Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

In South Africa, an insatiable desire for lions — whether to view the big cats in captivity, interact with cubs, hunt them for sport, or trade in their body parts — has created an explosion in their captive populations. Approximately 8,000-10,000 lions are now kept in captivity across the country, compared to the estimated 3,490 wild lions across our reserves and national parks. Activists and the media have given extensive attention to this cruel, inhumane industry, but significantly less is known about the other exotic cat species bred, kept, traded, and even hunted for this burgeoning industry built on greed and cruelty. For instance, in 2022 the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment confirmed that at least 70 captive facilities kept 463 tigers across South Africa. Yes, tigers — the same endangered Asian big cats subject to intense conservation efforts, with a wild population estimated at just 5,500 animals. Those of us working against this captive trade suspect the actual number of tigers in the country is much higher, as the department does not require captive facilities to register the big cats. The data provided by provincial authorities is only as accurate as the information provided by willing facilities. And tigers are just one element of this industry. Across the country approximately 400 captive facilities keep indigenous and exotic cats of multiple species for tourism activities, breeding, trading in live animals and their body parts, and hunting. Captive African lion. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions The Blood Lions documentary and subsequent campaign — I’m part of the team and the campaign coordinator — has been instrumental in exposing the cruel realities of the captive predator industry. Our work focuses on conducting research and lobbying in both public and government spheres to influence policy. An important and necessary challenge we now face is not only pushing against the captive lion industry and all its associated activities, but also addressing the proliferation of other big cat species in captivity for commercial gain. South Africa’s Contribution to the Legal and Illegal Trade in Body Parts Tigers bred in South Africa don’t always stay here. From 2012 to 2022[1], South Africa exported a minimum of 397 live tigers and 101 tiger body parts and hunting trophies, according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species trade database.[2] And that’s just the so-called legal trade. I recently spoke with Karl Ammann, an environmental photographer and investigative filmmaker who has spent years uncovering the ties between South Africa and the international wildlife trade. Through his work in Vietnam, he’s interviewed dealers who sell tiger “cake” (boiled-down tiger bone) for use in traditional medicine. They’ve revealed that their stock is primarily imported from South Africa. Some were even able to provide shipment dates when they expected stock to arrive, all without legitimate documentation. The demand for wildlife products like this threatens multiple species. With tiger bone supplies dwindling and an ever-increasing demand for bones for medicinal purposes, traffickers have turned to lion bones sourced from captive-bred lions in South Africa as substitutes. Meanwhile the trade in live tigers bred in South Africa and destined for Southeast Asia is thriving, according to Ammann. His investigations show that Southeast Asian breeding farms lose a significant number of cubs to inbreeding, making the live trade from South Africa necessary to supplement the captive gene pool. This shouldn’t be allowed, as tigers are protected under CITES Appendix I, which restricts virtually all trade in the species. But exporters game the system by using the CITES Z code, which declares the animals they’re shipping are destined for zoos and public display. “The fact is, they are all for primarily commercial purposes, which should not be possible,” says Ammann. Concurrent Legislation Hampers Regulation of the Captive Industry South African authorities have announced their intent to close the commercial captive lion industry. But conservationists and welfare advocacy groups remain concerned. We worry that this will turn increased attention to the breeding, keeping, and trading of exotic big cats like tigers, jaguars, black leopards and pumas. South African law currently considers these big cats “alien species” due to their natural occurrence outside of South Africa; but possessing, breeding, trading, and controlling these species is still considered a restricted activity under Chapter 7 of our Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS). Dr. Louise de Waal, campaign manager of Blood Lions, highlights that this is a gray area, as South Africa’s provinces have the autonomy to implement national legislation differently regarding exotic species. Provinces may or may not implement national legislation concurrently with their own local laws; it’s up to them. For example, provincial authorities in Gauteng, Limpopo and Eastern Cape do not require permits to possess exotic animals in captivity. However, owners in these provinces must still hold permits for other restricted activities, such as transport, for exotic species to move within and between provinces, although violations have been reported. This issue has become prevalent in Gauteng, where several instances of inappropriate, negligent, and cruel tiger ownership have been exposed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and in the media. In January 2023 a privately owned tiger escaped its cage before attacking one person and killing two dogs in Walkerville. Later that same month, a second tiger escaped in a residential area in Edenvale. In 2021 two tigers were found kept in a residential back garden constrained by nothing more than a fence, despite the obvious safety hazards this posed to neighbors and the children. An inbred white tiger. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions As for hunting exotic species, that’s considered a restricted activity under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and requires a TOPS permit. But communication with the provincial authority in the North West revealed that the province does not issue hunting permits. For exotic big cat species, a hunt can occur if written permission is provided by the landowner. Hunting clientele coming to South Africa for a big game trophy hunt can bag an exotic big cat bred and raised in captivity with nothing more than the landowner’s consent. Even on the national level, the registration and subsequent permitting for exotic species does not provide regulations for the welfare, well-being, and husbandry needs of the animals, according to Karen Trendler, an animal welfare expert from Working Wild and an NSPCA board member. Overall the regulations are completely inadequate, especially for exotic species being kept, bred, traded and hunted in South Africa. False Justifications for the Captive Industry One commonly touted justification for keeping exotic big cats in captivity is that they provide educational and conservation value. Despite these claims, breeding and keeping wild cat species for commercial purposes does nothing to aid their conservation in wild habitats. In fact, many exotic species kept in captivity in South Africa are endangered in their home ranges. Realistically, how can tigers kept in captivity in South Africa contribute to conservation in India or other countries? Due to inbreeding and hybridization (or the breeding of two different species), captive tigers could never be used for wild conservation projects. Given that tigers occupy less than 6% of their historical range, it’s more urgent than ever that genuine conservation be prioritized. As for education, Trendler asserts that “there are better ways of educating than keeping animals in sub-standard welfare conditions.” Although the conditions in public-facing facilities are better than those away from the public eye, Trendler warns that the public are often unaware of an animal’s complex needs and the many ways in which facilities fail to provide for them. All of which makes South Africa’s continued embrace of the trade more perplexing and discouraging. South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which declares that captive facilities holding tigers need to support conservation of wild Asian big cats. But the minister has stated the opinion that we do not need to comply with that, since South Africa is not a range state for Asian cats such as tigers. Captive jaguar. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions Her choice to ignore the CITES decision indicates the industry’s lack of commitment to genuine conservation and prioritizing commercial interests instead. Captive-industry claims regarding educational and conservation value continue to fail and undermine genuine conservation efforts by misdirecting attention and funds away from those working to protect species and habitats on the ground in their native habitats, according to Dr. Ullas Karanth, conservation zoologist and tiger expert. What Does the Future Hold for These Big Cats? The same attention lions have received now needs to be given to all predator species, both indigenous and exotic, that are being exploited in captivity. According to South African law (Section 56 of NEMBA), the minister may declare “any species” — native or not — as “critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.” That means it lies firmly within the minister’s power to grant other big cat species increased protection under South Africa’s legislation. According to Trendler, exotic wildlife needs to be recognized as deserving of a high standard of well-being, regardless of their country of origin and conservation status. White tiger cub kept separated from its mother. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment is in a position to effect change, for once, in the animals’ favor. The minister has the power to prohibit activities that affect “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological, and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment.” Any animal in South Africa, regardless of its indigenous or exotic status, needs to receive consideration for its well-being in terms of its management, conservation, and sustainable use. The commercial captive predator industry won’t do this on its own. These breeders, owners and traders have continuously demonstrated that commercial gain trumps all welfare and ethical considerations. To them, big cats exist for nothing more than a trophy, bones, or trivial entertainment. It’s past time for that to change. [1] 2022 CITES Trade Data may be incomplete. [2] The CITES Trade Database is subject to the accuracy of submitted forms. Some exported animals and derivatives were not properly declared, so exact numbers were not recorded. Get more from The Revelator. Subscribe to our newsletter.  Previously in The Revelator: The Last Lions of India The post In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection appeared first on The Revelator.

The captive predator industry threatens the welfare of thousands of big cats kept for entertainment, hunting, and commercial trade of live animals and their body parts. The post In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection appeared first on The Revelator.

In South Africa, an insatiable desire for lions — whether to view the big cats in captivity, interact with cubs, hunt them for sport, or trade in their body parts — has created an explosion in their captive populations. Approximately 8,000-10,000 lions are now kept in captivity across the country, compared to the estimated 3,490 wild lions across our reserves and national parks. Activists and the media have given extensive attention to this cruel, inhumane industry, but significantly less is known about the other exotic cat species bred, kept, traded, and even hunted for this burgeoning industry built on greed and cruelty.

For instance, in 2022 the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment confirmed that at least 70 captive facilities kept 463 tigers across South Africa. Yes, tigers — the same endangered Asian big cats subject to intense conservation efforts, with a wild population estimated at just 5,500 animals.

Those of us working against this captive trade suspect the actual number of tigers in the country is much higher, as the department does not require captive facilities to register the big cats. The data provided by provincial authorities is only as accurate as the information provided by willing facilities.

And tigers are just one element of this industry. Across the country approximately 400 captive facilities keep indigenous and exotic cats of multiple species for tourism activities, breeding, trading in live animals and their body parts, and hunting.

A male lion sits behind a wire fence
Captive African lion. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions

The Blood Lions documentary and subsequent campaign — I’m part of the team and the campaign coordinator — has been instrumental in exposing the cruel realities of the captive predator industry. Our work focuses on conducting research and lobbying in both public and government spheres to influence policy. An important and necessary challenge we now face is not only pushing against the captive lion industry and all its associated activities, but also addressing the proliferation of other big cat species in captivity for commercial gain.

South Africa’s Contribution to the Legal and Illegal Trade in Body Parts

Tigers bred in South Africa don’t always stay here. From 2012 to 2022[1], South Africa exported a minimum of 397 live tigers and 101 tiger body parts and hunting trophies, according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species trade database.[2] And that’s just the so-called legal trade.

I recently spoke with Karl Ammann, an environmental photographer and investigative filmmaker who has spent years uncovering the ties between South Africa and the international wildlife trade.

Through his work in Vietnam, he’s interviewed dealers who sell tiger “cake” (boiled-down tiger bone) for use in traditional medicine. They’ve revealed that their stock is primarily imported from South Africa. Some were even able to provide shipment dates when they expected stock to arrive, all without legitimate documentation.

The demand for wildlife products like this threatens multiple species. With tiger bone supplies dwindling and an ever-increasing demand for bones for medicinal purposes, traffickers have turned to lion bones sourced from captive-bred lions in South Africa as substitutes.

Meanwhile the trade in live tigers bred in South Africa and destined for Southeast Asia is thriving, according to Ammann. His investigations show that Southeast Asian breeding farms lose a significant number of cubs to inbreeding, making the live trade from South Africa necessary to supplement the captive gene pool.

This shouldn’t be allowed, as tigers are protected under CITES Appendix I, which restricts virtually all trade in the species. But exporters game the system by using the CITES Z code, which declares the animals they’re shipping are destined for zoos and public display. “The fact is, they are all for primarily commercial purposes, which should not be possible,” says Ammann.

Concurrent Legislation Hampers Regulation of the Captive Industry

South African authorities have announced their intent to close the commercial captive lion industry. But conservationists and welfare advocacy groups remain concerned. We worry that this will turn increased attention to the breeding, keeping, and trading of exotic big cats like tigers, jaguars, black leopards and pumas.

South African law currently considers these big cats “alien species” due to their natural occurrence outside of South Africa; but possessing, breeding, trading, and controlling these species is still considered a restricted activity under Chapter 7 of our Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (TOPS).

Dr. Louise de Waal, campaign manager of Blood Lions, highlights that this is a gray area, as South Africa’s provinces have the autonomy to implement national legislation differently regarding exotic species. Provinces may or may not implement national legislation concurrently with their own local laws; it’s up to them.

For example, provincial authorities in Gauteng, Limpopo and Eastern Cape do not require permits to possess exotic animals in captivity. However, owners in these provinces must still hold permits for other restricted activities, such as transport, for exotic species to move within and between provinces, although violations have been reported.

This issue has become prevalent in Gauteng, where several instances of inappropriate, negligent, and cruel tiger ownership have been exposed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and in the media. In January 2023 a privately owned tiger escaped its cage before attacking one person and killing two dogs in Walkerville. Later that same month, a second tiger escaped in a residential area in Edenvale. In 2021 two tigers were found kept in a residential back garden constrained by nothing more than a fence, despite the obvious safety hazards this posed to neighbors and the children.

A tiger stands behind a wire fence
An inbred white tiger. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions

As for hunting exotic species, that’s considered a restricted activity under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and requires a TOPS permit. But communication with the provincial authority in the North West revealed that the province does not issue hunting permits. For exotic big cat species, a hunt can occur if written permission is provided by the landowner. Hunting clientele coming to South Africa for a big game trophy hunt can bag an exotic big cat bred and raised in captivity with nothing more than the landowner’s consent.

Even on the national level, the registration and subsequent permitting for exotic species does not provide regulations for the welfare, well-being, and husbandry needs of the animals, according to Karen Trendler, an animal welfare expert from Working Wild and an NSPCA board member. Overall the regulations are completely inadequate, especially for exotic species being kept, bred, traded and hunted in South Africa.

False Justifications for the Captive Industry

One commonly touted justification for keeping exotic big cats in captivity is that they provide educational and conservation value. Despite these claims, breeding and keeping wild cat species for commercial purposes does nothing to aid their conservation in wild habitats. In fact, many exotic species kept in captivity in South Africa are endangered in their home ranges.

Realistically, how can tigers kept in captivity in South Africa contribute to conservation in India or other countries? Due to inbreeding and hybridization (or the breeding of two different species), captive tigers could never be used for wild conservation projects. Given that tigers occupy less than 6% of their historical range, it’s more urgent than ever that genuine conservation be prioritized.

As for education, Trendler asserts that “there are better ways of educating than keeping animals in sub-standard welfare conditions.” Although the conditions in public-facing facilities are better than those away from the public eye, Trendler warns that the public are often unaware of an animal’s complex needs and the many ways in which facilities fail to provide for them.

All of which makes South Africa’s continued embrace of the trade more perplexing and discouraging. South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which declares that captive facilities holding tigers need to support conservation of wild Asian big cats. But the minister has stated the opinion that we do not need to comply with that, since South Africa is not a range state for Asian cats such as tigers.

A jaguar in a cage
Captive jaguar. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions

Her choice to ignore the CITES decision indicates the industry’s lack of commitment to genuine conservation and prioritizing commercial interests instead. Captive-industry claims regarding educational and conservation value continue to fail and undermine genuine conservation efforts by misdirecting attention and funds away from those working to protect species and habitats on the ground in their native habitats, according to Dr. Ullas Karanth, conservation zoologist and tiger expert.

What Does the Future Hold for These Big Cats?

The same attention lions have received now needs to be given to all predator species, both indigenous and exotic, that are being exploited in captivity.

According to South African law (Section 56 of NEMBA), the minister may declare “any species” — native or not — as “critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.” That means it lies firmly within the minister’s power to grant other big cat species increased protection under South Africa’s legislation.

According to Trendler, exotic wildlife needs to be recognized as deserving of a high standard of well-being, regardless of their country of origin and conservation status.

A dirty tiger cub stands with one paw against a wire fence
White tiger cub kept separated from its mother. Stephanie Klarmann, Blood Lions

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment is in a position to effect change, for once, in the animals’ favor. The minister has the power to prohibit activities that affect “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological, and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment.” Any animal in South Africa, regardless of its indigenous or exotic status, needs to receive consideration for its well-being in terms of its management, conservation, and sustainable use.

The commercial captive predator industry won’t do this on its own. These breeders, owners and traders have continuously demonstrated that commercial gain trumps all welfare and ethical considerations. To them, big cats exist for nothing more than a trophy, bones, or trivial entertainment.

It’s past time for that to change.

[1] 2022 CITES Trade Data may be incomplete.

[2] The CITES Trade Database is subject to the accuracy of submitted forms. Some exported animals and derivatives were not properly declared, so exact numbers were not recorded.

Get more from The Revelator. Subscribe to our newsletter. 

Previously in The Revelator:

The Last Lions of India

The post In South Africa, Tigers and Other Captive Predators Are Still Exploited for Profit. Legislation Offers Pitiful Protection appeared first on The Revelator.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Destruction of Ukraine dam caused ‘toxic timebomb’ of heavy metals, study finds

Researchers say environmental impact from Kakhovka dam explosion comparable to Chornobyl nuclear disasterThe destruction of a large Ukrainian dam in 2023 triggered a “toxic timebomb” of environmental harm, a study has found.Lakebed sediments holding 83,000 tonnes of heavy metals were exposed when the Kakhovka dam was blown up one year into Russia’s invasion, researchers found. Continue reading...

The destruction of a large Ukrainian dam in 2023 triggered a “toxic timebomb” of environmental harm, a study has found.Lakebed sediments holding 83,000 tonnes of heavy metals were exposed when the Kakhovka dam was blown up one year into Russia’s invasion, researchers found.Less than 1% of these “highly toxic” heavy metals – which include lead, cadmium and nickel – are likely to have been released when the reservoir drained, the scientists found. They said the remaining pollutants would leach into rivers as rains wore down the sediment, threatening human health in a region where river water is widely used to make up for shortages in municipal water supplies.The lead author, Oleksandra Shumilova, said the scale of the environmental impacts was comparable to the Chornobyl nuclear disaster.“All these pollutants that were deposited on the bottom can accumulate in different organisms, pass through the food web, and spread from vegetation to animals to humans,” said Shumilova, a scientist at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries. “Its consequences can be compared to the effects of radiation.”The researchers linked on-the-ground measurements with remote sensing data and hydrology models to map the environmental impacts of the dam’s destruction, which flooded the region and killed 84 people. They estimated water from the breach killed 20-30% of floodplain rodents, along with the entire juvenile fish stock.They said the reservoir released 9,000-17,000 tonnes of phytoplankton each day in the first week after the dam was blown up, driving an increase in water turbidity that led to the “probable loss” of 10,000 tonnes of macroinvertebrates.The destruction of natural life detailed in the study appears to contrast with the striking images of wildlife that has returned to the reservoir since the dam burst. White willows and black poplars have reforested the land, and wild boars and other animals have taken over areas that people still avoid. Fish that have not been seen for decades, such as sturgeon and herring, have returned to the water.The researchers expect that the area will reach a level of biodiversity equivalent to 80% of an undammed ecosystem within five years.“It’s not recovery, it’s better to use a word such as re-establish,” said Shumilova. “It means that it will develop its own way, but not necessarily to the initial conditions.”The Kakhovka dam, which was built in the 1950s on the Dnipro River, was destroyed on 6 June 2023 while under Russian occupation. Its reservoir supplied water to cool the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and irrigate southern Ukraine.Before and after Nova Kakhovka dam collapse in Ukraine – videoUkrainian ecologists have debated whether the dam should be rebuilt after the war – and how much land should be flooded if it is – with some arguing for the new ecosystem to be left alone as part of a growing movement to rewild human-disturbed areas. Shumilova said that the unresolved question of heavy metal contamination complicated this approach, because it was unclear whether the vegetation was enough to keep the exposed sediments in place.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“It’s still something that people have to investigate,” she said. “Presently, it’s difficult because of the war – it’s difficult for scientists to go there to take samples and conduct experiments.”Shumilova, a Berlin-based researcher whose home town of Mykolaiv was cut off from water for a full month at the start of the war, said the study findings were relevant for peacetime removals of large dams, as well as for other wars between industrialised countries.Water has repeatedly been used as a weapon of war in Ukraine, with attackers and defenders having blown up dams for military gain. Legal scholars say the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine blames on Russia, and which Russia disputes, could constitute an environmental war crime.Shah Maruf, a law researcher at the University of Dhaka who has published research on the legal consequences of the Kakhovka dam’s destruction, said the new findings “suggest that the damage is ‘widespread, long-term, and severe’, fulfilling one of the key requirements for an environmental war crime”.But he added that the speed of the ecosystem’s recovery could affect the strength of the case. “If the recovery is faster – and if that was anticipated by the perpetrator while attacking – that may compromise the finding of ‘long-term’ damage in the context of environmental war crime.”Last month, a separate study exploring the effects of the Kakhovka dam destruction on the Black Sea ecosystems observed some habitats and species replenishing, but found “significant habitat destruction, disturbances and pollutant damages remain”.Carol Stepien, an ecologist at the Smithsonian Institution and co-author of the study, said Ukraine’s freshwater, estuarine and marine species “evolved under conditions of longtime flux”, exposing them to a range of temperatures, salinity levels and habitat qualities. This “may aid their resilience and recovery”, she added.

Cattle killed by wolves could net Oregon ranchers bigger state payouts. If Democrats defy environmentalists

For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals.

Oregon ranchers want higher payouts from the state to recoup their losses for cattle and other livestock killed by wolves. But the fate of a bill that would increase those payments will be determined by whether enough Democratic lawmakers, who hold the majority in Salem, are willing to defy environmentalists and support the proposal.For years, Oregon ranchers have complained about wolves preying on their cows, horses and other animals. Because shooting a wolf is against state hunting laws, lawmakers in 2011 agreed to compensate ranchers for the financial loss of any animal that dies following a wolf attack.Ranchers say the money is vital to keeping their operations profitable. In 2023, Oregon counties gave ranchers $70,300 from state coffers for dead or injured cattle that experts determined were likely attacked by wolves. Ranchers are currently compensated for the market value of the cattle lost to wolves.But ranchers say the losses they suffer are deeper than merely the cost of a replacement calf or cow. “Wolf depredation is not only a financial concern, it is an emotional and mental concern and it is causing a great deal of stress to ranchers across entire sections of the state,” Gabrielle Homer, president-elect of Oregon CattleWomen, said in written testimony to lawmakers.Numerous Republican lawmakers agree.Sen. Todd Nash, a Republican from Enterprise and former president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, introduced a bill in January that would require the state to pay ranchers at least the fair market value – and in many cases far more – for animals injured or killed by wolves. Under the bill, Oregon would have to pay seven times the market value of cow calves, sheep and goats, and three times the market value for other cows.These multipliers, ranchers say, are necessary because wolf attacks on herds can negatively impact cattle and ranchers in many unseen ways. “This stress impacts every animal and comes at a cost to the rancher in the way of less pounds to sell, an animal aborting or not rebreeding, and the overall disposition of their cattle,” Oregon cattle ranchers Creighton and Gabriella Nevin wrote to lawmakers.Republicans and a few moderate Democrats have expressed support for the bill. But some Democrats, who have a supermajority in both chambers and will ultimately control which bills pass this session, have shown reluctance to support the proposal. A large reason for their hesitancy: environmentalist opposition to the bill.Wildlife and environmental advocacy groups argue the proposal would worsen the already-tense relationship between ranchers and wolves and could result in ranchers getting money that would be better spent on preventing wolves from attacking cattle in the first place. In 2023, Oregon counties spent more than $400,000 from the state on preventative measures to stop wolves from attacking cattle. Those included building new fences, reducing cattle bone piles or carcasses that can draw wolves and installing alarm systems that can sense and deter wolves. But because that program receives funding from the same pool of money that pays farmers for livestock lost to wolves, environmentalists worry that the bill will decrease funding for preventative efforts. (Another Republican bill would deposit $2 million into this pool, to be used for preventative efforts and to compensate ranchers).“At a time when Oregonians and the Legislature are being asked to tighten our belts due to shifting funds, this bill benefits only a small number of Oregonians who are already eligible for market-rate compensation of lost or missing livestock,” Michael Dotson, executive director of the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, wrote to lawmakers.Also, wildlife advocates say, increasing the amount of money that ranchers receive for lost cattle will decrease their desire to use non-lethal methods to deter wolves.“Why bother to implement those methods if, when one of your livestock becomes a confirmed or probable wolf kill, you’ll receive payments of up to seven times their value?” Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote to lawmakers.Environmentalists also push back on several of the ranchers’ assertions. While ranchers say they should receive more money for indirect effects on their cattle following wolf attacks, environmentalists say those effects have not been closely studied and are difficult to quantify, and therefore should not necessarily result in higher payouts to ranchers.Wildlife advocates say they don’t have a problem with ranchers being compensated for killed animals, but they want to negotiate with lawmakers and ranchers to reach a compromise that would prioritize the safety of wolves. Now, lawmakers are conflicted. On Tuesday, the Senate Committee On Natural Resources and Wildfire decided to postpone a vote on the bill after two Democrats expressed hesitancy to support it.“Is the real complaint that we’re not doing enough on the prevention part?” Sen. Kathleen Taylor, D-Portland, asked Tuesday. “If that’s what’s actually really going on, then maybe we could have an opportunity to achieve both.”Similar bills in at least two previous legislative sessions have died after ranchers, environmentalists and lawmakers failed to reach a consensus. But three Senate Democrats have joined several Republicans in co-sponsoring the bill, signalling that at least some Democrats are ready to pass the proposal. With Republicans making up 12 of the Senate’s 30 members, it will take at least four Democrats’ agreement to pass the bill through that chamber.But whether they can convince enough of their colleagues in both chambers to agree remains to be seen.Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat from Ashland and chair of the committee, acknowledged Tuesday that Democrats in the full House and Senate might not want to support the bill. But he said passing the proposal as written, meeting some of the ranchers’ long standing requests, would be a strong starting point to eventually reach a compromise.“What we are doing here is putting on the table a specific proposal, instead of saying, ‘“Let’s work group this more,’” he said.— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.Latest local politics stories

Dead and dying Port Pirie birds and bats exposed to lead at 3,000 times acceptable levels

South Australia’s EPA did not open a formal investigation into the source of the lead poisoning, despite referral from the Department of Primary IndustriesFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastSouth Australia’s Environment Protection Authority did not open a formal investigation into what may have killed dozens of birds in Port Pirie, despite tests showing some of the animals had been exposed to 3,000 times the acceptable level of lead.In July 2024, residents of the industrial town raised the alarm when they found dead and dying native birds and flying foxes in local parks and green spaces. Continue reading...

South Australia’s Environment Protection Authority did not open a formal investigation into what may have killed dozens of birds in Port Pirie, despite tests showing some of the animals had been exposed to 3,000 times the acceptable level of lead.In July 2024, residents of the industrial town raised the alarm when they found dead and dying native birds and flying foxes in local parks and green spaces.Pictures of dead and sick animals were posted on social media, and testing by the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (Pirsa) later confirmed they had died from acute lead toxicosis.Autopsy reports on two bats, a lorikeet and a honey eater obtained via freedom of information (FoI) requests show the animals died with massive amounts of lead in their systems.Notes from one of the bats’ autopsies recorded “the nasal passages are distended by fine pale white gritty material admixed with red exudate”. Testing on one bat’s kidney showed about 3,000 times the acceptable level of lead, while another showed about 1,500 times acceptable levels.Wayne Boardman, an associate professor of wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystem health at the University of Adelaide, said that in his opinion the testing showed that “the scale of the exposure was highly significant” and that it was probable the animals died within 24 to 48 hours of exposure.“It’s not surprising these animals died acutely and were easily found by members of the public,” Boardman said. “It also indicates that, at the time, humans, other wildlife species, dogs and cats, livestock and marine wildlife would likely have been exposed to significant levels of lead in the air.”“This is a public health issue and potentially an animal welfare issue. This lead exposure should not be taken lightly.”Boardman, who has experience in forensic investigations and working with bat populations, said the evidence suggested that at some time towards the end of July or early August, lead dust had probably settled on flowering plants that attract flying foxes. When these plants blossomed, the animals ingested the dust as they fed.He said it was probable that a lack of rain meant the lead remained in the environment and that “given a timely” investigation comparing Bureau of Meteorology weather data and known bat feeding locations, “the site of the source of the lead on flowering contaminated plants and trees could have been determined”.Other documents reveal that Pirsa first contacted the EPA on 10 October 2024 to alert it to the test results and ask whether it would undertake an investigation. Pirsa’s authority to investigate extends to disease control within animal populations, not heavy metal pollution or regulatory issues, which fall under the EPA’s remit.The EPA declined. In a response marked “sensitive” sent a day later at 4.19pm, the EPA said that “to contemplate any involvement” it would require the full disclosure of all available evidence.“Any specific lead point source that may have caused this ‘event’ would likely be extremely difficult to locate/identify, and the EPA would not be in a position to offer assistance to Pirsa in this regard,” it said.Port Pirie is home to one of the world’s largest lead refineries operated by the Belgium-based Nyrstar that serves as the major employer in the town. It has been in continuous operation since 1889.In response to questions from Guardian Australia, an EPA spokesperson said the agency was “made aware of this incident by Pirsa as part of their investigations”.Documents obtained under freedom of information laws from the EPA show that 13 days later the agency began to consider the issue more closely after it was raised by the South Australian Chief Veterinary Officer. Management within the EPA then assigned an officer to make additional inquiries.“This is pretty random – but I am wondering if you can help me with it?” the request said.These inquiries appear to have involved following up with six contacts suggested by the chief veterinary officer over three weeks, with the final contact made on the day the officer reported back to management. The officer was told the EPA’s leadership did not want them to “raise [it] with anyone from Nyrstar at this point in time”.An EPA spokesperson later told Guardian Australia: “The EPA followed up on this matter by interviewing stakeholders, including Pirsa, the local council, vets and relevant animal welfare NGOs but was unable to establish any leads as to the specific source of the acute lead toxicity,”FOI documents show these inquiries concluded with a report to EPA management that recommended “no further investigation should be undertaken by EPA staff in relation to this matter, other than discussions as needed between Nyrstar staff and the Principal Adviser - Port Pirie and Nyrstar and the Senior Environmental Advisor - Port Pirie and Nyrstar”.“In relation to the Nyrstar lead and multi-metal smelter, the EPA’s primary role is to ensure compliance with the licence issued under the Environment Protection Act. The EPA continues to monitor Nyrstar’s compliance with its licence,” an EPA spokesperson said.Nyrstar was contacted for comment. The company reissued a statement it provided to Guardian Australia last December saying: “We understand that the source of lead has not been able to be determined.”South Australia’s chief veterinary officer and chief health officer were contacted for comment.

Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks

Scientists observing narwhals with drones in the Arctic found these whales use their tusks to go after fish and engage in play-like behavior. The post Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks first appeared on EarthSky.

This video shows narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic. It is a compilation of several drone footage clips. Some of the clips show Arctic char (shown in yellow circles for clarity) as the narwhals pursue them. The clips also show glaucous gulls stealing some of the fish from the whales. Video via O’Corry-Crowe, FAU / Watt, DFO. Narwhals use their tusks for various purposes, including foraging, exploration and play. Drone footage has revealed that narwhals use their tusks with agility to target prey like Arctic char and engage in social behaviors. Drones provide researchers with valuable insights into narwhal behavior, offering a non-invasive way to study them. New drone footage of narwhals reveal more about their lives Narwhals, whales with a long tusk, seem like otherworldly creatures. We don’t know much about these elusive whales because they live in remote parts of the Arctic, making them hard to observe. As a result, there’s been much debate about how they use their tusks. On February 28, 2025, a team of researchers said they’ve used drones to observe them from above, revealing new details about narwhal behavior. For instance, they learned narwhals use their tusks to go after prey like Arctic char and engage in play-like behavior. The researchers published their study in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Marine Science on February 28, 2025. Narwhals are the only whales with tusks Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are known as unicorns of the sea. They live in the icy Arctic waters of Canada, Greenland and Russia. These whales are primarily fish-eaters, but they also consume cuttlefish, shrimp and squid. They’re one of the deepest divers among whales, able to reach depths of 7,780 feet (2,370 meters). The narwhal tusk is really an elongated spiral-shaped tooth that projects out of the left side of the whale’s upper jaw. It’s mostly males that have tusks that can grow up to 10 feet long. However, the researchers note in their paper that some females also grow tusks. That tusk length is pretty impressive considering the length of a narwhal body’s tops out at around 18 feet. Tusks grow continuously throughout a narwhal’s life. They are hollow and can weigh as much as 16 pounds (about 7 kilograms). And tusks have a lot of nerves running through them. So it also acts as an environmental sensor, detecting water temperature and salinity. The research team captured drone video of these 3 narwhals in the Canadian Arctic. Image via O’Corry-Crowe, FAU / Watt, DFO. What the scientists saw in the drone footage Scientists have long wondered how narwhals use their tusks. Greg O’Corry-Crowe is part of the research team that used drones to observe narwhals in Canada’s High Arctic during the summer of 2022. O’Corry-Crowe said: Narwhals are known for their ‘tusking’ behavior, where two or more of them simultaneously raise their tusks almost vertically out of the water, crossing them in what may be a ritualistic behavior to assess a potential opponent’s qualities or to display those qualities to potential mates. But now we know that narwhal tusks have other uses, some quite unexpected, including foraging, exploration and play. According to the researchers, drone footage revealed that narwhals wielded their tusks with great agility, accuracy and speed. They often used their tusks to investigate and target their prey, such as Arctic char. The researchers saw some using their tusks to stun or kill fish. Scientists also observed that opportunistic glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) sometimes stole fish near the ocean surface that the narwhals were chasing. O’Corry-Crowe remarked: Our observations provide clear evidence of narwhals chasing fish and using their tusks to interact directly with the fish and to influence the fish’s behavior. Some of the interactions we saw appeared competitive in nature with one whale blocking or trying to block another whale’s access to the same target fish, while others may have been more subtle, possibly communicative and even affiliative. None appeared overtly aggressive. The researchers also observed narwhals use their tusks to engage in play-like behavior, such as exploring objects like fish. Plus, some of the observed behaviors suggest social learning (learning from other narwhals), and maybe even distinct personality traits in individuals. Using drones to study narwhals Co-author Cortney Watt of Fisheries and Oceans Canada commented: I have been studying narwhals for over a decade and have always marveled at their tusks. To observe them using their tusks for foraging and play is remarkable. This unique study where we set up a remote field camp and spent time filming them with drones is yielding many interesting insights and is providing a bird’s eye view of their behavior that we have never seen before. The whales appeared to be learning from each other. This trait could help them adapt to changes in the Arctic environment due to climate change. O’Corry-Crow added: To understand how narwhals are being affected by and adapting to the changing Arctic, field studies using innovative, non-invasive tools like drones are essential to observe them in their natural environment without disturbing them. Drones provide a unique, real-time view of their behavior, helping scientists gather crucial data on how narwhals are responding to shifts in ice patterns, prey availability and other environmental changes. Such studies are key to understanding the impact of global warming on these elusive animals. Bottom line: Scientists observing narwhals with drones in the Arctic found these whales use their tusks to go after fish and engage in play-like behavior. Source: Use of tusks by narwhals, Monodon monoceros, in foraging, exploratory, and play behavior Via Florida Atlantic University Read more: Meet the narwhal, ‘unicorn of the sea’The post Narwhals play and forage using their amazing tusks first appeared on EarthSky.

Wildlands Conservancy co-founder David Myers, who saved vast stretches of land from development, dies

Myers helped save vast stretches of land from development, including 400,000 acres in San Bernardino County — the largest purchase of land for preservation in the state.

David Myers, whose reverence for California’s natural beauty led him to co-found the Wildlands Conservancy and save hundreds of thousands of acres from development, including a patchwork of 400,000 acres in San Bernardino County — the largest purchase of land for preservation in the state — died on Monday at the age of 73. The former executive director and most recent president of the Wildlands Conservancy, Myers died of natural causes at his home on the Oak Glen Preserve in the San Bernardino County mountains — on the land that he fought so hard to preserve, said Frazier Haney, the Wildlands Conservancy’s current executive director. In recent years, Myers had battled several health issues, including Parkinson’s disease, Haney said. The Oak Glen, Calif.-based nonprofit, which he co-founded in 1995 with retired financier David Gelbaum, built a reputation as one of the most effective conservancies in the country with a unique vision that combines land stewardship with outdoors education for young people.Myers also spearheaded the fight to create the 154,000-acre Sand to Snow National Monument, which extends from the Sonoran Desert floor up to over 10,000 feet in the San Bernardino National Forest, about 90 minutes east of Los Angeles.“David Myers was an inspirational and tireless crusader for wild places,” said Peter Galvin, founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Anyone concerned with the health of majestic landscapes from Southern California’s Mojave Desert to Northern California’s Eel River, stands in his debt.”“David also worked harder than anyone I know in the conservation movement,” he said, “to introduce low-income kids and their families to natural realms beyond their neighborhoods.”A native Californian, Myers led his first conservation battle when he was a student of philosophy and literature at Cal State Fullerton in the 1970s. He was galvanized by a proposal to bulldoze the sycamores blanketing Pipes Canyon, west of Yucca Valley, for an international airport.“I just couldn’t believe it when I started seeing bulldozers tipping over oak trees,” Myers recalled in a 2000 interview with the Riverside Press-Enterprise. “And my thoughts at the time were, ‘What would people think about destroying their churches?’ Because they were destroying mine.”Myers responded by helping organize a group called Hills for Everyone, which in 1977 won state approval to place 2,200 acres into the California State Parks system. Chino Hills State Park is now a 12,000-acre preserve that stretches from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Whittier Hills.Myers, who grew up in Chino Hills, developed a love of nature as a boy during summer camping trips to Mammoth Lakes in the eastern Sierra. He also was influenced by the writings of John Muir, the legendary conservationist who founded the Sierra Club.What had inspired him to follow in Muir’s path was the sudden realization that California’s natural beauty could be so easily destroyed.“One winter he was looking down on a wetland in Chino Hills and about 10,000 Canada geese. The next year,” said Dan York, a close friend and associate director of the Wildlands Conservancy, “it was a parking lot for a mall. He realized then that it could all be gone in a generation.”After college, Myers built furniture for a living but, according to York, “always had a remarkably sharp eye for real estate and land.”In 1994, he decided to sell 640 acres of desert land he owned near Yucca Valley and apply most of the proceeds to conservation projects. He placed a newspaper ad seeking “a conservation-minded donor” who would buy the land but not develop it. Gelbaum, a mathematician who had made a fortune managing hedge funds, became his financial angel.Together they began strategically buying up land to link the San Bernardino, San Jacinto and Big Horn Mountains with Joshua Tree National Park. Those purchases totaled 70 square miles.The conservancy’s next big purchase was a 97,000-acre ranch in the foothills of the San Emigdio Mountains, northwest of Gorman, which once had been slated for a massive luxury home development. Renamed Wind Wolves, it is now the largest privately owned nature preserve on the West Coast, where endangered kit foxes and leopard lizards thrive along with elk, blacktail deer, great horned owls and bobcats. It also is home to marine fossils and Chumash paintings considered among the most impressive examples of Native American rock art.Myers’ vision for the area included reintroducing animals that had once been native inhabitants, including tule elk and bighorn sheep, and obliterating man-made intrusions, such as a rock quarry, petroleum waste pits, fences and roads. He said the process would enable visitors the increasingly rare experience of looking “face-to-face at something that is truly wild.” He called it “rewilding” the land.The conservancy’s crowning achievement was acquiring almost 1,000 square miles — about 580,000 acres — of desert land stretching from Barstow to Needles that had been owned by Catellus Development Corp., the real estate division of the Santa Fe Pacific railroad. Myers led the complex negotiations, finalizing the largest section of the deal in 2000 at a cost of $30 million in conservancy funds and $15 million from federal sources. The acquisition kept the land out of the hands of a developer with plans to carve its spectacular rock ranges, lava flows, sand dunes, valleys and cactus gardens into 40-acre ranches. Myers and his team donated all the purchased land to the public, greatly expanding Joshua Tree National Park, the Mojave National Preserve and the Bureau of Land Management’s wildlands, which reconnected a massive corridor for wildlife. “David was a man of courage, ambition and a boyish enthusiasm that was infectious,” Haney said. “He left us with a lot of big dreams and the tools needed to make them come true.”Myers came up with the conservancy’s motto, “Behold the Beauty,” which Haney said captured the spirit of his longtime friend and mentor.“David’s vision of conservation was one not simply based on science, but also based on the way that natural beauty can improve human lives ...[and is] a symbol of environmental health,” Haney said. He called him audacious, in the best way.“I’ll never know another person like David,” he said. “I’ll miss that kind of reality-bending power that he had.”The conservancy currently owns about 208,000 acres across California, Oregon and Utah — the vast majority in California — where the preserve system sees more than 1.4 million people each year. The group also provides free outdoor education on its lands, reaching more than 25,000 low-income students and families a year. The programs at Wind Wolves, Los Rios Rancho in Oak Glen and Grace Valley Ranch in the San Bernardino National Forest have provided many of the children their first experience with the state’s natural wonders. At Los Rios, the students hike on a nature trail designed by Myers with boulders etched with quotes from Emerson, Thoreau and Muir. He linked conservation with the nurturing of new generations of thinkers and naturalists and regarded outdoors education as a crucial strategy.“We are showing these kids things that make their eyes grow wide, that make them say, ‘Oh, wow!’” Myers told The Times in 2003. “Isn’t that what the environment is all about?”Myers is survived by his wife, two brothers, two sisters and many beloved nieces and nephews. Times staff writers Grace Toohey and Louis Sahagun contributed to this report. Woo is a former Times staff writer.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.