I'm going to start with some good news, as conservation is typically seen as a doom and gloom area of biology. There are more tigers now than when we last counted! It's the first time for over a century that tiger numbers have increased. This is not only great news for biodiversity but also for lovers of William Blake. Tigers are apex predators, and having a healthy population of the species at the top of the food chain if often crucial for the balance of habitats, for a good example of this see the impact of wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park (or the many scholarly articles). So a healthy and growing tiger population is likely to be beneficial to the environment and other animals. They are also extremely charismatic species, probably up there with the panda and lion. Therefore, these animals have the ability to draw in tourists to come and see them in their native habitat, doing tigery things and everyone loves to see baby animals too. An odd feature of tiger conservation is the impact that the Dalai Lama had on poaching. Tiger skins, and other poached animal parts, were an important part of Tibetan society but the spiritual leader appealed to the people who then burnt their furs and this markedly reduced the market for poached animal products in the region. This highlights the importance of some key figure, almost like key stone species, in changing the behaviours of populations in ways that can benefit the environment. 

However, and there is always a however in conservation, one of the reasons cited for the rise in tiger numbers is moving villages away from tiger habitats. Therein lies the essential problem of a large apex predator living in a very densely populated country: human-wildlife conflict. Solving this problem is what will, in the end, be what leads to the continued survival of this beautiful big cat.

Now to the sad conservation news. Disney's new film Zootropolis has been a smash hit in China. On the surface this might seem great, kids all over the country enjoying watching animals on screen and so maybe taking an interest in them and their behaviour/conservation status. In the trailer that I linked to there is an extended section with a sloth, very strange animals that have to go to the ground to defecate. Unfortunately the outcome seems to have been a bit more sinister, children have fallen in love the one particular character Finnick, who is a fennec fox. This has resulted in families buying fennec foxes for pets. Not only do solitary nocturnal species make awful pets but a rise in the trade of this species, just because of a film is a worrying sign for the trade in exotic species. This species is listed as least concern but it highlights a behavioural consumerism for wildlife that in the long run is unsustainable and if the next fad happens to be an endangered species then it could have huge ramifications for the continuance of a species in the wild.

And completely unrelated to conservation, I read an interesting piece about the 'evolution of evil' on the BBC, worth checking out: ​http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160401-how-did-evil-evolve-and-why-did-it-persist

​A desolate barren wasteland devoid of life, with the occasional researcher in a hazmat suit and a Geiger counters incessantly clicking as they wonder around the hellscape that used to be Chernobyl. That may be along the lines of what most people think the area around Chernobyl, the site of the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever seen, looks like. Either that or somewhere that harbours strange mutants with odd numbers of eyes or limbs. The truth actually tells us far more about human impacts on the environment than it does the effects of radiation.
 
In reality, as a study that was recently widely reported and covered in the press. (e.g. the Guardian and the Conversation), wildlife is flourishing within the restricted zone that surrounds the former power station. The conclusion to inevitably draw from this is that humans are worse than a nuclear accident. Radiation in high levels or ingested can be very dangerous, to both animals and humans, but at even relatively high levels (which do occur naturally in places like Cornwall, Aberdeen and Ramsar in Iran) radiation isn’t as much of a problem as many people believe. Years of fears about Hiroshima have led us to fear radiation, but it occurs naturally all around us every day. It’s only natural to transfer those same fears and misunderstanding to the impact of radiation on animals.
 
There have been studies in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, most notably from Anders Møller, that have shown negative effects. But the overwhelming evidence is that the lack of humans, who destroy habitats, hunt and spray pesticides and herbicides, is a much bigger positive than the negative of radiation. This should be a wakeup call to governments around the world, not only for the preservation of terrestrial ecosystems but for marine ecosystems as well. Having large areas of land, big enough to allow viable populations of predators and prey, and leaving them almost completely free of human influence is good for biodiversity. This is going to become increasingly important as pressure for land intensifies with growing populations. Increasing the connectivity of small reserves and parks and maintaining the greenbelts around urban areas in countries like the UK are crucial to maintaining our native wildlife.
 
I think that in the long run this type of research will do the conservation movement a lot of good, as the idea that we are worse for the environment than a nuclear disaster is a strong one that sticks in the mind.

The marine environment is one that for most of human history was thought to be an inexhaustible supply of food. The great expanses that cover two-thirds of the globes surface seemed to provide a bountiful harvest for humanity. However, we're increasingly becoming aware of the huge impact that we have had and are having on our oceans.

A recent report from the WWF has just found that in the last 40 years fish populations have fallen by over half. For major commercial species such as tuna, mackerel and bonitos the decline has been as much as 74%. These declines are from a combination of over exploitation of fish stocks and habitat loss. Habitats such as mangroves are crucial breeding grounds for many marine species, but they're the types of areas that are built on or destroyed. Without mangroves and seagrass beds fish stocks will be slow to recover.

This report comes on the back of a recent paper published in Science that found that humans kill adult prey at a rate 14 times higher than any other species. Our impact is especially felt on terrestrial predators and fish. Human impacts are felt even stronger because of the age group of animals we impact on: adult individuals of reproductive age. Most predators kill juvenile or sick members of their prey species but by killing the reproductive adults we have a disproportionate impact on the ability of the species to replenish its numbers. 

The oceans are not an environment that we can easily see or come in contact with. They are remote and difficult for us to understand. This may be one of the reasons why so many people seem not to understand how endangered life in the seas is. They are communal resources that any country with a coast line can access and their vastness prevents them being policed. With everyone being able to access them the tragedy of the commons takes hold. This means that to solve the problems of the worlds oceans we are going to need major international efforts to police the the seas and to tackle climate change, as one factor in the decline of the worlds fish stocks is ocean acidification (due to increased CO2 levels) reducing negatively impacting coral reefs. 

So this week saw the start of the annual grouse shooting season, the "glorious twelfth" or as many news papers reported it: the "inglorious twelfth." This controversial sport has received more media attention than ever this year because of the publication of a new study.

But the conflict between environmentalist and grouse shooting is a long standing one. There are the ethical and moral issues that are entangled with any hunting but they are also caught up in class and land ownership struggles in Scotland. This form of hunting is associated with strong association with falls in the numbers of birds of prey, most notably in the UK the hen harrier. Claims and counter claims about the meddling of conservation groups further cloud the issue for members of the public.But game keepers are regularly charged with poisoning these beautiful birds and they are found shot, poisoned and beaten to death. But grouse shooting is an economic boon for the Upland areas of Scotland, bringing in a reported £2bn a year, supporting many jobs and local businesses. 

This is when conservation is at its hardest, when the wishes of the "green faction" are so starkly opposed to economics. If protecting hen harriers was going to create jobs and bring in money then the argument would be easy and the species would be saved. In situations like this maybe the best course, and this is probably very controversial, is a middle course (very Buddhist of me!). Finding some way for jobs to be maintained because of the shoot, while also protecting the raptor species. Some form of RSPB stamp of approval for raptor friendly estates perhaps? EU grants to those who work with conservationists and change their ways? I'm not invested or knowledgeable about this conflict by any means and so for all I know these have been tried in the past. However, money is a huge lever for humans and so when economics is so against a conservation issue it really needs to be addressed.

But what of this new study that I mentioned at the top? Well it turns out, along with being bad for birds of prey, grouse shooting is contributing to climate change. This may be the lever that conservationists can use, for two reasons: firstly, climate change is a hot (pardon the pun) emotive issue that multiple people and campaigns can get behind, and secondly, some form of emissions tax is possible in the same way that it is imposed on big businesses. By burning the heathland the estates create better habitat for the grouse, but they are also burning large swathes of peatland. Peat is a carbon sink, so by burning this habitat they're causing a double whamy: releasing CO2 from the burnt plant material and stopping the peat from storing CO2. So maybe this can be this revelation is what can make the change, but with a Tory government in power and having already attempted to loosen the ban on fox hunting, I doubt they'll risk further reducing their support in Scotland by taking on the big estate owners. Oh, how fun it is to be politically cynical! 

The paper mentioned above:

Douglas et al. (2015) Vegetation burning for game management in the UK uplands is increasing and overlaps spatially with soil carbon and protected areas. Biological Conservation, 191:243-250
Burning for habitat management is globally widespread. Burning over carbon-rich soils is a global environmental concern due to the potential contribution to climate change. In the UK, upland heath and blanket bog, so-called 'moorland', often overlies carbon-rich soils, and has internationally important conservation value, but is burned as management for gamebird shooting and to a lesser extent for livestock grazing. There is little detailed information on the spatial extent or temporal trends in burning across the UK. This hinders formulation of policies for sustainable management, given that the practice is potentially detrimental for soil carbon storage, water quality and habitat condition. Using remotely sensed data, we mapped burning for gamebird management across c45 000 km2 of the UK. Burning occurred across 8551 1-km squares, a third of the burned squares in Scotland and England were on peat ≥ 0.5 m in depth, and the proportion of moorland burned within squares peaked at peat depths of 1–2 m. Burning was detected within 55% of Special Areas of Conservation and 63% of Special Protection Areas that were assessed, and the proportion of moorland burned was significantly higher inside sites than on comparable squares outside protected areas. The annual numbers of burns increased from 2001 to 2011 irrespective of peat depth. The spatial overlap of burning with peat and protected areas and the increasing number of burns require urgent attention, for the development of policies for sustainable management and reversal of damage to ecosystem services in the UK uplands.
LINK