Wildlife and Animal News:
“A FUNGUS BRINGS DINOSAURS’ FATE TO FROGS”
At the end of a report on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” program over the weekend, the host, Debbie Elliot, asked Dr. Joe Mendelson, an organizer of a project called “Amphibian Ark,” what it meant to humanity that roughly one-third of the planet’s 6,000 species of frogs, toads, salamanders, newts and worm-like caecilians may now be on the brink of extinction because of a disease spreading like wildfire among them.
“Realize the precedent that amphibians are setting here,” Dr. Mendelson said. “A disease that we did not know existed, and we don’t from where it came, and we don’t know how it gets around, is working its way across an entire vertebrate class, eliminating species at an incredibly accelerated pace — and we can’t stop it.”
The none-too-subtle implication, of course, was that there but for the grace of dumb luck, and the right viral payload, could well go the human race — and if for no other reason than that, we ought to pay the issue some attention.
But the decimation of amphibians — hitting mainly frogs so far — by a near-invisible fungus that has spread around the world over the last decade has been enough to mobilize scientists from all over to try to rescue what species they can. Researchers gathered in Atlanta late last week to marshal resources and draw up a systematic plan
The toll so far is striking. Some 170 species of frogs have become extinct in the past decade, whether from the fungus or other causes, and another 1,900 are imminently threatened, according to The Associated Press.
Should those 1,900 disappear, it would be an extinction event on the scale of “what happened at the end of the ice ages,” Mr. Mendelson told N.P.R.
Amphibian Ark is asking zoos, botanical gardens and aquariums the world over to choose a threatened species, take in at least 500 frogs from that species, and harbor them in their institutions until scientists can find an answer for the killer disease — the chytrid fungus — if that’s possible.
The group plans a fundraising campaign next year to secure the $400 million to $500 million it estimates will be needed to complete the project. (The group has a rough Web site set up with some founding mission documents and PowerPoint presentations available.)
Just where the fungus came from is a bit of a mystery, but the reigning theory at the moment points to the African clawed frog, which carries the fungus on its skin but is immune to its effects. That type of frog has been distributed across the globe in recent decades because (here’s an irony) it is evidently quite useful in biology research — and also because it was handy for performing human pregnancy tests in the 1940s (much the way rabbits were used in earlier eras). Injecting the frogs with the urine of a pregnant woman induces the frog to produce eggs. In any case, researchers theorize that the wide distribution and handling of the African clawed frog may, over time, have introduced the fungus into many environments where it was unknown before and where the local frogs are not immune to its ravages.
From the A.P.:
The fungus works like a parasite that makes it difficult for the frogs to use their pores, quickly causing them to die of dehydration. It has been linked to the extinction of amphibians from Australia to Costa Rica.
Last month, Japan reported its first cases of frog deaths from the fungus, prompting research groups to declare an emergency in the country. On the Caribbean island of Dominica, the fungus has almost wiped out the mountain chicken, a frog species considered an island delicacy.
At Yosemite National Park in California, the mountain yellow-legged frog is close to extinction. … The growing quiet along the park’s lakes is evident as many of the frogs are dying off.
Of course, Mr. Mendelson of Amphibian Ark told Ms. Elliott of N.P.R. that the fungus cannot account for the entirety of the shrinking amphibian populations across the globe. Pollution, habitat depletion, climate change and other factors are contributing to the looming extinctions as well.
“There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that amphibians are suffering what we call death from a thousand cuts,” he said.
At the end of a report on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” program over the weekend, the host, Debbie Elliot, asked Dr. Joe Mendelson, an organizer of a project called “Amphibian Ark,” what it meant to humanity that roughly one-third of the planet’s 6,000 species of frogs, toads, salamanders, newts and worm-like caecilians may now be on the brink of extinction because of a disease spreading like wildfire among them.
“Realize the precedent that amphibians are setting here,” Dr. Mendelson said. “A disease that we did not know existed, and we don’t from where it came, and we don’t know how it gets around, is working its way across an entire vertebrate class, eliminating species at an incredibly accelerated pace — and we can’t stop it.”
The none-too-subtle implication, of course, was that there but for the grace of dumb luck, and the right viral payload, could well go the human race — and if for no other reason than that, we ought to pay the issue some attention.
But the decimation of amphibians — hitting mainly frogs so far — by a near-invisible fungus that has spread around the world over the last decade has been enough to mobilize scientists from all over to try to rescue what species they can. Researchers gathered in Atlanta late last week to marshal resources and draw up a systematic plan
The toll so far is striking. Some 170 species of frogs have become extinct in the past decade, whether from the fungus or other causes, and another 1,900 are imminently threatened, according to The Associated Press.
Should those 1,900 disappear, it would be an extinction event on the scale of “what happened at the end of the ice ages,” Mr. Mendelson told N.P.R.
Amphibian Ark is asking zoos, botanical gardens and aquariums the world over to choose a threatened species, take in at least 500 frogs from that species, and harbor them in their institutions until scientists can find an answer for the killer disease — the chytrid fungus — if that’s possible.
The group plans a fundraising campaign next year to secure the $400 million to $500 million it estimates will be needed to complete the project. (The group has a rough Web site set up with some founding mission documents and PowerPoint presentations available.)
Just where the fungus came from is a bit of a mystery, but the reigning theory at the moment points to the African clawed frog, which carries the fungus on its skin but is immune to its effects. That type of frog has been distributed across the globe in recent decades because (here’s an irony) it is evidently quite useful in biology research — and also because it was handy for performing human pregnancy tests in the 1940s (much the way rabbits were used in earlier eras). Injecting the frogs with the urine of a pregnant woman induces the frog to produce eggs. In any case, researchers theorize that the wide distribution and handling of the African clawed frog may, over time, have introduced the fungus into many environments where it was unknown before and where the local frogs are not immune to its ravages.
From the A.P.:
The fungus works like a parasite that makes it difficult for the frogs to use their pores, quickly causing them to die of dehydration. It has been linked to the extinction of amphibians from Australia to Costa Rica.
Last month, Japan reported its first cases of frog deaths from the fungus, prompting research groups to declare an emergency in the country. On the Caribbean island of Dominica, the fungus has almost wiped out the mountain chicken, a frog species considered an island delicacy.
At Yosemite National Park in California, the mountain yellow-legged frog is close to extinction. … The growing quiet along the park’s lakes is evident as many of the frogs are dying off.
Of course, Mr. Mendelson of Amphibian Ark told Ms. Elliott of N.P.R. that the fungus cannot account for the entirety of the shrinking amphibian populations across the globe. Pollution, habitat depletion, climate change and other factors are contributing to the looming extinctions as well.
“There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that amphibians are suffering what we call death from a thousand cuts,” he said.
Wolves News
BILLINGS, Mont. - A federal judge has restored endangered species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts this fall.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent.
The region has an estimated 2,000 gray wolves. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.
Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. They sought the injunction in the hopes of stopping the hunts and allowing the wolf population to continue expanding.
"There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice, who had argued the case before Molloy on behalf of 12 environmental groups.
In his ruling, Molloy said the federal government had not met its standard for wolf recovery, including interbreeding of wolves between the three states to ensure healthy genetics.
"Genetic exchange has not taken place," Molloy wrote in the 40-page decision.
Molloy said hunting and state laws allowing the killing of wolves for livestock attacks would likely "eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur."
The federal biologist who led the wolf restoration program, Ed Bangs, defended the decision to delist wolves as "a very biologically sound package."
"The kind of hunting proposed by the states wouldn't threaten the wolf population," Bangs said Friday. "We felt the science was rock solid and that the delisting was warranted."
Bangs said government attorneys were reviewing Molloy's court order and would decide next week whether to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal and state officials had argued killing some wolves would not endanger the overall population — as long as numbers did not dip below 300 wolves. With increasing conflicts between wolves and livestock, they said public hunts were crucial to keeping the predators' population in check.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula granted a preliminary injunction late Friday restoring the protections for the wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Molloy will eventually decide whether the injunction should be permanent.
The region has an estimated 2,000 gray wolves. They were removed from the endangered species list in March, following a decade-long restoration effort.
Environmentalists sued to overturn the decision, arguing wolf numbers would plummet if hunting were allowed. They sought the injunction in the hopes of stopping the hunts and allowing the wolf population to continue expanding.
"There were fall hunts scheduled that would call for perhaps as many as 500 wolves to be killed. We're delighted those wolves will be saved," said attorney Doug Honnold with Earthjustice, who had argued the case before Molloy on behalf of 12 environmental groups.
In his ruling, Molloy said the federal government had not met its standard for wolf recovery, including interbreeding of wolves between the three states to ensure healthy genetics.
"Genetic exchange has not taken place," Molloy wrote in the 40-page decision.
Molloy said hunting and state laws allowing the killing of wolves for livestock attacks would likely "eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur."
The federal biologist who led the wolf restoration program, Ed Bangs, defended the decision to delist wolves as "a very biologically sound package."
"The kind of hunting proposed by the states wouldn't threaten the wolf population," Bangs said Friday. "We felt the science was rock solid and that the delisting was warranted."
Bangs said government attorneys were reviewing Molloy's court order and would decide next week whether to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal and state officials had argued killing some wolves would not endanger the overall population — as long as numbers did not dip below 300 wolves. With increasing conflicts between wolves and livestock, they said public hunts were crucial to keeping the predators' population in check.
Monarch Butterflies - Strange Migration
Monarch butterflies are famous for their annual migrations. Some of these insects travel thousands of miles each fall -- an astonishing distance for such fragile creatures. Yet few people realize that the Monarchs we see in the spring are not necessarily the same ones that fluttered past in the fall.
Beginning in late September, the skies along the Gulf Coast of Texas slowly become filled with meandering groups of Monarchs. Their flight, while not hurried, is purposeful, moving southwest toward a small forest in the highlands of Central Mexico. These butterflies travel from southern Canada and the northern United States at a rate of approximately 50 miles per day. They'll spend the winter in a few small groves of evergreen trees, with each grove containing as many as 20 million butterflies. Sheltered from the wind and snow, the butterflies conserve energy, for they still have a lot of work ahead of them.
The Monarchs become active again in February. Mating begins, and the air fills with swirling masses of copulating pairs. The first warm days of late March trigger their northward flight. A close look at these butterflies, now eight months old, reveals that their wings are faded and tattered. Still, the Monarchs fan out across the southern United States, looking for Milkweed plants on which to deposit their eggs.
Four days later, the eggs hatch, producing small caterpillars that immediately begin to feed on the Milkweed leaves. Ten to fifteen days later, each caterpillar stops feeding and forms its chrysalis -- a beautiful soft green jewel flecked with gold. In another ten to fifteen days the chrysalis splits open, and a new Monarch emerges.
This generation of butterflies mates, lays eggs, and dies within the span of a few weeks. During this time it moves north, following the progress of spring and the emergence of Milkweed. By the end of summer, two more of these short-lived generations will have repeated the process, ultimately coming to inhabit the Milkweed patches in the far north latitudes.
Thus the Monarchs born in the Northeast and Canada in September are the great great grandchildren of the last Monarchs to inhabit the area. These are the ones that will head to Mexico. They're significantly larger than the three generations that preceded them and still sexually immature. Rather than mate and lay eggs, they seek out nectar-producing flowers. The nectar serves two purposes: some of it fuels the southward migration, and some of it is converted to fat reserves that sustain the butterflies through the winter.
This incredible annual cycle applies to all Monarchs east of the Rockies. The populations in the West follow a similar pattern, though their migratory path is westward, from the Great Basin to overwintering sites along the Pacific Coast.
Beginning in late September, the skies along the Gulf Coast of Texas slowly become filled with meandering groups of Monarchs. Their flight, while not hurried, is purposeful, moving southwest toward a small forest in the highlands of Central Mexico. These butterflies travel from southern Canada and the northern United States at a rate of approximately 50 miles per day. They'll spend the winter in a few small groves of evergreen trees, with each grove containing as many as 20 million butterflies. Sheltered from the wind and snow, the butterflies conserve energy, for they still have a lot of work ahead of them.
The Monarchs become active again in February. Mating begins, and the air fills with swirling masses of copulating pairs. The first warm days of late March trigger their northward flight. A close look at these butterflies, now eight months old, reveals that their wings are faded and tattered. Still, the Monarchs fan out across the southern United States, looking for Milkweed plants on which to deposit their eggs.
Four days later, the eggs hatch, producing small caterpillars that immediately begin to feed on the Milkweed leaves. Ten to fifteen days later, each caterpillar stops feeding and forms its chrysalis -- a beautiful soft green jewel flecked with gold. In another ten to fifteen days the chrysalis splits open, and a new Monarch emerges.
This generation of butterflies mates, lays eggs, and dies within the span of a few weeks. During this time it moves north, following the progress of spring and the emergence of Milkweed. By the end of summer, two more of these short-lived generations will have repeated the process, ultimately coming to inhabit the Milkweed patches in the far north latitudes.
Thus the Monarchs born in the Northeast and Canada in September are the great great grandchildren of the last Monarchs to inhabit the area. These are the ones that will head to Mexico. They're significantly larger than the three generations that preceded them and still sexually immature. Rather than mate and lay eggs, they seek out nectar-producing flowers. The nectar serves two purposes: some of it fuels the southward migration, and some of it is converted to fat reserves that sustain the butterflies through the winter.
This incredible annual cycle applies to all Monarchs east of the Rockies. The populations in the West follow a similar pattern, though their migratory path is westward, from the Great Basin to overwintering sites along the Pacific Coast.
Polar Bear News
Don't wait to save the polar bear We have to act quickly to stop the species from becoming a casualty of global warming.
By Kassie Siegel, KASSIE SIEGEL is a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which is dedicated to the conservation of imperiled plants and animals.
January 8, 2007
ON DEC. 27, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of its sea ice habitat from global warming. This proposal marks the first legally binding admission by the Bush administration of the reality of global warming. The significance of the polar bear decision has not been missed by those who stand to benefit from a continuation of the administration's head-in-the-sand approach to global warming. Once protection for the polar bear is finalized, federal agencies and other large greenhouse gas emitters will be required by law to ensure that their emissions do not jeopardize the species. And the only way to avoid jeopardizing the polar bear is to reduce emissions.
Predictably, opponents of emissions cuts are doing what they have always done: claim a scientific dispute where none exists and urge that no action be taken until the science is "conclusive." Singing this tired tune, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week called the proposal to protect polar bears a "triumph of politics over science," arguing that polar bears are "overly abundant" and that the species cannot be considered threatened until its population has further declined.
The Journal got it wrong in every respect. What is remarkable about the polar bear decision is that it is a rare case of science actually triumphing over politics, not the other way around. From burying the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the United States to trying to gag top NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the Bush administration has systematically attempted to suppress science on global warming.
However, the "best available science" standard required by the Endangered Species Act forbids political and economic considerations. That was the basis for the strategy of my organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, when, on Feb. 16, 2005 (the same day the Kyoto Protocol entered into force without the participation of the U.S.), we filed a petition requesting protection of the polar bear. The Bush administration could refuse only by denying the science of global warming. So protecting the polar bear was the only decision it could legally make.
Unfortunately for the polar bear, the "best available science" — in fact, the only available science — paints a grim picture. The bear is entirely dependent on sea ice, using it as a platform on which to travel, hunt and give birth. Yet each year, as the Arctic warms, the sea ice shrinks. Polar bear populations are already suffering from drowning, starvation and lower cub survival. Absent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the summer sea ice, and the polar bear, may disappear entirely in less than 40 years. All this has been documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that polar bears are threatened with extinction because of global warming, there will always be fossil fuel-addicted naysayers misrepresenting reality. Just as the tobacco industry could always find a "scientist" to claim that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer, climate-change deniers such as Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) will always find polar bear population numbers and trends that purport to prove that the species is doing fine.
More polar bears are being seen near human settlements in Canada, they say, therefore polar bear populations must be increasing. Wrong. A study by NASA and Canadian Wildlife Service scientists published in September 2006 in the journal Arctic demonstrated that more polar bears were indeed being seen on land — not because the species was "overly abundant" but because the bears had nowhere else to go. They should be out on the ice hunting seals, but earlier breakup of sea ice means the bears are stuck on land, where they are more likely to be spotted.
Inhofe and the Wall Street Journal would take no action to protect polar bears until their population has declined significantly. But five of the 19 distinct polar bear populations are already known to be declining. And given the undisputed trajectory of sea ice retreat, the species must still be considered threatened even if there were not yet any evidence of population decline. If a ship starts taking on water, you don't wait until the first passenger drowns before issuing a mayday; the passengers are clearly "threatened" as soon as the water starts pouring in.
But polar bears are not the first species (nor will they likely be the last) for which we have sought the protections of the Endangered Species Act because of global warming. The first, in 2001, was the Kittlitz's murrelet, a small seabird that feeds at the mouth of tidewater glaciers and whose decline corresponds to the global-warming-induced retreat of those glaciers.
Alas, the eyes of the world did not turn to the plight of the Kittlitz's murrelet, as we had hoped, and the administration quietly refused to protect it, a decision we are challenging in court. In 2004, we filed a petition seeking protection for the staghorn and elkhorn corals, species that have declined by more than 90% because of a host of threats, including global warming. The corals were listed as threatened species in May, but with far less fanfare than the polar bear and without an explicit recognition of global warming as a cause of their decline. In November, we petitioned to protect 12 penguin species, including the ice-dependent emperor penguin.
These species are, unfortunately, just the tip of the extinction iceberg. One study estimates that a third of the Earth's creatures will be condemned to extinction by 2050. Polar bears may not be extinct until 2040, but that doesn't mean we have 30 years to do nothing.
Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has repeatedly warned that merely keeping up the current pace of emissions for 10 more years will irreversibly alter the Earth's climate. If sea levels rise 18 feet or more, a large proportion of the world's human population will be displaced — or worse. Polar bears are not the only species threatened by global warming. Absent political action from the United States and the world, the rest of us may be as well.
By Kassie Siegel, KASSIE SIEGEL is a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which is dedicated to the conservation of imperiled plants and animals.
January 8, 2007
ON DEC. 27, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of its sea ice habitat from global warming. This proposal marks the first legally binding admission by the Bush administration of the reality of global warming. The significance of the polar bear decision has not been missed by those who stand to benefit from a continuation of the administration's head-in-the-sand approach to global warming. Once protection for the polar bear is finalized, federal agencies and other large greenhouse gas emitters will be required by law to ensure that their emissions do not jeopardize the species. And the only way to avoid jeopardizing the polar bear is to reduce emissions.
Predictably, opponents of emissions cuts are doing what they have always done: claim a scientific dispute where none exists and urge that no action be taken until the science is "conclusive." Singing this tired tune, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week called the proposal to protect polar bears a "triumph of politics over science," arguing that polar bears are "overly abundant" and that the species cannot be considered threatened until its population has further declined.
The Journal got it wrong in every respect. What is remarkable about the polar bear decision is that it is a rare case of science actually triumphing over politics, not the other way around. From burying the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on the United States to trying to gag top NASA climate scientist James Hansen, the Bush administration has systematically attempted to suppress science on global warming.
However, the "best available science" standard required by the Endangered Species Act forbids political and economic considerations. That was the basis for the strategy of my organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, when, on Feb. 16, 2005 (the same day the Kyoto Protocol entered into force without the participation of the U.S.), we filed a petition requesting protection of the polar bear. The Bush administration could refuse only by denying the science of global warming. So protecting the polar bear was the only decision it could legally make.
Unfortunately for the polar bear, the "best available science" — in fact, the only available science — paints a grim picture. The bear is entirely dependent on sea ice, using it as a platform on which to travel, hunt and give birth. Yet each year, as the Arctic warms, the sea ice shrinks. Polar bear populations are already suffering from drowning, starvation and lower cub survival. Absent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the summer sea ice, and the polar bear, may disappear entirely in less than 40 years. All this has been documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that polar bears are threatened with extinction because of global warming, there will always be fossil fuel-addicted naysayers misrepresenting reality. Just as the tobacco industry could always find a "scientist" to claim that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer, climate-change deniers such as Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) will always find polar bear population numbers and trends that purport to prove that the species is doing fine.
More polar bears are being seen near human settlements in Canada, they say, therefore polar bear populations must be increasing. Wrong. A study by NASA and Canadian Wildlife Service scientists published in September 2006 in the journal Arctic demonstrated that more polar bears were indeed being seen on land — not because the species was "overly abundant" but because the bears had nowhere else to go. They should be out on the ice hunting seals, but earlier breakup of sea ice means the bears are stuck on land, where they are more likely to be spotted.
Inhofe and the Wall Street Journal would take no action to protect polar bears until their population has declined significantly. But five of the 19 distinct polar bear populations are already known to be declining. And given the undisputed trajectory of sea ice retreat, the species must still be considered threatened even if there were not yet any evidence of population decline. If a ship starts taking on water, you don't wait until the first passenger drowns before issuing a mayday; the passengers are clearly "threatened" as soon as the water starts pouring in.
But polar bears are not the first species (nor will they likely be the last) for which we have sought the protections of the Endangered Species Act because of global warming. The first, in 2001, was the Kittlitz's murrelet, a small seabird that feeds at the mouth of tidewater glaciers and whose decline corresponds to the global-warming-induced retreat of those glaciers.
Alas, the eyes of the world did not turn to the plight of the Kittlitz's murrelet, as we had hoped, and the administration quietly refused to protect it, a decision we are challenging in court. In 2004, we filed a petition seeking protection for the staghorn and elkhorn corals, species that have declined by more than 90% because of a host of threats, including global warming. The corals were listed as threatened species in May, but with far less fanfare than the polar bear and without an explicit recognition of global warming as a cause of their decline. In November, we petitioned to protect 12 penguin species, including the ice-dependent emperor penguin.
These species are, unfortunately, just the tip of the extinction iceberg. One study estimates that a third of the Earth's creatures will be condemned to extinction by 2050. Polar bears may not be extinct until 2040, but that doesn't mean we have 30 years to do nothing.
Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has repeatedly warned that merely keeping up the current pace of emissions for 10 more years will irreversibly alter the Earth's climate. If sea levels rise 18 feet or more, a large proportion of the world's human population will be displaced — or worse. Polar bears are not the only species threatened by global warming. Absent political action from the United States and the world, the rest of us may be as well.