Wow! How good has blogspot been to me?! In just 4 months I have had almost 5,000 views, so I would like to thank everyone who has checked this out and especially to those who have been regular readers!
I'm now opening up a new website where all my best past posts and future posts can be found!
www.wildida.weebly.com
As you can see the web address isn't too different so hopefully it won't be too difficult to remember!
I will be leaving this page up, but I will no longer be updating on here, so if you are looking for my latest posts here it is once again
www.wildida.weebly.com
Got it?
www.wildida.weebly.com
THANK YOU!
www.wildida.weebly.com
:D
Tuesday 24 September 2013
Sunday 22 September 2013
BEGINNING MY LIFE AS A WILDLIFE FILMMAKER
Tomorrow is the day that I finally begin the long awaited start of my Wildlife Filmmaking career. Just 6 months ago I received the email:
If you are interested you can find more details about the course here.
I'm not saying all this to show off or make you seethe with jealousy. I just simply cannot believe it myself that I am having this opportunity and putting in down in words makes it somewhat more real. 16 people world wide have been chosen for a place in the second year of the course running. Goosebumps cover my skin as I realise the life I am about to embark on... Could this dream really become a reality?
My plan for this blog now is to write twice a week - one post continuing to write as I have been for the past 4 months on wildlife and conservation issues, and one as an update on what is going on with my course. Although there will likely be a few weeks where work takes over and this is not possible!
AFRICA
So, in beginning my life as a Wildlife Filmmaker I have been reading up about past documentaries made by the BBC and I wanted to share on here what I have learnt about the recent series "Africa" and the struggles, and amazing moments that the filmmakers faced.
"AFRICA - Eye to Eye with the Unknown" is written by Michael Bright covering all the amazing footage we saw in the documentary first shown in January.
In the forward written by David Attenborough he depicts the main issues facing the research and production team: "Big television series need new, un-filmed stories". The problem is Africa is possibly the most filmed continent on Earth, so finding new stories to uncover was never going to be easy: it took 18 months of research before they began to find stories of animals behaving a little, well, differently. This meant working closely with scientists and conservationists who have been studying and caring for the animals, ones who would go into places no one else would dare to travel. But this allowed them to film behaviour which has only just begun to be researched and discovered - such as the Fork Tailed Drongo's learning to trick meerkats out of a meal, and chimpanzees using up to 4 different tools to extract honey from a bees nest.
Another way of making things look different to past series was, alongside the latest camera technologies, adopting a series wide filming style. James Honeyborne, series producer, made the decision that every animal should be filmed at eye level and seeing what they're seeing from the perspective they see it. This meant crawling down in the dirt with ants and even, for cameraman Richard Matthews, sitting on the back of a dead whale as thirty great white sharks fed on it. A new generation of miniature remotely operated cameras were also used - although some of these took a battering from curious lions and elephants.
The filmmakers did not have an easy or a luxurious time - they would spend all the hours in a day for up to thirty days waiting to get the shot that fitted in with the required story. This sometimes meant sitting covered in a swarm of angry bees, or out in 50 degree temperatures when all animals except one species was hidden away from the killer heat. The majority of the crews food consisted of bread, rice and pasta... cameraman Alastair MacEwen and assistant producer Rosie Thomas were presented with fish porridge every day. In some parts of the country the crews faced enormous dangers, such as Felicity and Barrie Britton who were one day surrounded by men carrying AK47's and arrested for 24 hours on suspicion of illegal entry and subversive activities.
But at the end of it all the team captured some absolutely incredible footage, and saw things that they will probably never experience again in their lives. The entire series was an incredible piece of work with some absolutely stunning scenes. It was put together with a gentle ease with which you entirely forget all the struggles and difficulties that went in to making it (or at least we, the audience, do)! This series contains some of my very favourite sequences of wildlife films.
James Honeyborne closes off the book with a wonderful paragraph about the future of Africa:
"Our hope is that as Africa continues her inevitable journey towards modernisation, what has kept her wild places so special is not completely lost, both on a practical level, because we know there are still so many scientific discoveries to be revealed and amazing stories yet to tell, but also on an emotional level, because Africa will always be our motherland - our ancestral home. Surely her wild places, the land where we ourselves were made, deserve our respect and our protection for ever."
"Hello Ida-May
Congratulations!
I am pleased to confirm that we recently made you am offer on MA Wildlife Filmmaking."This course is the stuff of dreams for anyone with a passion for wildlife. Connected to the world-leading BBC Natural History Unit we have a line-up of top filmmakers coming in to speak with us and train us to be the next generation to film the wild world - next week James Honeyborne, series producer of this years 'Africa', is visiting, and in weeks to come my favourite cameraman, Doug Allan. We are to attend all the big wildlife filmmaker events and will even possibly get opportunities to get some work on current programmes (perhaps just getting coffee, but I really don't mind)!! Our final projects will be making our own professional standard 20-30 minute films and will be linked with a mentor who has worked on similar projects.
 |
| Doug Allan - Camera man |
 |
| James Honeyborne |
I'm not saying all this to show off or make you seethe with jealousy. I just simply cannot believe it myself that I am having this opportunity and putting in down in words makes it somewhat more real. 16 people world wide have been chosen for a place in the second year of the course running. Goosebumps cover my skin as I realise the life I am about to embark on... Could this dream really become a reality?
My plan for this blog now is to write twice a week - one post continuing to write as I have been for the past 4 months on wildlife and conservation issues, and one as an update on what is going on with my course. Although there will likely be a few weeks where work takes over and this is not possible!
AFRICA
So, in beginning my life as a Wildlife Filmmaker I have been reading up about past documentaries made by the BBC and I wanted to share on here what I have learnt about the recent series "Africa" and the struggles, and amazing moments that the filmmakers faced.
"AFRICA - Eye to Eye with the Unknown" is written by Michael Bright covering all the amazing footage we saw in the documentary first shown in January.
In the forward written by David Attenborough he depicts the main issues facing the research and production team: "Big television series need new, un-filmed stories". The problem is Africa is possibly the most filmed continent on Earth, so finding new stories to uncover was never going to be easy: it took 18 months of research before they began to find stories of animals behaving a little, well, differently. This meant working closely with scientists and conservationists who have been studying and caring for the animals, ones who would go into places no one else would dare to travel. But this allowed them to film behaviour which has only just begun to be researched and discovered - such as the Fork Tailed Drongo's learning to trick meerkats out of a meal, and chimpanzees using up to 4 different tools to extract honey from a bees nest.
Another way of making things look different to past series was, alongside the latest camera technologies, adopting a series wide filming style. James Honeyborne, series producer, made the decision that every animal should be filmed at eye level and seeing what they're seeing from the perspective they see it. This meant crawling down in the dirt with ants and even, for cameraman Richard Matthews, sitting on the back of a dead whale as thirty great white sharks fed on it. A new generation of miniature remotely operated cameras were also used - although some of these took a battering from curious lions and elephants.
 |
| In the Serengeti a young lion chooses a rather expensive toy to play with! |
The filmmakers did not have an easy or a luxurious time - they would spend all the hours in a day for up to thirty days waiting to get the shot that fitted in with the required story. This sometimes meant sitting covered in a swarm of angry bees, or out in 50 degree temperatures when all animals except one species was hidden away from the killer heat. The majority of the crews food consisted of bread, rice and pasta... cameraman Alastair MacEwen and assistant producer Rosie Thomas were presented with fish porridge every day. In some parts of the country the crews faced enormous dangers, such as Felicity and Barrie Britton who were one day surrounded by men carrying AK47's and arrested for 24 hours on suspicion of illegal entry and subversive activities.
But at the end of it all the team captured some absolutely incredible footage, and saw things that they will probably never experience again in their lives. The entire series was an incredible piece of work with some absolutely stunning scenes. It was put together with a gentle ease with which you entirely forget all the struggles and difficulties that went in to making it (or at least we, the audience, do)! This series contains some of my very favourite sequences of wildlife films.
James Honeyborne closes off the book with a wonderful paragraph about the future of Africa:
"Our hope is that as Africa continues her inevitable journey towards modernisation, what has kept her wild places so special is not completely lost, both on a practical level, because we know there are still so many scientific discoveries to be revealed and amazing stories yet to tell, but also on an emotional level, because Africa will always be our motherland - our ancestral home. Surely her wild places, the land where we ourselves were made, deserve our respect and our protection for ever."
Sunday 15 September 2013
SURVIVAL OF THE RICHEST?
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace are the two men that made one of the greatest discoveries of our scientific age. Separately, but at the same time, they discovered the Theory of Evolution. This, as I am sure you know, is the theory that all animals (including ourselves) are the result of a millennia of trials and errors, survivals and mutations and the progression of life from a small single celled organism to a complex and intelligent being.
At the moment the biggest threat to the human species, and the rest of the planet, is overpopulation. Since the Black Death in the 1400's the population has been steadily growing. In the last 50 years, with advancement of medicine and increases in agricultural productivity our population has rocketed from around 3 billion to 7 billion people.
In most contemporary estimations for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions is around 4 billion and 16 billion, so depending on which estimations you follow we could potentially already be over populated. Overpopulation means not enough food and clean water, and a swift wipe out of un-renewable resources. If you look at the animal kingdom for an example of what happens when a species is over its capacity of an area you see that they simply starve to death and a whole population can be wiped out. Could this be the fate of human beings? Not, I think, of those with enough money.
I think that something we need to start looking at is a limitation on children in a family - I am not saying I support the Chinese one child rule which has led to enormous problems in the country. But in this country we allow, and financially support, those with a selfish desire to have a large family such as families that appeared in the Channel 4 program "15 Children and Counting".
These people selfishly display a human arrogance for not caring about the impact they have on the world. They argue that bigger families are better... But the question is for who? The children who have to fight against 14 others for mums attention? The tax-payer who funds their living? The planet on which they live which is straining under the impact of humans as it is?
With people living longer and more and more babies being born every year we need to set some rules in place because if we continue to expand as we are we are going to eventually wipe out our own species.
And I really don't believe that we have the ability to adapt to survive any more.
Please share your thoughts on this topic, I'd love to know what you think!
Evolution continues on, and though we may not be able to see its immediate effects it is continually shaping the wildlife and the world around us. And yet it could be argued that the human race has climaxed on the scale of evolution - can we go any further, can we be any more successful? With today's medicine curing all diseases I believe that we are now preventing what has made us who we are and destroying that crucial element of survival:
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." - Charles DarwinThe problem is that nowadays what keeps us surviving is not strength of genetics, nor mutations that allow one line of families to survive over another, but the money we have in our pockets. With access to money we can pay to fight disease, we can pay for clean water and better housing and so those that survive are those with the most money.
At the moment the biggest threat to the human species, and the rest of the planet, is overpopulation. Since the Black Death in the 1400's the population has been steadily growing. In the last 50 years, with advancement of medicine and increases in agricultural productivity our population has rocketed from around 3 billion to 7 billion people.
 |
| World Population Curve - sourced from Wikipedia (sorry!) |
In most contemporary estimations for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions is around 4 billion and 16 billion, so depending on which estimations you follow we could potentially already be over populated. Overpopulation means not enough food and clean water, and a swift wipe out of un-renewable resources. If you look at the animal kingdom for an example of what happens when a species is over its capacity of an area you see that they simply starve to death and a whole population can be wiped out. Could this be the fate of human beings? Not, I think, of those with enough money.
I think that something we need to start looking at is a limitation on children in a family - I am not saying I support the Chinese one child rule which has led to enormous problems in the country. But in this country we allow, and financially support, those with a selfish desire to have a large family such as families that appeared in the Channel 4 program "15 Children and Counting".
 |
| The ever-growing Watson family who get more than £2000 a month in state handouts See Source Here |
These people selfishly display a human arrogance for not caring about the impact they have on the world. They argue that bigger families are better... But the question is for who? The children who have to fight against 14 others for mums attention? The tax-payer who funds their living? The planet on which they live which is straining under the impact of humans as it is?
With people living longer and more and more babies being born every year we need to set some rules in place because if we continue to expand as we are we are going to eventually wipe out our own species.
And I really don't believe that we have the ability to adapt to survive any more.
Please share your thoughts on this topic, I'd love to know what you think!
Monday 9 September 2013
Why I want to save Wildlife
I want to start off this post by apologising for the long gap between blogging - for the first time since I began writing 'Where The Wild Things Are' I have let life get in my way!! Amongst moving house, my step-mothers huge 60th birthday, my car failing it's MOT and a variety of other things I have been somewhat distracted from it. I just want to take this chance to thank everyone who regularly (or in-regularly) reads this blog - I cannot believe the ways in which it has taken off, so thank you for reading and please keep coming back :)
Anyway! Back to the nitty-gritty! I realised that I have been writing this blog for the past three months and ranting about various wildlife issues I haven't really set down WHY it means so much to me, and why I believe that one of the most important tasks ahead of the human race is to save and protect our wildlife.
Like so many I grew up with a love of animals, despite spending my childhood tucking my toes away from my overly-ferocious cat, I would spend hours pouring over magazines with picture of cute bunnies and plastering them all over my bedroom wall, my favourite stories were the "Animal Ark" series in which a young girl spends all her time rescuing injured animals, and my dream was to work as a vet. But also like so many as I grew older I realised that my disgust at needles and blood was perhaps too big to overcome for that profession! Going through school my choices changed and my decisions seemed to lead me away from what I loved most as a child - I went to University to study Drama.
As my three years of study came to an end I turned my mind to what I would do next... I enjoyed drama, and I did well in it, but was it really what I wanted to do for the rest of my life? Was I really passionate enough about it to face all the rejections and struggle to make it? When I really looked at it the answer was, sadly, no. I visited my Careers Adviser looking for a bit of direction but when she told me that a good career path was in becoming a PA I realised I was desperate for a big change. So I reverted back to something that I have always loved, animals! And I booked on for three months volunteering in Africa on a wildlife reserve (See 'Volunteering in Africa') thinking I could give myself a bit of time to think on my future. What I didn't realise was what this would awaken in me.
I have always been aware of endangered species and the fact that humans are pretty much single-handedly destroying our planet beyond repair, but I think that it was always slightly unreal for me. I was very detached from it and felt it didn't really affect me that much. But having the opportunity to see animals living in the wild (or as wild as can be within a game reserve fence) and to see hundreds of kilometres of land undamaged by human buildings I think I began to see what the world could be like if we took a big step backwards. I'm not saying that I think we should stop developing, or that we should knock down all our cities and live like Tarzan. But if we can learn to live alongside plants, trees and animals I think our planet would be a much happier place.
Our wildlife is fundamental to save not only because animals are beautiful and amazing, but because the entirety of nature is essential for our own survival. Every part of nature stitches together to create the world that we live in. Take, for example, the humble bee...
Bee's pollinate a huge percentage of our plants and trees. If bumblebees were to go extinct (and there is currently a severe decline in bees in the UK) we would have to self-pollinate thousands of crops, a job that would have to be done by hand with meticulous precision. Without the plants and trees that bees pollinate the amount of oxygen that they produce could in no way be replicated and the human race would simply suffocate.
So that is one small example - why then, is it so important to the human species to save animals like Tigers?
Tigers play an important role in a fragile ecological balance. Take, for example, the jungles of India. With tigers, who are at the top of the food chain, wiped out the numbers of deer, wild pig and antelope would explode. Excessive numbers of these herbivorous animals would ravage the vegetation. Without the vegetation smaller animals and insects could not survive. These would move out of the jungle to feed on crops in the surrounding farmlands thus destroying a vital food source for humans.
Our world is in a fragile balance and each part we destroy we are slowly destroying for ourselves. Yes it is unlikely to affect us any time soon, and many of us will be long gone before we see the final devastating effects. But we will see the effects, and they are happening all around us. You may not notice them immediately but they are there.
The worst part is we have the knowledge and technology to live sustainably - for years and years electric cars have been available and solar energy has been easily harnessable. But big money-making oil companies have stepped in the way of development because they fear the loss of their profits. It sickens me down to the core that people are willing to sacrifice our environment and futures for profit. We need to take some serious steps and force the hands of our governments to invest in our futures and the future of our wildlife.
Overall the most important part for me is not the impact on humanity - yes I am scared to run out of resources and the impacts it could have on my life. But even more scary to me is to live in a world of concrete and processed material - where everything is plastic and glass and animals live in cages. Our wildlife is beautiful, a phenomenon, and yet we throw it away with such ease and disrespect. I am disgusted and ashamed to be a part of this. That is why I want to save our wildlife.
I know that sitting down and writing a blog post twice a week isn't going to change much, but whilst I work my way up until I am able to do something real I hope that perhaps my post will make one or two people think differently. Maybe...
Anyway! Back to the nitty-gritty! I realised that I have been writing this blog for the past three months and ranting about various wildlife issues I haven't really set down WHY it means so much to me, and why I believe that one of the most important tasks ahead of the human race is to save and protect our wildlife.
Like so many I grew up with a love of animals, despite spending my childhood tucking my toes away from my overly-ferocious cat, I would spend hours pouring over magazines with picture of cute bunnies and plastering them all over my bedroom wall, my favourite stories were the "Animal Ark" series in which a young girl spends all her time rescuing injured animals, and my dream was to work as a vet. But also like so many as I grew older I realised that my disgust at needles and blood was perhaps too big to overcome for that profession! Going through school my choices changed and my decisions seemed to lead me away from what I loved most as a child - I went to University to study Drama.
As my three years of study came to an end I turned my mind to what I would do next... I enjoyed drama, and I did well in it, but was it really what I wanted to do for the rest of my life? Was I really passionate enough about it to face all the rejections and struggle to make it? When I really looked at it the answer was, sadly, no. I visited my Careers Adviser looking for a bit of direction but when she told me that a good career path was in becoming a PA I realised I was desperate for a big change. So I reverted back to something that I have always loved, animals! And I booked on for three months volunteering in Africa on a wildlife reserve (See 'Volunteering in Africa') thinking I could give myself a bit of time to think on my future. What I didn't realise was what this would awaken in me.
I have always been aware of endangered species and the fact that humans are pretty much single-handedly destroying our planet beyond repair, but I think that it was always slightly unreal for me. I was very detached from it and felt it didn't really affect me that much. But having the opportunity to see animals living in the wild (or as wild as can be within a game reserve fence) and to see hundreds of kilometres of land undamaged by human buildings I think I began to see what the world could be like if we took a big step backwards. I'm not saying that I think we should stop developing, or that we should knock down all our cities and live like Tarzan. But if we can learn to live alongside plants, trees and animals I think our planet would be a much happier place.
 |
| Mariepskop Mountain looking over Blyde River Canyon |
Our wildlife is fundamental to save not only because animals are beautiful and amazing, but because the entirety of nature is essential for our own survival. Every part of nature stitches together to create the world that we live in. Take, for example, the humble bee...
Bee's pollinate a huge percentage of our plants and trees. If bumblebees were to go extinct (and there is currently a severe decline in bees in the UK) we would have to self-pollinate thousands of crops, a job that would have to be done by hand with meticulous precision. Without the plants and trees that bees pollinate the amount of oxygen that they produce could in no way be replicated and the human race would simply suffocate.
So that is one small example - why then, is it so important to the human species to save animals like Tigers?
Tigers play an important role in a fragile ecological balance. Take, for example, the jungles of India. With tigers, who are at the top of the food chain, wiped out the numbers of deer, wild pig and antelope would explode. Excessive numbers of these herbivorous animals would ravage the vegetation. Without the vegetation smaller animals and insects could not survive. These would move out of the jungle to feed on crops in the surrounding farmlands thus destroying a vital food source for humans.
Our world is in a fragile balance and each part we destroy we are slowly destroying for ourselves. Yes it is unlikely to affect us any time soon, and many of us will be long gone before we see the final devastating effects. But we will see the effects, and they are happening all around us. You may not notice them immediately but they are there.
The worst part is we have the knowledge and technology to live sustainably - for years and years electric cars have been available and solar energy has been easily harnessable. But big money-making oil companies have stepped in the way of development because they fear the loss of their profits. It sickens me down to the core that people are willing to sacrifice our environment and futures for profit. We need to take some serious steps and force the hands of our governments to invest in our futures and the future of our wildlife.
Overall the most important part for me is not the impact on humanity - yes I am scared to run out of resources and the impacts it could have on my life. But even more scary to me is to live in a world of concrete and processed material - where everything is plastic and glass and animals live in cages. Our wildlife is beautiful, a phenomenon, and yet we throw it away with such ease and disrespect. I am disgusted and ashamed to be a part of this. That is why I want to save our wildlife.
I know that sitting down and writing a blog post twice a week isn't going to change much, but whilst I work my way up until I am able to do something real I hope that perhaps my post will make one or two people think differently. Maybe...
Sunday 1 September 2013
AN INSUFFERABLE NEED TO TOUCH WILD ANIMALS
Whilst I think it is fantastic that people have a fascination, love, and passion for wildlife I am continually battered by these animal lovers having an unquenchable desire to touch, hug and kiss animals that should be left to be wild.
Every day I come across pictures such as this:
And this:
Whilst it might be an incredible experience for you - the tourist, the trainer or the keeper, what is it that makes you think that the animal wants to be in this situation?
Okay, I will openly admit that I have had my share of getting up close to wild animals:
I enjoyed the experience - to be able to get up close to these animals, I will admit, is incredible. But I enjoyed far more seeing animals out in the wild. To go out and find animals living a natural life... That is something else.
This post has been triggered by an article I read this morning:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407513/Student-19-mauled-400lb-tiger-Thailand-popular-tourist-attraction.html#ixzz2dd6t4uez
Isabella Brennan visited Tiger Temple Tours in Thailand where she was allowed to pet tigers in an enclosure (which were tethered and chained) before moving on to washing them.
Have I changed your mind on any issues today? Please comment and share and let the world know we want our wildlife to remain wild.
Every day I come across pictures such as this:
And this:
Whilst it might be an incredible experience for you - the tourist, the trainer or the keeper, what is it that makes you think that the animal wants to be in this situation?
Okay, I will openly admit that I have had my share of getting up close to wild animals:
 |
| This baboon was orphaned at a young age because a human shot it's mother. It was rescued and raised at N/an ku se Wildlife Sanctuary where it will stay for the rest of it's life - if released it would soon find it's way back to humans and as a fully grown baboon would be very dangerous. In this situation we were taking the young baboons out of their enclosure to forage and play in a wild reserve. They follow and return with the humans to their enclosure with no force. They spend around an hour a day out with people. |
 |
| This is Samera, an elderly cheetah who was kept as a pet for 10 years and given a poor diet that barely kept her healthy. Eventually she was given to Na'an ku se who keep her in a large enclosure by herself with plenty of cover. However because of her constant interaction with humans throughout her life when left with no human contact she would become clearly despondent and depressed. Her contact with humans is for a maximum of thirty minutes a day - the rest of the time she can enjoy her retirement in peace. |
 |
| Lion Cub - Shamwari Game Reserve |
STUDENT, 19, MAULED BY 400lb TIGER AT POPULAR TOURIST ATTRACTION
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407513/Student-19-mauled-400lb-tiger-Thailand-popular-tourist-attraction.html#ixzz2dd6t4uez
Isabella Brennan visited Tiger Temple Tours in Thailand where she was allowed to pet tigers in an enclosure (which were tethered and chained) before moving on to washing them.
 |
| Isabella Brennan petting a sleeping tiger. |
The tigers have supposedly been raised from birth by Buddhist monks and therefore are completely tame. But anyone who knows anything about wild carnivores know that none can be tamed completely. Moments after this photograph was taken Isabella was attacked by another tiger who sunk its teeth into her thigh. She was rescued when keepers intervened and her sister dragged her away. Eight weeks on and she is still unable to walk unaided, and will now be scarred for life. She is lucky to be alive.
It is hugely questionable about the welfare of these animals - whilst they may look healthy and well fed there are many rumours that the animals are drugged to ensure they cannot attack humans. For hours a day they are paraded around, stroked, teased and accosted by people. I even found this photograph on their website:
The problem is that tourists are either too blind-sighted to see what is happening, or too bloody selfish to care. See some of the reviews I have found:
"Did the V.I.P tour with tour with tong. Our guide was fantastic as she had been on our Bangkok tour but I am in two minds about the tiger temple. I am sure the tigers are big enough to look after themselves but one of the keepers kicked a tiger in the head to try get a toy back off it. Not impressed. The tigers look healthy and I'm sure they are reasonably well looked after."
"The areal is quiet big...the tigers seemed careless and were on very short chain accompanied by monks. We took very quickly few photos...and everything passed so fast that I almost didn't realize I was next to tigers.... It´s difficult to say if the animals are treated well or not, they looked healthy but on another hand sad. The necessity to have tiger on short chains is understandable for a short time due to safety of people... The attitude of people working there is week point of this place!!!"
The place is not a conservation site. The tigers are not there for their welfare but only as a money-making tourist attraction. They are bred (and possibly taken from the wild as small cubs) and raised by people who only care to make a quick buck. Another case of human selfishness that makes me ashamed to be one of my species.
It is hugely questionable about the welfare of these animals - whilst they may look healthy and well fed there are many rumours that the animals are drugged to ensure they cannot attack humans. For hours a day they are paraded around, stroked, teased and accosted by people. I even found this photograph on their website:
The problem is that tourists are either too blind-sighted to see what is happening, or too bloody selfish to care. See some of the reviews I have found:
"Leave
your MORALS at the gate. This is truly an unforgettable experience .
Wheather it's right or wrong this is Thailand , too be able to have
the opportunity with these Tigers we will never forget."
"Did the V.I.P tour with tour with tong. Our guide was fantastic as she had been on our Bangkok tour but I am in two minds about the tiger temple. I am sure the tigers are big enough to look after themselves but one of the keepers kicked a tiger in the head to try get a toy back off it. Not impressed. The tigers look healthy and I'm sure they are reasonably well looked after."
"The areal is quiet big...the tigers seemed careless and were on very short chain accompanied by monks. We took very quickly few photos...and everything passed so fast that I almost didn't realize I was next to tigers.... It´s difficult to say if the animals are treated well or not, they looked healthy but on another hand sad. The necessity to have tiger on short chains is understandable for a short time due to safety of people... The attitude of people working there is week point of this place!!!"
The place is not a conservation site. The tigers are not there for their welfare but only as a money-making tourist attraction. They are bred (and possibly taken from the wild as small cubs) and raised by people who only care to make a quick buck. Another case of human selfishness that makes me ashamed to be one of my species.
So
many people who claim to be animal lovers will pay for this
experience, perfectly that it is not right. P
Take a look at this video and tell me if you think this is right?! These animals look exhausted to me. And take note of the woman pushing the tigers head under the water.
Take a look at this video and tell me if you think this is right?! These animals look exhausted to me. And take note of the woman pushing the tigers head under the water.
Now
take a look at tigers in the wild.... See the difference?
Yes
it's cool to get close to wild animals, but my god is it wrong.
Animals have a right to live in the wild, and not be some money
making tourist attraction that spends it's life on a chain. Yes you might be an animal lover, but love them from a distance, enjoy their beauty and the knowledge that they are truly wild.
Have I changed your mind on any issues today? Please comment and share and let the world know we want our wildlife to remain wild.
Wednesday 28 August 2013
Steve Backshall's Reaction to the Badger Cull
Okay, so this is a little bit of a lazy post but I read this response to the badger cull on Facebook and really wanted to share it because it really underlines WHY the badger cull is scientifically invalid.
The post is from Steve Backshall who is a wildlife presenter for BBC, probably best known for his work on the children's show 'Deadly 60' (a great show not just for kids!!). He has a great understanding of our wildlife and clearly has researched in depth to understand the full extent of the badger cull.
Do take the time to read - it is really very enlightening.
The post is from Steve Backshall who is a wildlife presenter for BBC, probably best known for his work on the children's show 'Deadly 60' (a great show not just for kids!!). He has a great understanding of our wildlife and clearly has researched in depth to understand the full extent of the badger cull.
Do take the time to read - it is really very enlightening.
I
am doing my best not to base my reaction to the badger cull on
childhood nights sat by our local setts praying for a black and white
face to emerge, or on the joy every time I find a thick guard hair
clinging to low-slung barbed wire, that bear-like pawprint in my
local woods, the Christmas morning excitement of looking through my
camera traps or a greasy latrine of beetle bits. My passion for
having something truly wild, yet rarely seen in our countryside makes
me emotional and therefore biased. For this reason, neither I, nor
any farmer whose livelihood depends on cattle should be making this
decision. Instead, we must rely on science. Good, solid, impartial,
means-tested science.
We all have a vested interest in the correct and long-term solution of this problem. In 2007 when Krebs was completed; 'The cost to the taxpayer of the TB controls, including testing, compensation, badger control and related activities is currently about £16 million a year'. 'The cost to farmers with infected cattle averaged about £8700 a year'. More recent reports suggest that in 2012 about £100million of public money was paid to farmers in compensation for destruction of infected cattle.
Under pressure from lobbyists, Conservative politicians such as environment secretary Owen Paterson are now looking away from the Krebs report for justification, so they can claim 'the science' supports the cull. He refers to 'Other countries, where a cull has had results'. More specifically to The Republic of Ireland, where the period of the cull coincided with a reduction of BTB. However, he ignores the fact that what was effectively the control, done across the border in N.Ireland in the same time period achieved comparable results without a single badger being killed. The other two countries he refers to are Australia and New Zealand. Two countries with entirely different biomes, which DO NOT HAVE BADGERS. Results were achieved in NZ by culling invasive possums and ferrets. This is NOT RELEVANT science. The independent Krebs report with data compiled from 1973-2007, completed in this country with our farms and our animals, paid for by British taxpayers is totally specific to OUR countryside, and is the only science that should be referred to. Anyone who queries its independence should note that the study culled over 21,000 badgers, many by gassing setts. It was led by an eminent Oxford professor and was carried out despite strong public opinion against it.
These are some of the facts represented in the report verbatim. (M.bovis is Bovine TB).
The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. MAFF investigations detected M. bovis in the following species other than badgers: moles, foxes, mink, rats, wild deer; red, roe, fallow and sika and ferrets. (infection rate in ferrets is 3.85%, compared to 4.05% in badgers). Although the prevalence of M. bovis in the sampled badgers is higher than in the other sampled species, the sample suffers from unquantifiable biases. Farmed deer are highly susceptible to M. bovis.
Removing badgers from an established population is likely to affect the behaviour of the remaining animals, and these changes may influence the transmission of M. bovis between badgers or from badgers to cattle. In undisturbed populations, the rate at which male badgers disperse between social groups is highest at low density (Woodroffe et al.
1995). Reducing population density through badger control may therefore lead to more frequent dispersal, increasing the rate at which M. bovis is transmitted between groups. Such perturbation might have an important effect upon the spatial dynamics of M. bovis.
The effect of badger removal on transmission is likely to be greatest when social groups( are disrupted rather than removed entirely. Studies of dispersal behaviour suggest that if a badger removal operation reduced a group to members of a single sex, for example, the remaining animals might leave the territory, or others might move in from elsewhere to re-form a breeding group. Movement of animals between territories, and the resultant fighting over breeding positions, are both Iikely to increase the transmission of M. bovis.
Small-scale badger removals may not substantially reduce contact between cattle and infected badgers because partial removal of social groups causes disruptions in territorial and dispersal behaviour. Altered territorial behaviour may increase the risk of transmission to cattle, since urine and faeces are deposited directly onto pasture rather than being concentrated in latrines on territory borders. Furthermore, changes in dispersal behaviour might lead to spread of the disease among the remaining badgers.
The conclusion of the Krebs report is this:
We need an experimental comparison of the impact of a small number of simple husbandry techniques. Husbandry may well play an important role as part of the long-term solution. In the long run, the best prospect for control of bovine TB is to develop a vaccine for cattle. We recommend that the development of a cattle vaccine and an associated diagnostic test to distinguish infected from vaccinated cattle shouId be a high priority for MAFF's long-term research strategy. A badger vaccine, although posing greater technical problems in terms of both development and delivery, should also be kept as an option.
NB. Something really important which is being overlooked; This present cull; 70% of badgers in the study area to number around 5000animals is being done NOT to impact on BTB or achieve any data on transmission, but to assess what methods of killing the animals is most humane. This science has been done already, over larger areas, with bigger study groups, and better controls. This is not science, it is appeasement.
If you, like so many others, want to make your voice heard and tell the governement that this is NOT what we want then please sign the petition here:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
We all have a vested interest in the correct and long-term solution of this problem. In 2007 when Krebs was completed; 'The cost to the taxpayer of the TB controls, including testing, compensation, badger control and related activities is currently about £16 million a year'. 'The cost to farmers with infected cattle averaged about £8700 a year'. More recent reports suggest that in 2012 about £100million of public money was paid to farmers in compensation for destruction of infected cattle.
Under pressure from lobbyists, Conservative politicians such as environment secretary Owen Paterson are now looking away from the Krebs report for justification, so they can claim 'the science' supports the cull. He refers to 'Other countries, where a cull has had results'. More specifically to The Republic of Ireland, where the period of the cull coincided with a reduction of BTB. However, he ignores the fact that what was effectively the control, done across the border in N.Ireland in the same time period achieved comparable results without a single badger being killed. The other two countries he refers to are Australia and New Zealand. Two countries with entirely different biomes, which DO NOT HAVE BADGERS. Results were achieved in NZ by culling invasive possums and ferrets. This is NOT RELEVANT science. The independent Krebs report with data compiled from 1973-2007, completed in this country with our farms and our animals, paid for by British taxpayers is totally specific to OUR countryside, and is the only science that should be referred to. Anyone who queries its independence should note that the study culled over 21,000 badgers, many by gassing setts. It was led by an eminent Oxford professor and was carried out despite strong public opinion against it.
These are some of the facts represented in the report verbatim. (M.bovis is Bovine TB).
The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. MAFF investigations detected M. bovis in the following species other than badgers: moles, foxes, mink, rats, wild deer; red, roe, fallow and sika and ferrets. (infection rate in ferrets is 3.85%, compared to 4.05% in badgers). Although the prevalence of M. bovis in the sampled badgers is higher than in the other sampled species, the sample suffers from unquantifiable biases. Farmed deer are highly susceptible to M. bovis.
Removing badgers from an established population is likely to affect the behaviour of the remaining animals, and these changes may influence the transmission of M. bovis between badgers or from badgers to cattle. In undisturbed populations, the rate at which male badgers disperse between social groups is highest at low density (Woodroffe et al.
1995). Reducing population density through badger control may therefore lead to more frequent dispersal, increasing the rate at which M. bovis is transmitted between groups. Such perturbation might have an important effect upon the spatial dynamics of M. bovis.
The effect of badger removal on transmission is likely to be greatest when social groups( are disrupted rather than removed entirely. Studies of dispersal behaviour suggest that if a badger removal operation reduced a group to members of a single sex, for example, the remaining animals might leave the territory, or others might move in from elsewhere to re-form a breeding group. Movement of animals between territories, and the resultant fighting over breeding positions, are both Iikely to increase the transmission of M. bovis.
Small-scale badger removals may not substantially reduce contact between cattle and infected badgers because partial removal of social groups causes disruptions in territorial and dispersal behaviour. Altered territorial behaviour may increase the risk of transmission to cattle, since urine and faeces are deposited directly onto pasture rather than being concentrated in latrines on territory borders. Furthermore, changes in dispersal behaviour might lead to spread of the disease among the remaining badgers.
The conclusion of the Krebs report is this:
We need an experimental comparison of the impact of a small number of simple husbandry techniques. Husbandry may well play an important role as part of the long-term solution. In the long run, the best prospect for control of bovine TB is to develop a vaccine for cattle. We recommend that the development of a cattle vaccine and an associated diagnostic test to distinguish infected from vaccinated cattle shouId be a high priority for MAFF's long-term research strategy. A badger vaccine, although posing greater technical problems in terms of both development and delivery, should also be kept as an option.
NB. Something really important which is being overlooked; This present cull; 70% of badgers in the study area to number around 5000animals is being done NOT to impact on BTB or achieve any data on transmission, but to assess what methods of killing the animals is most humane. This science has been done already, over larger areas, with bigger study groups, and better controls. This is not science, it is appeasement.
If you, like so many others, want to make your voice heard and tell the governement that this is NOT what we want then please sign the petition here:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
Sunday 25 August 2013
The Most Incredible Year
 |
| Mariepskop Mountain Sunset - South Africa |
But Africa to me is where the world, and I, come alive. I have witnessed some of the greatest wilderness the world has to offer, listened through the night to lions roar and woke in the morning to a Southern Boubou singing it's soul away. I have seen hunger, indulgence, fear, joy and death amongst the animals I have watched. I have learnt the bush to know its sounds, smells, sights, taste and feel. I trained as a Field Guide of Southern Africa and achieved a place on the course of my dreams. Africa has been everything to me and more.
I want to share on here a few stories of some special days in Africa.
A Shy Male Leopard
 |
| A shy male leopard. |
What an incredible day this was at GVI Karongwe when we found a shy male leopard. That morning we had visited our neighbours, Daktari Bush School and Wildlife Orphanage, who take in orphaned and injured animals that cannot be released back into the wild. Alongside this each week they have 8 underprivileged children stay with them where they teach them basic lessons, but also a vital lesson in working with animals and protecting them. After our visit we headed to follow up on our female cheetah who had been found to be limping badly. We found her where she had been seen before - she couldn't walk and was clearly distressed so we called in the vet and waited with her until he arrived. He came in and darted her straight away... And who did he call on to carry her out of the bush? Only the five volunteers standing around waiting! I had never expected such a slim-line and quick animal to be so heavy! We got her out of the bush and onto the back of our waiting bakkie... she was in bad shape and lucky we had found her. She had a large stick wedged into her leg which, untreated, would surely have killed her. But the vet worked quickly and managed to remove it with little damage. We left him to take her to the nearest boma (a enclosed area where she could recover out of danger), and headed on for the rest of our afternoon.
(The cheetah recovered well and has recently had a litter of four cubs! I'm so glad she has survived and is continuing to breed for this endangered species).
We sat by the fence line of the reserve wondering what to do - during our time with the cheetah all our focus animals had been found and data recorded, so we were free to bump around the reserve and find what we liked. As we discussed our options a car pulled up beside us on the other side of the fence, a woman rolled down her window and called to us that she had just been sat watching a leopard who had been lying right by the fence! Now, a leopard sighting isn't something to be taken lightly - they are elusive by nature and rarely hang around long. Oh, and possibly the most magnificent of creatures on this planet. So we sped off to where it had been spotted! It was gone. We could see by the spoor on the ground where it had lay, and the prints of its paws were fresh - but often that is all you see of a leopard. We moved carefully around the area and every so often someone would swear they had seen something... we would backtrack and find nothing. We continued our search for around half an hour before one of us turned, just in time, to see it crossing the road behind us! We stopped and pulled back - it had hid itself in the bushes and was moving slowly ahead, almost invisible but for a couple of glimpses of it's rosette pattern, or the flick of a tail. Lucky for us it eventually crouched down in the bushes, visible enough for us to get a few photographs. But it was uneasy, a young male obviously disturbed by our presence. So we moved on and headed home in utter disbelief of what an incredible day we'd just had.
The Stolen Kill
 |
| The stolen kill! |
That night, on Shamwari Game reserve where I had been studying for my FGASA Level One, we had the evening off to do with as we liked. We could stay at the base and relax, watch TV, use the internet, have a drink. Or we could go on a night drive. For me there was no option. Night drives are my favourite - no other vehicles about, a beautiful night sky and a totally different world comes alive under the shroud of darkness. We usde it as a practice for our final exam and took with us a couple of very willing volunteers from the conservation group we shared our space with. We entered the reserve just as the light was beginning to fade and most of the game vehicles were heading home: giving a call on the radio we found the last vehicle out following a pair of cheetahs who looked as if they were hungry. We caught up with them literally just in time as the two cats casually sauntered out amongst an enormous herd of antelope. All we could do was sit and watch as the hunters sped off and an enormous cloud of dust rose in the air. They had made a kill! This was the first time I had actually witnessed a kill! It was so quick, and as the light was fading I couldn't see much but still my heart raced. This is true life and death in the African bush. We caught up with the animals just as they began to open the carcass, but unfortunately couldn't see much... Cheetahs are not nocturnal animals and so shining a bright light on them in the night is not an option - it would impair their vision against potential danger and possibly damage their eyesight. Photographs were also impossible. But as we listened to the sounds of cracking bones and tearing flesh we quickly realised the cheetahs had made a mistake, another sound had joined, the unmistakable and haunting cry of the jackal. Jackals are small, and even though several were surrounding the feeding cats we knew they wouldn't dare attempt to steal the kill. The problem was the noise they were making. Before our tutor had finished explaining to us that these calls were likely to attract other creatures I spotted a dark shadow approaching. We shone the light out to take a look and there, weaving its way towards us, was a Brown Hyena. These animals are pretty rare, often being out competed by their spotted cousins, but have managed to make a strong home at Shamwari. They share a den together but hunt and scavenge alone. They have a strong, powerful build with a bite equivalent to that of a great white shark. Cheetahs are no match for them - with their slim build they are built for speed not strength. Despite this at the approach of the hyena trying to steal his hard won dinner one of the cheetahs lashed out and managed to slam the hyena's head to the floor. It was a brave move, but he knew it wasn't worth the risk of a fight and took flight instead. All the cheetahs energy and exertion was wasted - they had taken just a few bites of their meal and now they would have to rest up again before they would have the energy to make another kill. They had taken a risk killing at dusk, and they had lost. Now with a hyena as our main sighting our light was allowed - their eyes are adapted better to the night and don't react to the light shining at them (although never directly in it's face). It didn't take it long to tear the carcass apart with its powerful jaw and soon one brave jackal came in close and began hassling it for abandoned pieces of meat. We watched for a long time, laughing at the jackals attempts and the hyena's growing annoyance. In the end the jackal did manage to run off with a small piece of the prize, and when we returned to the site the next day there was nothing but a patch of stained ground and stomach contents remaining.
Elephants in our camp!
 |
| Not from the same day as the story but the same herd! |
Working with EHRA (Elephant Human Relationship Aid) in Namibia was hard work. We had just spent an entire week building a stone wall using no machinery - just our bare hands. We'd been living a very basic lifestyle - slept under a canvas on a sleeping role, we cooked over a fire, had a long drop toilet and not a shower in sight! Why do this? You might ask. Well the work of EHRA is based around building walls to surround water pumps of the local people in attempt to prevent elephants from damaging and destroying their precious supply. That week we had driven out to one of the sites (on a year-long waiting list) and begun the work on their wall. The next week was patrol week in which we seek out those that cause the damage and keep track on their health and movements. But at this moment we had come back to the base camp for a restful weekend. For our safety from the various animals that roamed the area we slept in a tree on a large platform and on this particular morning had the most wonderful wake-up call. Elephants are not loud animals, you don't hear their footsteps and they rarely trumpet like in the movies... But having spent some time in Africa at this point I was familiar with that you can hear, and as I began to stir from my surprisingly restful sleep I heard a familiar branch snapping sound... and a warm, deep rumbling. My eyes flew open and I did my best not to shout out "Elephant! Elephant!!" A couple of the early rising volunteers had seen them first, and quickly made their way up into the tree house as we had been instructed in such a situation (one had been sat on the toilet which had a nice open view across the riverbed). Soon we were all awake and had the wonderful privilege to watch a herd of twelve individuals pass by our camp and make their way up the dry river. I've had a range of different wake up calls throughout my lifetime but none, I can safely say, have ever come near to beating this... I doubt they ever will.
Thursday 22 August 2013
EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY
This week, on the 20th August, we hit Earth Overshoot Day.
This is an approximate date which each year calculates the moment when we have used more natural resources than the planet can re-absorb/reproduce in a year. This means that from now until the end of the year we are using "borrowed" resources from the future.
We first began to overshoot in around 1975 when it was calculated that on the 31st December we had used too much. Since then the overshoot day has moved forwards on average of two to three days a year. This is inevitably down to population growth - since then the population has exploded from 4.1 billion to 7.3 billion people. As we continue to grow we put more and more pressure on our precious planet and it won't be long before we exhaust it. The question is, will we do something before it is too late?
The problem is that we are unwilling to adapt and change our life-styles. Ironically our success has come from our ability to adapt and change, but have we come so far that we can no longer adapt? It is likely that if we do not we will, eventually, destroy our own species.
The thing is, it only takes a few minor changes in our lifestyles to make a huge difference, like cutting back on the meat we consume, turning the tap off when brushing our teeth, wrapping up gifts creatively (use gift bags, old newspaper etc), not washing clothes until they need it, banning use of the tumble dryer. These are small changes that would make little difference to our lives, but so many people are too self-important to even consider it.
If people don't make these changes themselves there will have to be limitations set upon us: meat rations, a set amount of water per person each day... Although it would have to be desperate before the government sets this, because lets face it, when we're not using these resources they are making less money!!!
It is frustrating, yes, when you are limiting yourself and you see people all around you burning up resources like there is no tomorrow. But we need to stop this mindset of "It wont make any difference if I do it" because if every person who thought that actually made the changes we would be in a much better situation today!!
So the next time you go to put your washing in the tumble dryer take a look outside... Is the sun shining? When you go shopping - remember the bags! Ask your bank to stop your paper statements and receive them online instead. Lets stand up and make our changes. Lets make next years Earth Overshoot day a little later. Lets not destroy our beautiful world.
Please comment with ideas on small changes that could be made - lets talk about it and get the ball rolling!
Monday 19 August 2013
A response from Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust
After writing my previous post ("My Struggle with Zoos Part Two: A Zoo that is good for Wildlife) I had a wonderful message from Rick Jones at Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust which I wanted to share on this blog. For me it really underlines what Durrell is (whilst correcting some of my errors) and the incredible difference that they have made to our wild world. So read, enjoy and then visit Durrell Wildlife Park if you ever get the opportunity... I sure will when I can!
Hi Ida-May,
Thanks
for the message and the blog post, and, also don't be sorry... you'll
actually find that most of the staff here at Durrell also have 'a
problem with zoos' - myself very much included.
We
really aren't a 'zoo' - the closest thing to cages you'll see here
are the internal structures in the gorilla and orangutan houses - and
they are for climbing on, not constraining. Most of our animals -
let's take mammals for an example - live in open plan areas of
parkland, some with a fence to keep the public and them separated
(macaques, various lemurs), some with a moat (bears, howler monkeys,
coatis) and some with no constraint whatsoever (tamarins and
marmosets - we use their natural territorial behaviour to manage
where the groups go, the very best form of enrichment).
It's
also worth mentioning that Ian Singleton is just one of over 3,500
conservationists from 135 countries to have passed through Durrell
and now running their own conservation org. Yes, 3,500! The founders
of IPE - http://bit.ly/14Ovrw4
are Durrell graduates, Limbe Wildlife Centre in Cameroon, the WCS
'Gorilla Guardians' in Nigeria, untold Herpetologists and bird
experts around the world - including Professor Carl Jones MBE and Dr.
Glyn Young (the world's foremost duck species expert) all feed back
their expertise and research, so we can train the people following
them through Durrell's unique conservation facilitation system. We
provide much of the research that is the foundation of many of the
world's most critical species restoration projects, and we never
charge any NGO to access any of it if they are carrying out important
work.
As
for the 'zoo' issue, Gerald Durrell's was the first ever animal
collection set up with the express purpose of captive breeding
species that could disappear. Other zoos commendably took that model,
and a very recent example of it literally being lifesaving is the
case of the Waldrapp or bald ibis (Geronticus eremita). Surveys of
the original, wild population this year found only 1 bird. It would
be functionally extinct, but the captive breeding program across
several zoos (our wildlife park included) has allowed semi-wild
reintroduction populations in Morocco and Northern Spain -
traditional historical habitats of these once sacred birds.
If
you ever have the chance to visit Jersey, I'd be delighted to show
you around, and you'd be able to see for yourself what makes Durrell
unique.
Kind
Regards,
Rick
Jones
Sunday 18 August 2013
MY STRUGGLE WITH ZOO'S PART TWO: A ZOO THAT IS GOOD FOR WILDLIFE
Last month I wrote a post about my struggle to decide whether zoos do more good or harm to wildlife - despite their conservation promises many do not live up to actually preserving the species that need saving, and many more of animals kept in zoos are in little danger or extinction. You can read that post here:
http://wildida.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/my-struggle-with-zoos-are-they-good-or.html
However since having written that post I have discovered a zoo that really does appear to stick to its promises, and it's main focus above and beyond money making is:
I first heard of the zoo through a BBC program "Refugees of the Lost Rainforest" which was made to mark 50 years since the founding of the park. The program, centred around conserving the highly threatened Orang-utan species, followed the work of Durrell in both Jersey and Sumatra. Dr Ian Singleton, who trained at Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, is working in Sumatra to save orang-utans from problems such as deforestation, and has committed himself to a basic lifestyle in Sumatra with all his energy focused on these great apes.
Durrell Wildlife Park (formally Jersey Zoo) was established in 1958 by naturalist Gerald Durrell who began his career capturing animals for other zoos. He had his doubts about the way zoos operated and thought the focus needed to be more on animal conservation rather than mere entertainment; his way of thinking was far ahead of his time and this idea was very controversial. Upon setting up his own zoo rather than collecting animals that would bring in huge numbers of visitors he brought in creatures such as "the volcano rabbit" (which Durrell referred to as "the little brown jobs") which are, although perhaps boring to look at, critically endangered.
And still today the zoo lacks emphasis on large show-stopping mammals but rather focuses it's energy and attention on those that are critically in danger no matter how small: with breeding projects and training people in the animals' local environments it is by far the most exciting zoo I have heard of.
I haven't had the chance to visit the zoo, but it is clear from the zoo's website that conservation is by far the most important topic. The first link you can click on is not to book up and visit the zoo, but a link named "Conservation" which leads you to an explanation of how Durrell chooses it's focus species to concentrate on saving. And when you do get on to the part about visitor costs it outlines how each price can be used:
Durrell prides itself on the species it can confidently say it has saved such as the Mauritius Kestrel which, before Durrells intervention, was down to 4 individual birds: the species is now up to 350 individuals, and the Echo Parakeet which had only 10 left but are now numbering 500.
Despite it's lack of large mammals and it's far-out of the way location Durrell receives around 169,000 visitors per year, a fact which I think truly shows the way people feel about conservation.
My thoughts and feelings for zoos in general have not changed - I still hate to see a captive animal that could be free and wild. But Durrell have hit the nail on the head and done just what needs doing. Their focus is not on the biggest most exciting animals but the ones that most critically need our help, however boring to look at. I hope that one day the rest of the zoos will follow suite and change their focus from being a place of entertainment to being a place for true conservation.
You can see the Durrell Wildlife Park Website here: http://www.durrell.org/
If you ever find yourself in Jersey do take the opportunity to visit! Because this is place is one in a million.
http://wildida.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/my-struggle-with-zoos-are-they-good-or.html
However since having written that post I have discovered a zoo that really does appear to stick to its promises, and it's main focus above and beyond money making is:
"Saving Species from Extinction"This is the Durrell Wildlife Park based in Jersey.
I first heard of the zoo through a BBC program "Refugees of the Lost Rainforest" which was made to mark 50 years since the founding of the park. The program, centred around conserving the highly threatened Orang-utan species, followed the work of Durrell in both Jersey and Sumatra. Dr Ian Singleton, who trained at Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, is working in Sumatra to save orang-utans from problems such as deforestation, and has committed himself to a basic lifestyle in Sumatra with all his energy focused on these great apes.
Durrell Wildlife Park (formally Jersey Zoo) was established in 1958 by naturalist Gerald Durrell who began his career capturing animals for other zoos. He had his doubts about the way zoos operated and thought the focus needed to be more on animal conservation rather than mere entertainment; his way of thinking was far ahead of his time and this idea was very controversial. Upon setting up his own zoo rather than collecting animals that would bring in huge numbers of visitors he brought in creatures such as "the volcano rabbit" (which Durrell referred to as "the little brown jobs") which are, although perhaps boring to look at, critically endangered.
 |
| The Little Brown Jobs |
I haven't had the chance to visit the zoo, but it is clear from the zoo's website that conservation is by far the most important topic. The first link you can click on is not to book up and visit the zoo, but a link named "Conservation" which leads you to an explanation of how Durrell chooses it's focus species to concentrate on saving. And when you do get on to the part about visitor costs it outlines how each price can be used:
Durrell prides itself on the species it can confidently say it has saved such as the Mauritius Kestrel which, before Durrells intervention, was down to 4 individual birds: the species is now up to 350 individuals, and the Echo Parakeet which had only 10 left but are now numbering 500.
Despite it's lack of large mammals and it's far-out of the way location Durrell receives around 169,000 visitors per year, a fact which I think truly shows the way people feel about conservation.
My thoughts and feelings for zoos in general have not changed - I still hate to see a captive animal that could be free and wild. But Durrell have hit the nail on the head and done just what needs doing. Their focus is not on the biggest most exciting animals but the ones that most critically need our help, however boring to look at. I hope that one day the rest of the zoos will follow suite and change their focus from being a place of entertainment to being a place for true conservation.
You can see the Durrell Wildlife Park Website here: http://www.durrell.org/
If you ever find yourself in Jersey do take the opportunity to visit! Because this is place is one in a million.
Sunday 11 August 2013
WOULD YOU EAT MEAT GROWN IN A LABORATORY?
On Monday 5th August 2013 the first ever laboratory grown burger was put to the test:
The burger, following six years of research by Mark Post (professor of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands) was put together from a few stem cells extracted from a slaughtered cow. These cells were grown into 20,000 strands of muscle and then made into a burger (mixed with red beet juice and saffron to enhance the colour, and some bread crumbs and a binder). The future prospect of this burger means that from just a few stem cells taken from an animal it is possible that meat could be grown and sold in supermarkets in replacement of meat from thousands of slaughtered animals.
There are huge problems associated with the future of stem-cell burgers, and it is certainly many years off being a regular diet for anyone. For a start the cost is currently off the scale - who in their right mind would pay £215,00 for a burger? It would also destroy the jobs and livelihood of millions of farmers across the globe. There is also an issue with peoples mindsets, could the mass population overcome the idea of eating a burger out of a test tube (although I doubt this would be an issue considering how people have overcome eating a McDonald's burger)?
But by far and over all I can see is the benefits that this could reap.
Although not a vegetarian myself I have long been aware of the issues behind being a meat eater. One of the major impacts which concerns me is the environmental problems which producing enough meat to feed the world causes. It is estimated that between the year 2000 and 2050 global meat consumption may double, mostly as a consequence of increasing populations. As it is sustaining the meat industry is putting enormous strain on our environment.
Currently 26% of ice-free terrestrial land is dedicated to grazing animals, and feed crop production (food grown to feed animals) uses about one-third of arable land. This land does not pop up out of nowhere, and much of it is in areas which used to be vast rainforests - we are continually losing rare plant species and safe habitats for some of our rarest species of animals in order to have enough land to sustain meat production.
As well as this it is estimated on a global scale that livestock contribute (both directly and indirectly) to a total of 9% anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of anthropogenic methane emissions and 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions.
Another impact of meat production is the cruelty and suffering that these animals face. Although there has been an increase in free-ranging meat produce there is still an enormous amount of produce coming from cruel farming institutes. Many cows never step outside throughout their entire lives. Alongside this live animals are transported to slaughter in small cramped carriers... There is little doubt of the stress that must be caused.
The production of lab-grown meat could mean the end of this. Hundreds of acres of land could be returned to their natural state, there would be more space for vegetable growth which in turn could contribute to eradicating world hunger. We would massively decrease our carbon emissions and hopefully put a stop to animal suffering.
Why not just turn to vegetarianism? It is unquestionable that if the entire world became vegetarian the same benefits could be reaped. But in reality I cannot see this happening. I cannot see the world stopping eating meat - but I do see a possibility of converting people to stem-cell meat.
I would love to know what you think. If it does ever become viable would you be happy to exchange your regular meat for laboratory grown meat? If you are a vegetarian would you consider giving it a go?
"There's some quite intense flavours... It's close to meat... It's not that juicy but the consistency is perfect."This was the response of Hanni Rutzler - the Austrian food researcher who was the first to take a bite of the £215,000 burger.
The burger, following six years of research by Mark Post (professor of physiology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands) was put together from a few stem cells extracted from a slaughtered cow. These cells were grown into 20,000 strands of muscle and then made into a burger (mixed with red beet juice and saffron to enhance the colour, and some bread crumbs and a binder). The future prospect of this burger means that from just a few stem cells taken from an animal it is possible that meat could be grown and sold in supermarkets in replacement of meat from thousands of slaughtered animals.
 |
| Mark Post with his stem-cell burgers |
Of course there are many debates going on about the reality of laboratory grown meat making it into our supermarkets. Would people actually want to eat it? Could it become economically viable? Would it fix the unsustainable issues of mass-produced meat?
There are huge problems associated with the future of stem-cell burgers, and it is certainly many years off being a regular diet for anyone. For a start the cost is currently off the scale - who in their right mind would pay £215,00 for a burger? It would also destroy the jobs and livelihood of millions of farmers across the globe. There is also an issue with peoples mindsets, could the mass population overcome the idea of eating a burger out of a test tube (although I doubt this would be an issue considering how people have overcome eating a McDonald's burger)?
But by far and over all I can see is the benefits that this could reap.
Although not a vegetarian myself I have long been aware of the issues behind being a meat eater. One of the major impacts which concerns me is the environmental problems which producing enough meat to feed the world causes. It is estimated that between the year 2000 and 2050 global meat consumption may double, mostly as a consequence of increasing populations. As it is sustaining the meat industry is putting enormous strain on our environment.
Currently 26% of ice-free terrestrial land is dedicated to grazing animals, and feed crop production (food grown to feed animals) uses about one-third of arable land. This land does not pop up out of nowhere, and much of it is in areas which used to be vast rainforests - we are continually losing rare plant species and safe habitats for some of our rarest species of animals in order to have enough land to sustain meat production.
As well as this it is estimated on a global scale that livestock contribute (both directly and indirectly) to a total of 9% anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of anthropogenic methane emissions and 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions.
Another impact of meat production is the cruelty and suffering that these animals face. Although there has been an increase in free-ranging meat produce there is still an enormous amount of produce coming from cruel farming institutes. Many cows never step outside throughout their entire lives. Alongside this live animals are transported to slaughter in small cramped carriers... There is little doubt of the stress that must be caused.
 |
| Lamb to the slaughter |
Why not just turn to vegetarianism? It is unquestionable that if the entire world became vegetarian the same benefits could be reaped. But in reality I cannot see this happening. I cannot see the world stopping eating meat - but I do see a possibility of converting people to stem-cell meat.
I would love to know what you think. If it does ever become viable would you be happy to exchange your regular meat for laboratory grown meat? If you are a vegetarian would you consider giving it a go?
Saturday 10 August 2013
THE KING OF THE JUNGLE UNDER THREAT
Today is officially "World Lion Day" - a day to think about these magnificent creatures and spread the word...
The King of the Jungle is under a serious threat.
When most people think of Africa the first creature that comes to mind is the lion... He is an indestructible strength and beauty. None can overpower him.
When most people think of threatened species they think of pandas, elephants, rhinos... Vegetarians... Relatively defenceless. But lions? Lions are fierce,powerful, predators! How can lions be under threat?
So here are a few facts and figures for you. In 1975, just thirty-eight years ago, there was an estimated population of 250,000 lions roaming wild in Africa. Today the population stands between 25,000 - 30,000 individuals. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is unsustainable.
Lions are threatened by a range of factors...
But at the end of the day, once again, it boils down to one source - Humans. Humans have destroyed their habitat. Humans have over-hunted their prey. When under threat humans kill. Humans poach for money. Humans spread disease. Humans, in blocking off movements, have forced inbreeding. Humans has an insatiable thirst to dominate.
I think of all the threats lions face the most destructive (and strangely enough probably the most easily stopped) is trophy hunting. It absolutely shocks me to know that trophy lion hunting is still a popular ongoing "sport". For some reason people get a great amount of pleasure from having the ultimate dominance over an animal that can kill you in an instance... but in the most cowedly way imaginable... hidden off in a bush with a gun.
But it gets worse - canned hunting. This is a practise in which a lion cub is raised in a small enclosure (and often petted and taken out by unsuspecting paying members of the public... see earlier post: http://wildida.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/false-pretences-lion-breeding-projects.html), and when it grows big enough is put out into an enclosure and shot by a hunter who has paid thousands of dollars for the privilege. This is beyond cowardice, beyond animal cruelty... This is slaughter.
Unfortunately this practise is not widely known about, and so not much is being done to stop it. So today, World Lion Day, is your chance to do something... Spread the word... #WorldLionDay .... Make sure all your friends and family know and join petition groups. If we can stop Trophy Hunting perhaps we can save our King.
The King of the Jungle is under a serious threat.
 |
| King of Karongwe Game Reserve |
When most people think of Africa the first creature that comes to mind is the lion... He is an indestructible strength and beauty. None can overpower him.
When most people think of threatened species they think of pandas, elephants, rhinos... Vegetarians... Relatively defenceless. But lions? Lions are fierce,powerful, predators! How can lions be under threat?
So here are a few facts and figures for you. In 1975, just thirty-eight years ago, there was an estimated population of 250,000 lions roaming wild in Africa. Today the population stands between 25,000 - 30,000 individuals. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is unsustainable.
Lions are threatened by a range of factors...
- Habitat loss
- Prey loss
- Human - Wildlife conflict
- Poaching
- Disease
- Inbreeding
- Trophy Hunting
But at the end of the day, once again, it boils down to one source - Humans. Humans have destroyed their habitat. Humans have over-hunted their prey. When under threat humans kill. Humans poach for money. Humans spread disease. Humans, in blocking off movements, have forced inbreeding. Humans has an insatiable thirst to dominate.
I think of all the threats lions face the most destructive (and strangely enough probably the most easily stopped) is trophy hunting. It absolutely shocks me to know that trophy lion hunting is still a popular ongoing "sport". For some reason people get a great amount of pleasure from having the ultimate dominance over an animal that can kill you in an instance... but in the most cowedly way imaginable... hidden off in a bush with a gun.
But it gets worse - canned hunting. This is a practise in which a lion cub is raised in a small enclosure (and often petted and taken out by unsuspecting paying members of the public... see earlier post: http://wildida.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/false-pretences-lion-breeding-projects.html), and when it grows big enough is put out into an enclosure and shot by a hunter who has paid thousands of dollars for the privilege. This is beyond cowardice, beyond animal cruelty... This is slaughter.
Unfortunately this practise is not widely known about, and so not much is being done to stop it. So today, World Lion Day, is your chance to do something... Spread the word... #WorldLionDay .... Make sure all your friends and family know and join petition groups. If we can stop Trophy Hunting perhaps we can save our King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)