wouldn’t apply to these GE organisms. Those rules include strict regulation, close scrutiny, compulsory labelling, and more.

    As the Guardian explained, GE involves “cutting and splicing sections of DNA within a single genome to bring about changes” to an organism. The proposed change would essentially allow industries to play fast and loose with such ‘editing’ of organisms. That’s a Frankenstein nightmare of terrifying proportions. Worse still, the Conservative government is proposing the change at a time when the country has no law that recognises the sentience of non-human animals. That means there’s no law that ensures the feelings of these animals receive consideration in decision-making.

    A free-for-all on GE and no recognition that the animals being ‘edited’ have feelings. What could possibly go wrong?

    “Shameful Bastards”

    As The Canary has previously reported, the actions of Conservative politicians have ensured that the sentience of non-human animals isn’t recognised in UK law post-Brexit. A number of the EU laws relating to such animals were transferred into UK law as a part of the Brexit process. But during a 2017 debate in parliament on whether to transfer over the recognition of their sentience, all Conservative and DUP MPs present voted against doing so.

    The decision sparked outrage among the public, charities, and veterinary associations. TV personality Sue Perkins aptly branded the ‘no’ voting MPs “shameful bastards”. That triggered then environment secretary Michael Gove to desperately backpedal, claiming that the UK will recognise their sentience moving forward when it finds “the right legislative vehicle” to do so.

    Four years later, and the country is still waiting for that legislative vehicle. Ministers keep claiming they’re committed to enshrining the recognition in law. But, as of 2021, parliament has passed no such legislation.

    Ample time for editing

    Although the government hasn’t found the “Parliamentary time” to secure recognition of non-human animals’ feelings, it has found the time to do a consultation on gene-editing. The consultation ended on 17 March. As the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) explained in its consultation overview, the UK has retained EU law on GMOs after Brexit. EU law requires that “all GE organisms are classified as GMOs”. But Defra says that its view is that:

    organisms produced by GE or by other genetic technologies should not be regulated as GMOs if they could have been produced by traditional breeding methods

    As GeneWatch UK noted in its response to the consultation, however, Defra doesn’t define what it means by “could have been produced by traditional breeding”. Instead, GeneWatch says Defra includes it as a question in the consultation. So the department appears sure it wants to free GE organisms – that traditional breeding methods could have produced – from GMO regulation. But it seems open to suggestion on what its own criteria actually means.

    A “dark day for animal welfare”

    The government’s plan has met with hefty criticism. Referencing traditional breeding, which Defra appears to see as agreeable, chief policy adviser for Compassion in World Farming Peter Stevenson said:

    Traditional selective breeding has already pushed animals to fast growth and high yields, often with immense detrimental impacts on welfare. …

    Gene-editing is poised to make this all much worse

    Stevenson also noted that the government says GE could help tackle disease in animals used in agriculture. But he warned that this could enable them “to be kept in even worse conditions than now”. He branded the proposal a “dark day for animal welfare”.

    The RSPCA, the Soil Association, and the Sustainable Food Trust have all raised concerns over the plan. The National Farmers Union (NFU) and a number of scientists have, meanwhile, welcomed the consultation. The scientific and farming communities are, of course, the industries most likely to directly engage with and financially benefit from GE via research funding, patents, and trading in GE organisms.

    Extensive risks

    GeneWatch UK’s response to the consultation makes for particularly sobering reading. As it points out, current regulations for GMOs cover “the need for health and environmental risk assessments, public information, monitoring, traceability and labelling”. So GE could be exempt from all these requirements if the change goes ahead. The group says “most countries in the world” classify GE organisms as GMOs. So if England opts to be an outlier, it could have “major implications for global trade and for the UK’s internal market”.

    GeneWatch UK also notes that the debate around the proposed changes has centered on crops and animals used in agriculture. But it says that “changes to the law would apply to any organism” subject to GE. This includes, for example, wild animals and viruses. The group warns the law change would mean such:

    gene edited organisms could be released into the environment without proper risk assessment or traceability

    Among the risks the group cites IS an increased use of weedkillers due to the deregulation of GE herbicide-tolerant crops. This could be damaging to biodiversity and human health. It also says “the potential for pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and fungi, to evolve [and become more virulent and/or contagious] in response” to disease resistance in GE plants and animals is a “major area of concern”. Meanwhile, GeneWatch UK warns that, if deregulated, GE meat, eggs, milk, and fish “could enter the market without any traceability or labelling”. This would make it “very difficult to recall products if anything goes wrong”, such as issues arising over food safety.

    Making (more) war on nature

    The group further notes that the majority of potential applications of GE animals in agriculture:

    aim to produce more meat, faster, using less space and thus support a highly industrial form of agriculture that causes a lot of animal suffering

    As already mentioned, the UK currently has no law that recognises that such animals can suffer, i.e. that they’re sentient. So their suffering may not even be taken into account.

    Recently, the UN said that ‘making peace with nature is the defining task of the 21st Century’. By all accounts, it appears that the UK government has instead opted for conflict. Its vision of the future appears to be one whereby humans (with god complexes) have seized control over nature and other living beings by deforming them at a cellular level and shaped them to their every whim. In that grand plan, it appears these humans will have to pay little heed to the feelings of other living beings, the autonomy of the natural world (and its evolutionary wisdom) or the consequences of their actions. That’s not peace, it’s an act of war.

    Featured image via Daily Mail / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Seaweed: A planet-saving, anti-burping drug for cows

    How scary are cow burps exactly? Measured by their planet-warming power, methane-filled livestock belches are the equivalent of 850 coal plants burning year-round. But scientists have found that spicing up cattle feed with a little seaweed can dramatically reduce the methane they produce, according to a new study out Tuesday.

    The promise that feed additives could make cows more climate-friendly can seem too good to be true, and it often is. Researchers have tried cloves, garlic, peppermint, and eucalyptus oil, and will get amazing results in test tubes, then find nothing works so well in the real world. In ads last July, a yodeling kid announced that Burger King would buy lemongrass-fed beef, a publicity campaign that lasted until scientists pointed out that lemongrass didn’t end up squelching much methane. 

    Ermias Kebreab with a cow from a previous seaweed feeding study. Photo by Gregory Urquiaga / UC Davis.

    By contrast, the evidence on a tropical red seaweed, Asparagopsis taxiformis, keeps getting stronger. Scientists began studying the effects of putting seaweed in cow feed in 2005, and as the experiments have moved out of the lab and into the barn, the promising results held up. The latest study, published in the journal PLoS One, shows that when 21 beef cattle ate a little bit of seaweed — less than a cup — mixed in with their feed each day, they burped out 82 percent less methane. 

    “This is much more than I expected, to be honest,” said Ermias Kebreab, an animal scientist who studies greenhouse gas emissions at the University of California, Davis. “I didn’t think we would get 80 percent reduction — that’s absolutely huge.”

    A company working on the problem of growing and supplying seaweed to farmers, Blue Ocean Barns, helped pay for the study. Blue Ocean Barns obviously has an interest in showing that this works, so in addition to seaweed, take these results with a grain of salt. But just a grain: Kebreab is a highly respected scientist, paid by your tax dollars, and another study in 2019, funded by the government, got similar results with dairy cows.

    This is what the red seaweed, Asparagopsis taxiformis, looks like before it is mixed with the rest of the feed. Photo by Timothy McConville / UC Davis.

    This new study asked the kinds of questions that will determine whether seaweed succeeds in the real world. Would its effectiveness wear off over time? Would it still work if the cattle ate more grass and less corn? And would the seaweed impart a scent of low tide to the beef?

    The answers were positive, by and large. It didn’t matter that the seaweed was 3 years old, and it kept working throughout the five-month trial. The cattle fattened up just fine. Afterward, researchers cooked some steaks on a George Foreman grill and taste testers found it indistinguishable from other ribeyes.

    The results, however, did depend on the rest of the diet. Just like humans, cattle that eat more fiber are gassier. The study showed that the seaweed still worked in cattle eating mostly roughage, just not as well — cutting burps by 60 percent instead of 80 percent. 

    But even at the low end, a 60 percent reduction is huge. Getting grass-fed cattle to produce less methane is crucial, because most cow-based emissions come from cattle grazing on hilly pastures, rather than those chewing corn in feedlots.

    So how long until ranchers start putting seaweed into their feed? There are still two major hurdles. The Food and Drug Administration classifies feed additives  as drugs, so scientists need to complete clinical trials on cattle eating seaweed, which Kebreab said are already underway. Companies also need to figure out how to grow this red seaweed efficiently enough to provide it at a low cost. Blue Ocean Barns and another company, Symbrosia, are experimenting with seaweed farming techniques in Hawaii. 

    Scientifically, it works. Profitably? That’s the next question.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Seaweed: A planet-saving, anti-burping drug for cows on Mar 17, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Unethical practices in lion farming and elephant tourism are increasing disease risk

    African lions and Asian elephants are in a very precarious situation. Both species have alarmingly small estimated remaining wild populations. People also keep significant populations of them enslaved for tourism. Additionally, the bones of slaughtered captive lions are a popular ingredient in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

    As if that wasn’t enough, these species also have another troubling thing in common. They’re potentially at risk of contracting tuberculosis (TB) in their captive settings and passing it on to other beings they interact with, be they human or other animals.

    Essential icons

    Lions and elephants are icons of the natural world. They also play a crucial role in the ecosystems in which they exist. As The Canary has previously reported, for example, elephants are a keystone species. This means they are integral to the environments they exist in. If elephants are absent, these ecological systems collapse because so many other species are dependent on them. Lions, meanwhile, are apex predators. As with keystone species, apex predators have a profound impact on the ecosystems in which they exist, partly through their predation of other species. All these ecosystems, in turn, prop up the wider climatic stability of the Earth.

    In short, these species are not only iconic, they’re essential. Unfortunately, however, they face an uncertain future. African lions numbered 200,000 across the continent just a century ago. But estimates for populations of wild individuals currently range between 13,000-20,000. Their declining numbers are due to numerous issues, such as conflict with people (often because of their predation of farmed animals). Trophy hunting, habitat loss and disturbance are also among the problems they face. Asiatic lions, meanwhile, now only number in the hundreds.

    Populations of both African and Asian elephants are also a shadow of their former strength. That’s particularly true in terms of the latter, whose remaining wild populations are estimated between 20,000 and 40,000. They also face widespread loss of their homes, and people – both poachers and trophy hunters – target them for their tusks. And to make matters worse, lions, elephants and countless other species are threatened by the climate crisis too.

    A life in captivity

    A significant number of lions and elephants are also in captivity. South Africa, in particular, has a large captive lion farming industry. A 2020 book claimed there are around 300 lion farms in the country, which breed the big cats. As The Canary previously reported, every stage in the life cycle of these lions offers the opportunity for profit. As cubs, tourists and volunteers pay to pet and care for them. When they’re a little older, people pay to walk with them. Then hunters pay to shoot them, when they’re older still. Finally, the farms butcher their carcasses and sell their bones for TCM, which people pay to consume.

    Meanwhile, elephants (African and Asian) are held captive around the world for use in tourism and entertainment. Most captive elephants used in tourism, particularly in Asia, face a training process called pajan to make them compliant. Their ‘keepers’ (mahouts) routinely beat, starve, stab, chain, and physically ‘crush’ them to ‘break their spirits’. The process is so violent and inhumane that Save the Asian Elephant’s (STAE) CEO Duncan McNair previously told The Canary that around half of the elephants who endure it die as a result.

    In short, both of these captivity-based industries are operating on particularly shaky ethical grounds.

    TB risk

    Breeding and keeping these species in captivity for tourism and TCM also has public health implications.

    According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), TB is among the top 10 causes of death worldwide. In 2019, 10 million people fell ill with the disease and 1.4 million died of it, predominantly in developing countries. But it is curable and preventable. As such, it’s widely considered a “disease of poverty”, because a lack of access to diagnosis and treatment, and living conditions that encourage its spread, play a major role in its transmission.

    TB is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and is mainly spread from person to person, via germs they transmit in the air. But another mycobacterium called Mycobacterium bovis (M bovis) additionally causes zoonotic, or bovine, TB. A zoonotic disease is one that can transfer between humans and other animals, like coronavirus (Covid-19) appears to have done. There were approximately 140,000 new cases of zoonotic TB globally in 2019.

    Lions and TB

    Although zoonotic TB is mostly associated with cows, lions can also get the disease. This is true for wild populations and captive ones. In a 2018 report on the issue, the NGO Voice4Lions argued that the risk of TB spreading among captive lion populations is “raised to a high level” because of their cramped living conditions. In a recent press release on the issue, the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH) also said that captive lions regularly suffer inbreeding and farms often keep them in “unsanitary conditions, with inadequate nutrition”. It said this can “increase both transmission and susceptibility to the disease”.

    The Voice4Lions report also asserted that TB present in captive lions poses a “substantial risk” to humans. It referenced a 2016 statement from Stellenbosch University’s professor Paul Van Helden, who asserted that lions can catch TB from infected prey and humans. He also stated that:

    it is clear that infected lions and lion bone have the potential to infect other animals or humans with TB

    He further noted that bovine TB “has the propensity to cause TB in humans often in organs other than the lung”, which makes it more difficult to diagnose. Human TB generally affects the lungs. Yale University Medical School’s professor Irvin Modlin has also raised the alarm about the potential transmission of tuberculosis, and traces of dangerous tranquilisers, in lion bones. Meanwhile, a study produced by World Animal Protection and Blood Lions in 2020 argued that the close contact between captive lions and people, such as farm workers and tourists, “creates opportunities for the spread of zoonotic diseases”.

    Elephants and TB

    Elephants are also susceptible to TB, of both the bovine and human variety. In a 2020 article, National Geographic reported on the possible cases of captive elephants infecting zoo staff with TB in the US. As the outlet explained, because “elephants can get the disease from humans, they can transmit it back to us”. No one has documented cases of elephants transmitting TB to zoo-goers in the country. And Tulsa Zoo veterinarian Kay Backues insisted to National Geographic that visiting zoos and circuses isn’t a TB risk. But co-founder of Elephant Care International Susan Mikota argued that there’s a lack of understanding and studying of transmission. Moreover, she asserted that:

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence … [Elephants] can blow out their trunk—wind can take it

    Tuberculosis also usually takes a significant time to develop, in both humans and other animals. No symptoms may be apparent for weeks, months, or even years.

    Risk to the wild

    In 2020, STAE elicited an independent scientific opinion from biologist and medical scientist Clifford Warwick on the risk of elephant-associated human TB and tourism. Warwick’s comments pertain to elephant tourism in in-situ situations, i.e. in elephants’ natural range countries, that involve activities like “rides, photo-opportunities, petting experiences, and feeding sessions”. He asserted [pdf p4] that the stress elephants face in their captive situations compromises their immune systems. This not only makes them more susceptible to disease, but also more likely to shed pathogens.

    Warwick concluded that TB transmission is “unlikely safeguarded against in situations involving close contact and simplistic prevention and control measures”, which he said “are exactly the conditions” under which such elephant tourism happens.

    Warwick further noted that the transmission of TB from captive elephants to wild ones has implications for conservation of the species. A 2017 study on the threat TB poses to conservation in South Asia also raised this concern, along with the risk of potential transmission to other endangered mammals and people who work with infected elephants.

    Bad for everyone

    Many of the people being put most at risk of TB transmission from these situations, such as farm workers in South Africa and tourism workers and TCM consumers in Asia, already live in high TB burden countries. So they hold the potential to make an already bad situation worse. The situation for the captive lions and elephants involved is, as previously described, already dire. Putting them at risk of contracting a debilitating and undoubtedly painful disease, therefore, adds one more injury to a vast list of injustices.

    The fact that lion farming, elephant tourism, and even the pet trade may also pose a risk to wild populations of species already in crisis threatens to make a bad situation worse for the species in question and, indeed, everyone else. The world is already in the midst of a biodiversity crash that, on this interconnected planet, has severe implications for the future of life, including humans, on Earth. The biodiversity crisis needs to corrected, not made worse.

    One Health

    Clearly, the TB risk in these settings needs to be addressed. The relevant authorities could to some extent do so by introducing compulsory TB screening and testing measures. The provision of evidence-based guidance to people considering engaging with elephant or lion tourism, or consuming lion products, also needs to be a priority.

    But, since coronavirus spread around the globe in 2020, the idea of a ‘One Health‘ approach to public health threats has gained traction. It’s an approach that embodies the notion that the world’s vast array of living beings are all in this together. So the health of all involved  – humans, other animals and the wider environment – must guide decision-making on health-related issues. In environmental law, meanwhile, there’s a standard called the precautionary principle. It dictates that when concerns arise that something is dangerous to the environment, or the beings within it, but scientific evidence is inconclusive, decision-makers should err on the side of caution, i.e. they should have the environment’s back.

    Arguably, there’s an obvious One Health precautionary answer to the health – and indeed ethical – implications of these captive industries. It’s to phase out these inherently cruel and potentially dangerous practices.

    Featured image via William Warby / Flickr and Trisha M Shears / Wikimedia 

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • After mass casualties in 2020, Botswana is hit with a new bout of mysterious elephant deaths

    Hundreds of elephants in Botswana dropped dead, quite literally, in 2020. Following a highly criticised investigation into the mass mortality event, the government announced that water-based toxins caused the deaths.

    Now at least a further five mysterious elephant deaths have occurred. There are some similarities between the fatalities in 2020 and 2021. But there are also some clear differences. These new deaths will undoubtedly raise further questions about Botswana’s previous conclusion.

    2020 deaths

    As The Canary previously reported, wildlife authorities announced the mysterious dying off of the country’s elephants in May 2020, although the deaths appear to have started in March. Heart-wrenching images of elephants lying face down in the dirt, as if they just suddenly keeled over, circulated at the time.

    As the Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency reported, the government faced accusations that its investigation into the tragedy was “slow, botched and untransparent”. Nonetheless, the Botswanan authorities confidently asserted in September 2020 that “a toxin caused by cyanobacteria” in water sources bore responsibility for the elephants’ deaths.

    However, principal veterinary officer for the Department of Wildlife and National Parks Mmadi Reuben said questions remained about why the toxin only affected elephants who drank from the allegedly contaminated water sources and not other species.

    Cyanobacteria are microbes that are found in water and sometimes soil. There are thousands of species, some of which can be toxic.

    2021 deaths

    As conservation biologist and environmental consultant Keith Lindsay highlighted on 25 January, a further bout of mysterious deaths has now come to light. Reports say at least five dead elephants have been discovered in the Moremi Game Reserve in the Okavango Delta.

    There are clear similarities with the 2020 deaths. Some of the elephants appeared to have “collapsed directly onto their sternums”, as was the case with a number of the earlier deaths. The elephants were apparently of varied ages and had their tusks intact. Like in 2020, that suggests there’s not a clear age-related cause, nor are they likely victims of poaching.

    As Lindsay noted in the African Elephant Journal, there are also some very clear differences in the circumstances of the deaths:

    The earlier deaths occurred mainly in an area of dry mopane woodland, in some cases near localised waterholes during a period of drought conditions, but the current area is some 60+ km to south, in the heart of the watery Okavango Delta. The wet season is also well underway, with regular rainstorms generating lush vegetation in an already well-watered wetland region.

    In short, the authorities’ conclusions on the cause of the 2020 deaths fit with the fact that the area the affected elephants were in was dry and, to a certain extent, had limited stagnant water sources. But the recent deaths have occurred, according to Lindsay, in a wetter area with an abundance of more running water sources. So the environmental conditions present in these newer deaths make cyanobacteria an unlikely culprit.

    Questions

    As Reuben himself noted, there’s an obvious flaw in the official theory for the 2020 deaths – aside from the fact it hasn’t been confirmed. Namely that the toxin only affected elephants, not other species that could have also drunk from the supposedly toxin-filled water sources. As such, academics have considered other causes.

    Some looked into whether a viral or bacterial infection could be to blame. Others discussed the fact that a number of factors could have contributed to the situation. The affected elephants couldn’t, for example, easily disperse. In the area of Botswana where they were located, they faced ‘veterinary fences’ or border fences on three sides and a “relatively deep and wide channel of water that forms the Panhandle of the Okavango Delta” on the fourth. Although these aren’t hard, fast borders it does mean the elephants there are relatively contained. So restriction of their movements by these barriers, i.e. their reduced ability to escape any threat, could have contributed to their fates.

    In short, questions still remain regarding the Botswanan government’s conclusions about the elephants’ deaths in 2020. Meanwhile, as Lindsay says, it is “too early to speculate about the cause of the current deaths”. One thing, however, is certain. The government must do a quicker, more transparent, and better job of investigating this time around. Because Botswana and the wider Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, where all the deaths have occurred, are home to vast amounts of the remaining savannah elephants.

    The populations of elephants there are of vital importance for the future of the species. So, as academics say, we must not allow our fondness for “simple answers to interfere with reasoned analysis and discussing the broader significance”.

    Featured image via BBC / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.