Bald eagle. Image: Karen Laubenstein, USFWS

By Kate Nolan
Green Right Now

The recovery of North American bald eagles is a triumph for the Endangered Species Act.

One of the first species proposed for listing under the Act in 1973, bald eagles in the lower 48 states grew from a failing population of just 400 breeding pairs to 8,000-9,000 before they left the ESA list in August 2007.

A ban on the insecticide DDT initially halted the deadly assault on the species, but it was the Act’s sustained defense of eagle breeding zones that allowed the birds to multiply exponentially over the 34 years of protection.

DDT (which reduces the bird’s ability to reproduce) is still banned, and breeding areas will remain protected during a monitoring period that may last 20 years.

Now, almost three years since delisting, information is emerging on the condition of the birds. Much looks promising, but concerns linger, such as the risk of lead poisoning, illegal shootings and a controversy over whether eagles in the Southwest still need ESA protection.

A comparative eagle count is expected this spring, in mid April,  when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service releases a national population estimate. Based on a survey conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  the report will provide detailed information on specific geographic areas that can be compared to earlier surveys to assess growth.

Some numbers have already appeared informally, showing continued expansion in Delaware, Arkansas and the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge area, which borders four states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois) and is something of a magnet for eagles.

The Refuge was expected to draw more than 5,000 migrating eagles this winter. In Minnesota alone, authorities have counted 700 nests; the state has the largest bald eagle population outside Alaska.

But beyond the numbers, some troubling details have emerged.

Lead suspicions

In Iowa, host to 2,000 to 4,000 migratory eagles every year, bird rehabilitation centers are reporting high lead levels in the eagles they are treating.

“Our database shows that in 2009, 26 eagles died in Iowa from ingesting lead. We shoot deer here with lead slugs. If animals are wounded and not retrieved, the eagles later feed off of it and absorb the lead,” said Kay Neumann of SOAR, a raptor rehabilitation group in Dedham, Iowa.

Lead damages nerves, and lead bullets have been banned in California because it was killing condors there. Few studies have focused on the effects of lead bullets on eagles.

Neumann found that 60 percent of eagles treated in Iowa had lead poisoning. Of the 78 with lead in their systems, only six could be released. She and other rehabbers are pushing for use of non-lead bullets. Wildlife authorities in Iowa and numerous other states encourage hunters to use copper and other types of ammunition.

In response to delisting, Iowa is setting up a program for monitoring the state’s 250 nests.

Image: Dave Menke, USFWS

“Eagles are doing well in Iowa; there are more than ever. But we are approaching it a little more rigorously now from a research point of view,” said Stephanie Shepherd, a state wildlife biologist. The greatest concern is agricultural run-off. Chemicals from crops get into waterways and fish, and eagles eat the toxic fish.

“Lead is on our radar screen, but there are no good studies on how prevalent the poison is in a population of eagles,” Shepherd said.

Lead has a more acute impact when it involves shooting eagles. The law on “taking” eagles has changed somewhat since delisting. Under ESA protection, eagles could be disturbed or killed under specific circumstances, with a permit. Two federal laws still prohibit hunting of eagles, but permits remain available for removing nuisance eagles. New rules decrease the radius of the area around a nest that is protected.

Wildlife officials around the country report illegal eagle takings are not rampant, but there have been incidents. In 2009, a Florida man was convicted and sent to prison for shooting an eagle. And in Iowa, an unidentified hunter illegally shot a juvenile eagle that was feeding on a deer carcass.

“Shooting eagles and hawks was a huge problem in the 1950s, but shooting these birds has decreased greatly since then,” said Greg Burcher, Director of Bird Conservation at National Audubon Society. Sometimes eagles compete with fishermen, but rarely clash violently.

According to Burcher, the biggest long-term threats to bald eagles are coastal development and water quality issues.

Arizona birds retain protection

Water is a key survival factor for eagles in Arizona, which remain the only bald eagles in the U.S. still listed. Concerns for their viability have fueled a lasting struggle between conservationists and federal officials, culminating in a lawsuit that has at least postponed delisting the birds.

The Arizona population provides a good illustration of what it takes to bring back a failing flock.

The eagles had dwindled to five pair in the 1970s, when a local Audubon group teamed with the U.S. Forest Service to start a nest-watcher program that remains a key to recovery. Twenty watchers sign up each year to camp out for months in the vicinity of the mostly remote breeding areas, record bird behavior and alert authorities about problems. From the nest-watching activities has grown a consortium of Audubon groups, state and federal authorities, Indian tribes and public utilities that work together to protect and monitor nests and coax the eagle numbers upward.

Image: USFWS

The ESA’s habitat protection ensured that the state’s burgeoning development and cattle and mining activities wouldn’t take down the trees and cliff sides needed for nests. By now, 61 nesting areas and as many as 50 breeding pairs have been identified, but state biologists say the population remains fragile because it is so small.

Resources budgeted for the bald eagle recovery have been based on their endangered species status. So, when the Fish and Wildlife Service began efforts to delist eagles nationally, conservationists feared resources would dry up.

Maricopa Audubon and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to have the Arizona eagles listed separately as a “distinct population segment.” A fish-eating bird in the Sonoran desert, these bald eagles have made some dramatic adaptations to the heat. They are smaller, mate earlier in the season, and their eggs have thicker shells than other eagles. Some evidence suggests that, unlike other eagles, they fare better during drought than rainy periods.

But the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected the petition in 2006, so the groups sued in federal court. Subsequently the court ordered federal authorities to reassess the eagles.  In March, government officials submitted a new assessment, with more outside input, that drew the same conclusion as the first: the Arizona eagles were significantly different, had threats to their survival – but were not important to the survival of eagles in general and therefore should be delisted.

The court has not yet ruled on whether the finding is legal, but alarm is spreading among nature-watchers.

“It’s a very serious problem. It means more water transfers away from eagle nesting areas to cities and new developments. Eagles are going to go down the tubes if they aren’t protected here,” said Dr. Bob Witzeman, conservation chair of Maricopa Audubon.

Witzeman founded the state nest watch program and hired the state’s first nest guardian. In Arizona, eagle survival requires clear abundant streams. Mining and cattle activities can cloud the water with algae and sediment so eagles can’t see the fish they need to eat. Witzeman worries that without the force of the ESA, no one will have the authority to keep waterways unspoiled for eagles.

Because the complicated eagle support committee remains in force, state wildlife biologists are optimistic for the current breeding season. Nest watchers have observed 44 babies, but some eagle pairs haven’t laid their eggs yet. In 2009, 48 babies survived.

Historic rains have stirred up waterways, but in the words of one biologist, “there’s a hell of a fish population this year.”

James Driscoll, an Arizona Game and Fish Department biologist who has worked with Arizona eagles since 1991 when the annual baby count was 18, sees no looming problems, except for the state bureaucracy.

The eagle program is supported by so-called Heritage funds derived from the state lottery. They are increasingly eyed as a solution to a worsening state budget crisis.

“If so, we’ll have to reprioritize. We can’t lose 25 percent of our funding and continue to do the same thing,” said Driscoll.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Image: Susanne Miller, USFWS

From Green Right Now Reports

An initiative to put an end to international trophy hunting and commercial trade in polar bear parts was defeated in a vote at the United Nations’ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Doha, Qatar. The same group also voted down a proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a fish used extensively in sushi and sashimi.

The proposal to protect the polar bear was sponsored by the United States and supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) among other groups. NRDC lawyers and conservation experts have asserted that the bears suffer unsustainably high harvest levels in the face of trophy hunters and a market for pelts, paws, teeth and other parts.

“While there has been a lot of positive momentum in polar bear conservation recently, this is a real setback,” said Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC’s Wildlife Conservation Project. “It keeps some of the most important populations of polar bears squarely in the crosshairs. We will continue work to find a new way to protect polar bears from this unsustainable hunt.”

A 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey offered a “conservative” estimate that the total population of polar bears would decline by over 70 percent in the next 45 years as global warming literally melts their habitat. A year later, the U.S. listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal before CITES sought to “uplist” the species to the more highly protected class 1 status under international treaty. It was defeated by a vote of 62-48 with 11 abstentions.

Image: NOAA

Meanwhile, only the United States, Norway and Kenya offered outright support for the Atlantic bluefin ban, while the European Union asked that any action be delayed until May 2011 to provide more time to respond to claims of overfishing.

Japan, which imports 80 percent of Atlantic bluefin, conceded that stocks were in trouble but echoed a growing theme that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species.

Japan expressed willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which currently regulates the trade.

Selling ivory is illegal – except when it’s not.

Illegal poaching of elephants for their tusks is increasing. (Photo: Wildlife Pictures Online)

A confusing array of restrictions, bans and occasional legal mass sales make tracking and finding illegal ivory – made from the tusks of elephants slaughtered in spite of bans enacted decades ago — a challenge for the best of sleuths.

Now, an international UN-sanctioned group that controls the protection of elephants and the legal sale of ivory is considering a request from two African nations to conduct one-time massive sales of stockpiled ivory — and that worries conservationists. They fear it will only fuel the market for ivory, harm the imperiled African elephant and have a dangerous cascading effect on African rainforests.

“In the last 30 years, the African elephant population has declined to about 35 percent of its original numbers. The population is now less than 500,000, from a population of 1.3 million,” said Samuel Wasser, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington.

The African elephant is classified as endangered, the highest threat level. That means it could become extinct if not protected.

Despite the legality of these one-time sales, the appetite for ivory, especially in Asian countries, only increases. Only three countries — China, Japan and Thailand –  can legally buy and sell ivory.

Even though there are restrictions on those countries’ purchases, the sales encourage illegal hunting, say concerned researchers and scientists.

“More than 8 percent of the elephant population is being poached annually,” Wasser (along with a 27-member team of conservationists) wrote in a recent article in Science.

In 1989, the sale of ivory was banned by the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flauna and Flora. That ban was initially successful, Wasser said.

“Poaching dropped dramatically” thanks to money given to African nations to protect elephants. “It was so successful, the money to keep poachers under control started to dwindle. Asian countries still wanted ivory, and poaching has increased sharply since 2000. As the money disappeared, things went downhill.”

In 2007, the international trade group allowed four African nations to lower the threat level of their elephants (to “threatened” status) and have a one-time sale of their ivory stockpiles. After that, a 9-year moratorium on ivory sales was imposed on those countries.

Ivory carvings and tusks seized by the government of Sierra Leone.

Now, Tanzania and Zambia are asking that they be allowed to sell their ivory stockpiles.

“Zambia and Tanzania are major sources for Africa’s illegal ivory sale. Tons of contraband ivory from those countries have been seized three times in the last decade.

“Now they’re asking for a lesser threat status, even though they are the worst offenders,” Wasser said. “They (the two countries) have egregiously participated in the illegal sale of ivory in Africa.” (The origin of the ivory can by confirmed by DNA analysis.)

The group that regulates international wildlife trade, at the center of the argument, has released its own statement in response to some of the complaints. The panel will meet on Saturday, March 13 in Qatar, to consider this and other issues.

The rise of the middle class in China is a factor in the increase of illegal ivory sales. There, the burnished product made from elephant tusks is considered prestigious.

“The price of ivory went from $200 a kilo in 2004 to $1,800 a kilo in 2009,” Wasser said. “It went up nine-fold in five years.”

Organized crime has gotten involved in the illegal ivory business, because it is a high-profit, low-risk venture. More liberal global trade laws have made it easier to ship large amounts of contraband, Wasser added.

“Prosecutions are rare and penalties are very small.

“You can buy ivory on Google and eBay,” he added, although eBay announced that it took steps to stop those illegal sales last year.

Despite bans and restrictions, the demand for ivory is growing. (Photo: Wildlife Pictures Online)

The threat to elephants is part of an even larger concern.

The Central African rain forests where they roam “are the second most important in the world for carbon capture,” Waller said. When elephants disappear, the eco-system becomes imbalanced and the effect cascades to other animals and plants.

As the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species considers Zambia’s and Tanzania’s requests to legally sell their ivory stockpiles, Wasser fears that the organization is more concerned with politics than with saving endangered species.

“It is unbelievable that these proposals have even been made. Now it’s looking like it will pass,” he said.

“How could that be?”

For more information, Wasser recommends the Species Survival Network, the wildlife trade monitoring network Traffic and the Environmental Investigation Agency.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Tom Stehn of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service transports one of the 23 Cranes that died in Texas during the winter of 2008-2009. (Photo: PRNewsFoto/The Aransas Project)

From Green Right Now Reports

An environmental group called The Aransas Project said it filed a federal lawsuit today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against officials of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in their official capacities for violation of the Endangered Species Act.

The officials are being sued for illegal harm and harassment of Whooping Cranes at and adjacent to Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The defendants named in the suit in their official capacities are the three TCEQ Commissioners, the agency’s executive director, and the TCEQ’s South Texas Watermaster.

The Aransas Project group said the Whooping Cranes that winter on the Texas coast have suffered increased deaths as the result of the TCEQ’s mismanagement of water rights.

“The harm that the Whooping Cranes have experienced is a direct result of TCEQ’s failed oversight of its water rights permit programs in the Guadalupe River Basin where too much water is being taken out of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, especially during low flow conditions,” TAP attorney Jim Blackburn said in a statement.

The group said a lack of freshwater inflows to the bays from the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, especially during times of low flows, has resulted in very high salinity levels and depleted food and water sources for the Cranes. The 2008-2009 year was the worst in recent history for the Whooping Crane, the group said. It reported a death toll of 57 birds, a loss of 21.4 percent of the flock—of which 23 deaths, or 8.5 percent of the flock, occurred in Texas during the birds’ winter at Aransas.

The Aransas-Wood Buffalo flock of Whooping Cranes that winters on the Texas coast is the only natural wild flock remaining in the world, the group said. The flock had increased from 16 birds in the early 1940s to a high of 270 in the spring of 2008.

This is the latest salvo against the TCEQ for what many see as failures in its environmental oversight role. The City of Fort Worth recently stepped in to manage its own air tests of natural gas wells because the TCEQ has been slow to do so.

Blackburn said that TAP had been hopeful that an alternative to litigation might emerge during that time, but TCEQ has failed to act. “It’s become apparent that the only way we’re going to see any water left for the bays and the Cranes is through a plan ordered by the court,” he said.

The environmental group said its membership has continued to grow during its fight with TCEQ, adding more than 20 new member organizations including all four local governmental entities in Aransas County, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Club in Aransas County, as well as statewide and national organizations that include the International Crane Foundation, Environment Texas, Texas Conservation Alliance, the American Bird Conservancy, and three Texas chapters of the Audubon Society.

New scientific findings on the Greater Sage-Grouse are a  “wake-up call” about the bird’s dwindling numbers and its vanishing sagebrush habitat, reports the National Wildlife Federation.

Greater-Sage Grouse (Photo: U.S. Geological Survey)

Last week, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), announced that the Greater Sage-Grouse will have to wait in line for Endangered Species Act protection behind higher-priority species. The agency deemed the bird’s status to be  “warranted but precluded,” a designation that means the bird qualifies for Endangered Species Act protection (it is “warranted”) but it will not be acted upon immediately.
Federal land managers will continue to treat the sage-grouse as a “sensitive species” and monitor its numbers and health throughout its range in 11 Western states.

Most populations of Greater Sage-Grouse have been declining for years due to pressure from energy development, grazing, farming, invasive species, fires, herbicides and more recently the West Nile virus. A recent analysis found that 20 of 27 sage-grouse populations have declined since 1995.

The USFWS did not hide its reasons for holding back on full protection for the sage grouse, citing the need to not interfere with energy development. If the grouse had ESA protection status, its habitat could not be degraded, by oil drilling for instance, without a full review of impacts on the bird.

“We must find common-sense ways of protecting, restoring and reconnecting the Western lands that are most important to the species’ survival, while responsibly developing much-needed energy resources,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

Gas and oil companies can help find a balance, according to a spokesman for EnCana Oil, who said that company is taking measures to mitigate development effects on the bird.

“We proactively take steps to protect wildlife, both in terms of the Best Management Practices we employ and by engaging third party experts to better understand, address and minimize impacts to wildlife,” said Byron Gale, vice president of environment, health and safety for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA).

Gale said the company uses the latest research to reduce the impacts of drilling and has designated $21.5 million to the Wyoming Wildlife and Nature Resource Trusts to protect wildlife and natural resources. EnCana prides itself on all that it does for wildlife, he said.

Still, environmentalists see the grouse’s dwindling population as a bad portent for Western landscapes, where sagebrush habitat protects many species, such as  pronghorn antelope and mule deer.

“Unfortunately, sagebrush is the most overlooked and under-appreciated Western landscape,” said Kate Zimmerman, senior policy analyst for the National Wildlife Federation in Colorado. “If we don’t pay attention to what science is telling us, sage-grouse and other sagebrush species — even pronghorn antelope — could end up in deeper trouble. Losing this unique habitat would also be devastating for the many people who enjoy outdoor recreation or rely on tourism in sagebrush country.”

Although the USFWS science-based ruling was encouraging because it recognizes the sage-grouse’s plight, it doesn’t fully address how the birds will be supported to prevent continuing declines, said Ben Deeble, sagebrush habitat expert with the National Wildlife Federation in Montana.

“A business-as-usual approach isn’t going to conserve the sage-grouse or its sagebrush habitat,” Deeble said. “Now that the federal government acknowledges the decline of sage-grouse, we need to ensure that its land-management agencies reconcile their energy-development practices with the latest wildlife science. And we need strategies to cope with the impacts of drought, fires and invasive species brought on by climate change.”

Deeble hopes that state and federal officials, and landowners, will collaborate to solve this problem.

“A few governors have already taken steps to protect sage-grouse in their states, and we need to build on that momentum,” Deeble said. “Now we need partnerships on both public and private lands to properly manage and enhance the best remaining habitats.”

After giving the public 90 days to comment on its proposal, the USFWS is expected to publish a final finding within a year.

By Melissa Segrest
Green Right Now

This is an interesting time to be Ric O’Barry.

On one hand, the marine mammal activist is counting down the hours until Sunday, when he may win an Oscar for his role in the documentary The Cove – a compelling and gruesome expose about the secret slaughter of dolphins in Japan.

On the other hand, he is all over the news as the unabashed enemy of whale captivity, the go-to naysayer in the wake of a SeaWorld trainer’s death in the jaws of an orca – a killer whale.

Fighting for the rights of dolphins and whales is nothing new for O’Barry. In a way, he blames himself for starting it all. He was the man who captured and trained the dolphins who performed in the ‘60s TV show Flipper.

He’s been trying to make up for it ever since, fighting to free captive dolphins, including the orcas, which are the largest members of the dolphin family.

A scene from a SeaWorld killer whale performance in San Diego. SeaWorld says that their programs provide the public a unique experience with the whales, which leads to heightened concern about their fate.

“We have a utilitarian relationship with these animals – SeaWorld does,” he said. “The fact is that 90.4 percent of all the orcas captured since 1961 are dead. That’s appalling for an animal that should live 70 years in the wild. We know of 152 orcas that have died in captivity.”

For SeaWorld – and other entertainment aquariums around the world that train dolphins and killer whales to perform – O’Barry is an unceasing, increasingly high-profile irritant, reminding the world that these are highly intelligent creatures that should not be domesticated.

“These are wild animals, and they are forever wild. Playing lovey-dovey with them is not smart. . . . These (attacks and injuries to trainers) are not accidents. These are incidents and they happen quite often. Then they are covered up,” he said, mentioning another recent, relatively unpublicized death of a trainer at an aquarium in the Canary Islands in December. Reports say he drowned after an accident during “playtime” with an orca.

And most everyone following the news knows that the orca that killed trainer Dawn Brancheau in Orlando last month, Tilikum – the largest killer whale in captivity today –  had killed before.

Why are we so attracted to the spectacle of flipping Shamus and ball-tossing dolphins? SeaWorld spokesman, beloved animal advocate Jack Hanna, says these interactions between the crowd and the dolphins and orcas help sensitize us to their amazing beauty and make us care about their fate.

Despite the death of Brancheau on Feb. 24, the multimillion-dollar business of dolphin and killer whale performances goes on. The big black and white mammals are the headliners at entertainment aquariums around the globe, and that means millions of dollars to the “abusement parks,” as O’Barry calls them.

That quip, along with lots of others, has brought lawsuits, legal threats and nasty letters his way, O’Barry said. None of which seems to have any impact on him.

Ric O'Barry's first contact with dolphins was as the trainer for the '60s TV program 'Flipper.'

The “seaquarium” industry is powerful, with lobbyists, lawyers and PR firms working hard to keep their image clean. “They’ve been able to convince people over the years that these animals belong here, doing these stupid tricks. And that’s the problem – we’re brainwashed into thinking they belong here.

“We need to recognize that there’s a space between us and wildlife that we don’t respect. And so, what they (the seaquariums) do is a form of bad education. Yes, it’s educational, but it’s bad. It only serves to perpetuate our insidious utilitarian relationship with nature,” he said.

It’s also all about control, he says. With dolphins’ perpetual smiles and playful antics, it’s hard to think the force driving those behaviors might not be love.

“It is a spectacle of dominance. I think anybody who watches that show – if they are honest with themselves  – would have to admit that.

“And it teaches us that dominance is good. Dominance is right, Dominance works. So everything is upside down and backwards,” O’Barry said.

To counter those comments, SeaWorld’s CEO Jim Atchison and others try to sooth a troubled public in an official statement: “It is important that I again stress that we provide the highest standard of care, and no animal is ever subjected to punishment in any form. Tilikum is no exception.”

Is there a disconnect between our wish to keep these sound-sensitive marine mammals safe and watching them splash around in what O’Barry calls a “concrete box”? There is that, and more: If we need a better example, look no further than Japan, he said.

(Photo: Dr. Louis Herman | NOAA)

From Green Right Now Reports

A draft plan unveiled this week proposes to legalize commercial whaling for the first time since a 1986 moratorium made it illegal to hunt whales for commercial purposes. The plan was drafted by member countries of the International Whaling Commission, an international body that meets annually to set global policy on whaling and whale conservation.

The draft plan proposes to bring all whaling under the control of the IWC and legalize the activity in exchange for limitations. Those include reducing catches significantly from current levels, limiting whaling operations to those members who currently take whales and establishing caps to within sustainable levels for a 10 year period. there also would be enhanced monitoring and control measures.

Three IWC member countries – Japan, Norway, and Iceland – have never observed the moratorium  and have continued to hunt whales. In recent years, Japan has recruited votes at the IWC to lift the ban on commercial whaling.

Several IWC members have been meeting in private since late 2009 to craft the proposed compromise. The draft proposal will now be considered at an IWC working group meeting in St. Pete Beach, Fla. beginning March 2. A version of the proposal will then be considered by the full membership of the IWC at June’s annual meeting in Agadir, Morocco.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare was immediately critical of the plan, saying it will provide “long-term conservation of whaling, not whales.”

“In return for insignificant, short-term concessions from Japan, Iceland and Norway, the IWC would legalize commercial whaling in the 21st century,” Patrick Ramage, IFAW’s Whale Program Director, said in a statement. ”This deal would be a sea change in a quarter century of whale conservation. It puts science on hold, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary on ice, and no restrictions whatsoever on the international trade in whale meat. And after ten years, all bets are off — no more moratorium and much more whaling.”

More than 25 conservation groups have taken the occasion of the Olympics to call for the end of one controversial sport in British Columbia: the trophy hunting of bears.

The groups oppose the trophy hunting of black and grizzly bear, which they say also jeopardizes the distinctive and revered “spirit bear,” a rare light-coated variation of the Kermode bear. The Kermode, along with grizzlies, will be the target of trophy hunts set to open in a few weeks in  British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. The trophy hunts are timed to when the bears emerge from hibernation.

The Spirit Bear (Photo: Ian McAllister/pacificwild.org)

“How can British Columbia be celebrating the spirit bear in the opening Olympic ceremony and as an official mascot to the Olympics when trophy hunting is allowed in over 98 percent of the animal’s genetic range?” asks Ian McAllister of B.C.-based Pacific Wild, an organizer of the campaign to stop the trophy hunts.

Though laws restrict the hunting of the genetically distinct white-coated spirit bears, they are produced by the Kermode bear.

“It just doesn’t make sense to protect only the white coloured bears when the black bear also carries the gene that produces white cubs,” said Kitasoo-Xai’xais bear viewing guide Doug Neasloss, in a news release about the effort to stop the hunts.

Neasloss, and other naturalists, say that bear should be protected to assure their continued existence in the temperate Canadian rainforests, and that bear-watching tourism is an important part of the economy.

Neasloss explains in a video on the Pacific Wild website.

Hunting for the Kermode bear is allowed across the vast majority, about 98 percent, of its territory. It is only protected on a small area of BC rainforest shown on this map.

Many groups in the U.S. as well as Canada support an end to trophy hunting of black bear and grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest.

While the Olympic Games will soon end, the conservation groups have vowed to continue the pressure to stop bear trophy hunting.

“The eyes of the world are on B.C. and the global campaign to end the trophy hunting of bears in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest will continue to escalate until they are protected,” said Rebecca Aldworth of Humane Society International/Canada, in the news statement.

Groups representing native people also support the end of trophy hunting.

“This is not a sport, it is a senseless slaughter,” said Art Sterritt, Executive Director of Coastal First Nations. “The trophy hunt goes against every moral teaching that we carry and is disrespectful to our culture and values.”

In a news release, the groups note that:

• 2,000 grizzlies have been killed in the last nine years in British Columbia since Premier Gordon Campbell lifted a moratorium on trophy hunting of grizzlies.
• A 2009 Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 80 percent of residents in British Columbia opposed bear trophy hunting

Along with Pacific Wild and the Human Societies of Canada and the United States, groups supporting a ban on bear trophy hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest include:

Humane Society

Wildlife Land Trust

Coastal First Nations

Greenpeace

Sierra Club BC

Western Canada Wilderness Committee

David Suzuki Foundation

The Spirit Bear Youth Coalition

Valhalla Wilderness Society

Bears Matter

Forest Ethics

Animal Rights Sweden

Freedom for Animals – Croatia

Brigitte Bardot Foundation – France

Franz Weber Foundation – Switzerland

Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA) – Belgium

Fundacion para la Adopcion, Apadrinamiento y Defensa de los Animales
(FAADA) – Spain

Four Paws (International)

Respect for Animals – UK

Commercial Bear Viewing Association of British Columbia

Robin Wood

Canopy

Friends of the Earth

BCSPCA

Vancouver Humane Society

Natural Resources Defense Council

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Arizona wildlife authorities should have notified federal officers before setting a trap last year that ensnared a jaguar, leading to the death of the cat, according to an investigative report by the U.S. Interior Department’s Inspector General’s office released last week.

Because the jaguar is an endangered species, the local authorities were supposed to notify the federal wildlife overseers and obtain a permit for the capture, investigators found. Their failure to apply for a permit was a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Arizona Game and Fish Department authorities have maintained that the capture of the jaguar, known as Macho B, was inadvertent. But the IG’s office found that even that circumstance did not exempt local wardens from needing a permit while conducting operations in known jaguar territory.

“We found that the AZGFD was aware of Macho B’s presence in the vicinity of its mountain lion and black bear study in late December 2008 and January 2009, yet it did not consult with FWS, as required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,” investigators wrote.

The death of the cat has been under investigation since environmentalists raised questions about the animal’s suspicious death in 2009. Macho B was possibly the last jaguar alive in the wild in the United States. He died in February 2009 after being captured in a leg hold snare meant for mountain lions an black bear.

Arizona Fish and Game personnel affixed a GPS tracking device to the  jaguar and freed him.  But in days, the GPS collar indicated Macho B was not moving. Researchers found him, lethargic and ailing; veterinarians determined that Macho B was suffering from renal (kidney) failure and euthanized him.

The death prompted calls for more details about the trapping, and raised questions about whether the stress of the capture contributed to Macho B’s demise. The cat was older, and estimated to be 16-20 to years old. After the ailing cat was recaptured, experts agreed he was suffering from lethal renal failure, and he was euthanized.

The Center for Biological Diversity is suing the AGFD over the death in an effort to prevent any further operations from jeopardizing any possible remaining U.S. jaguars, or those that might wander across the border from Mexico.

“This report affirms all of the legal claims in our litigation to prevent Arizona Game and Fish from killing another jaguar, and will be critical evidence at trial,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.

The IG report also suggests that Macho B may have been injured in his capture, which the Arizona GFD denies, concluding that the animal lost a canine tooth while ensnared and not before the capture, as state officials had argued. The tooth was broken to the root, according to the report, which suggests it could have been the entry point for infection.

Federal investigators also found that the autopsy of Macho B was less than thorough. It was performed as a “cosmetic necropsy,” which preserved the pelt but was less exploratory than a full autopsy, because a state authority did not know the difference between a “cosmetic necropsy” and a “complete necropsy.”

The Department of the Interior encompasses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Endangered Species Act.

Yasuni National Park. Photo: ecuador-travel.net

A team of 13 Ecuadoran, American and European scientists has concluded that Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park is the most biodiverse area in all of South America.

Results of the study were published Jan. 19 in the open-access scientific journal PLoS ONE.

“One of our most important findings about Yasuni is that small areas of forest harbor extremely high numbers of animals and plants,” said lead author Margot Bass, president of Finding Species, a nonprofit with offices in Quito and Maryland. “Yasuni is probably unmatched by any other park in the world for total numbers of species.”

That enviable distinction may not save the region from the ravages of oil drilling.

Until recently, the park has been protected by a creative arrangement known as the Yasuni-ITT Initiative. The plan calls for the park’s largest oil reserves to remain in the ground in exchange for international donations of $3 billion over the next 10 years. In return, 900 million barrels of oil, valued at about $6 billion, would not be removed as a contribution to fighting climate change that would be created by massive deforestation and the eventual burning of the oil.

Representatives from Ecuador and the United Nations were expected to sign the trust fund agreement at December’s climate summit in Copenhagen, but Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa balked at what he described as “shameful” conditions set up by the trust. Some of those conditions — including contributing nations having a say in how the money was spent, were damaging to his country’s sovereignty and dignity, Correa said.

In the wake of Correa’s comments, Foreign Minister Fander Falconi and two other members of the negotiating team resigned in protest. The president said the committee negotiating the Initiative has until June to come up with a palatable deal or the government will begin to look into tapping the oil reserves.

“If they don’t accept our conditions, they can keep their money and we’ll drill,” Correa told The New York Times.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

As mascots go, the U.S. Bald Eagle has been much beloved, but not always well tended. Once prolific in the U.S., the population wavered and fell dramatically in the 20th Century — until biologists discovered that DDT and other pollution was impairing the bird’s ability to reproduce.

Bald Eagle (Photo: National Wildlife Federation.)

That was one big canary in a coal mine.

With DDT now banned, the Bald Eagle has rebounded, and was removed from the Endangered Species list in 2007. Where once the U.S. Bald Eagle numbered only several hundred breeding pairs, there are now an estimated 9,000 or more Bald Eagles living in the wild, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The National Wildlife Federation, knowing that familiarity breeds fondness (at least when it comes to wildlife), is asking Americans to celebrate the return of the Bald Eagle by going bird watching.

NWF compiled this list of places in the U.S. where one is likely to spot the national emblem in its winter habitat.

Bald eagles can be seen in every state except Hawaii, according to the NWF. The group’s list includes an Eagle-inhabited spot in every state, but notes that some state’s enjoy larger winter congregations of the birds, while others may support just a few breeding pairs.

The places to visit:

Alabama
Lake Guntersville State Park, (256) 571-5440 or

Alaska
Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, (907) 465-4563 or

Arizona
Mormon Lake, (928) 527-3600

Arkansas
Beaver Lake, (479) 636-1210

California
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge, (530) 667-2231

Colorado
Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge, (719) 589-4021 or

Connecticut
Connecticut River Shepaug Eagle Observation Area

Delaware
Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, (302) 653-9345

Florida
Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area: Prairie Lakes Unit, (407) 436-1818

Georgia
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, (912) 496-7836

Hawaii
Bald eagles are found in every state but Hawaii.

Idaho
Lake Coeur d’Alene/Wolf Lodge Bay, (877) 782-9232 or

Illinois
Cedar Glen Eagle Roost

Indiana
Monroe Lake, (812) 837-9546

Iowa
Keokuk Riverfront Area and Lock and Dam 19, (800) 383-1219

Kansas
Perry Reservoir, (620) 672-5911

Kentucky
Ballard Wildlife Management Area, (502) 224-2244

Louisiana
White Kitchen Preserve, (225) 338-1040

Maine
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, (207) 454 -7161

Maryland
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, (410) 228-2677

Massachusetts
Quabbin Reservoir, (413) 323-7221

Michigan
Erie Marsh, (517) 316-0300

Minnesota
Voyageurs National Park, (218) 283-6600

Mississippi
Nelson Dewey State Park, (608) 725-5855

Missouri
Sandy Island Natural History Area, (314) 968-1105

Montana
Hauser Lake, (406) 454-5840

Nebraska
Kingsley Dam, (402) 471-0641 or

Nevada
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, (702) 293-8906

New Hampshire
Adams Point Wildlife Management Area, (603) 271-2461

New Jersey
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, (570) 426-2452

New Mexico
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, (505) 248-6911

New York
Mongaup Falls Reservoir, (845) 557-6162

North Carolina
Jordan Lake State Recreation Area, (919) 733-4181

North Dakota
Riverdale Wildlife Management Area, (701) 328-6300

Ohio
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, (419) 898-0014

Oklahoma
Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge, (580) 626-4794

Oregon
Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge, (530) 667-2231

Pennsylvania
Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area, (717) 787-1323

Rhode Island
Scituate Reservoir, (401) 222-6800

South Carolina
ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge, (404) 679-7154

South Dakota
Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, (605) 487-7603

Tennessee
Reelfoot Lake State Park, (731) 253-9652

Texas
Lake Fork Reservoir

Utah
Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, (435) 545-2522

Vermont
Harriman Station, (603) 448-2200

Virginia
Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, (703) 490-4979

Washington
Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area, (360) 445-4441

West Virginia
South Branch of the Potomac River, Potomac Eagle Scenic Railroad, (304) 424-0736

Wisconsin
Nelson Dewey State Park, (608) 725-5374

Wyoming
Buffalo Bill State Park, (307) 587-9227

For more information on the recovery of the Bald Eagle, see these resources:

The Eagle Institute, based in the Northeast U.S.

The National Eagle Center in Wabasha, Minn.

Where Would They Be Now?, an article published by NWF about species brought back from the brink of extinction.

Bengal Tiger (Photo: Martin Harvey | WWF-Canon)

Tigers are among the world’s most threatened species — only an estimated 3,200 remaining in the wild. WWF officials said the threats facing Bengal tigers and other iconic species around the world highlight the need for urgent international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“If we don’t take steps to address the impacts of climate change on the Sundarbans, the only way its tigers will survive this century is with scuba gear,” Colby Loucks, WWF’s deputy director of conservation science and lead author of the study, said in a statement . “Tigers are a highly adaptable species, thriving from the snowy forests of Russia to the tropical forests of Indonesia. The projected sea level rise in the Sundarbans will likely outpace the tiger’s ability to adapt.”

According to the study, “Sea Level Rise and Tigers: Predicted Impacts to Bangladesh’s Sundarbans Mangroves,” an expected sea level rise of 11 inches above 2000 levels may cause the remaining tiger habitat in the Sundarbans to decline by 96 percent, pushing the total population to fewer than 20 breeding tigers. Unless immediate action is taken, the Sundarbans, its wildlife and the natural resources that sustain millions of people may disappear within 50 to 90 years, the study said.

“The mangrove forest of the Bengal tiger now joins the sea-ice of the polar bear as one of the habitats most immediately threatened as global temperatures rise during the course of this century,” said Keya Chatterjee, acting director of WWF’s climate change program. “To avert an ecological catastrophe on a much larger scale, we must sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change we fail to avoid. In 2010, the Chinese Year of the Tiger, there is no better time for the US to pass domestic climate legislation and to reach an effective international agreement.”

The Sundarbans, a UNESCO World Heritage Site shared by India and Bangladesh at the mouth of the Ganges River, is the world’s largest single block of mangrove forest. Mangroves are found at the inter-tidal region between land and sea, and not only serve as breeding grounds for fish but help protect coastal regions from natural disasters such as cyclones, storm surges and wind damage.

Providing the habitat for between 250 and 400 tigers, the Sundarbans also is home to more than 50 reptile species, 120 commercial fish species, 300 bird species and 45 mammal species. While their exact numbers are unclear, WWF says the tigers living in the Sundarbans of India and Bangladesh may represent as many as 10 percent of all the remaining wild tigers on Earth.

Using the rates of sea level rise projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report from 2007, the new study’s authors said an 11-inch sea level rise may be realized around 2070, at which point tigers will be unlikely to survive in the Sundarbans. However, recent research suggests that the seas may rise even more swiftly than what was predicted in the 2007 IPCC assessment.

In addition to climate change, the Sundarbans tigers, like other tiger populations around the world already face tremendous threats from poaching and habitat loss. Tiger ranges have decreased by 40 percent over the past decade, and tigers today occupy less than seven percent of their original range. Scientists fear that accelerating deforestation and rampant poaching could push some tiger populations to the same fate as their now-extinct Javan and Balinese relatives in other parts of Asia.

Tigers are poached for their highly prized skins and body parts, which are used in traditional Chinese medicine. The 2010 Year of the Tiger will mark an important year for conservation efforts to save wild tigers.

Recommendations in the new study include:

• Locally, governments and natural resource managers should take immediate steps to conserve and expand mangroves while preventing poaching and retaliatory killing of tigers.
• Regionally, neighboring countries should increase sediment delivery and freshwater flows to the coastal region to support agriculture and replenishment of the land
• Globally, governments should take stronger action to limit greenhouse gas emissions

Related video:

Year of the Tiger video from WWF