According to the site Enviroliteracy, the following screenshot shows number of the African Wild Dogs (AWD’s) remaining, as of March of this year, to be around 7,000 individuals with just 1,500 listed as adults.
The key to understanding the relationship between being formally listed as endangered (the AWD made the ICNU “Red List” list twenty-five years ago) and attempting to predict how long a given species has left in based solely upon scientific research, the most important of which has to do with the minimum number of breeding pairs required to maintain a healthy gene pool (for that given species). Obviously, no one can be certain but studies have indicated that the number hovers around 300.
Science has already spent decades researching endangered species of all kinds, with more research going into some than others. “Higher-order” mammals, whether sea or land-based, seem to get the most attention. It makes sense that we would be the most concerned about the creatures with which we have the most in common. Social behavior, language, habitat, overall intelligence, and other characteristics. This research has led to a much greater understanding of the creatures we most respect and admire. Because they are generally at the top of the food chain and would be the most harmful to the ecosystems surrounding them were they to disappear, endangered predators and species that are strong bio-indicators garner the most attention. Though not as heavily studied as certain bears, tigers, lions, wolves, whales, and some porpoises, the African Wild Dog certainly warrants ample consideration. The ecosystems in which they are found and the other creatures within them would topple, creating a domino effect and many other species would be brought to the brink of extinction, or worse, simply disappear not long after the demise of the AWD.
There is more pressure than ever on those of us who truly care to redouble our efforts such that more people around the world join the fight to protect existing AWD habitat and push for the creation of additional habitat by funding conservancy programs to procure lands which are adjacent to the patchwork of existing protected areas and national and state run wildlife preserves. The concept is already at work in other parts of the world through organizations such as the Nature Conservancy. The point is is that there are real world mechanisms in place to acquire additional lands on behalf of endangered species. I don’t see why, with appropriate funding, the same concept can’t be put use in parts of Africa where the AWD still has a toehold. Perhaps it’s already happening and I’m just unaware of such doings.
I wake up each morning with an anxious feeling in the pit of my stomach with grave concerns for this planet and its inhabitants knowing in my heart that it may already be too late for turning things around. There really isn’t much time remaining for the world’s most endangered species, twenty, perhaps thirty years. But then I have a talk with myself over a cup of coffee and realize once again that we’ve got an immense obligation to threatened species everywhere and that no matter how bleak things may look, we must have the resolve to fight our best fight and if it should come to it, go down swinging.
Given that the subject has to do with something as important to world history as religion, some fact-checking should probably have taken place.
The history of mankind making war on itself goes back to the dawn of primordial man.. But since the question limits the discussion to the beginning of Christianity, a concept that’s only been in existence for a little over 2,000 years, we’ll focus on that period of time alone. In the history of war the concepts from the title of this post (“Turn to other cheek”, “fight fair”) are hardly the centuries old words of Christians alone. They are among the underpinnings of many peaceful societies and religious tenets that can be found in many other forms of religious scripture, including that of Buddhists, Muslims, and, Islamists who worship peace at their core. Unfortunately, it is the “extremists” and their warring predilections that people judge entire religions on, solely on the deluded actions of a relative few. Scandinavian based societies tend to value peace and the freedom to practice that peace and tranquility over anything .
The Roman Catholic Church has been called the bloodiest of all institutions where, in the name of god, its soldiers have been every bit as brutal as any of its enemies over the history. The rapid growth of Christianity came as a result of violent periods such as the Crusades followed a couple hundred years later by Colonialism. Christian armies for various European countries were feared greatly by the indigenous people who may have peacefully occupied these little corners of the world for centuries. These are examples of things we are rarely taught accurately as children being educated in the country of ours. Other periods in history where Christian armies roamed far and wide, conquering lands and people along the way, the Spanish occupation of Central America, and the 200 years it took European Americans to subjugate Native American people, one tribe at a time.
I don’t have time to dive into this question farther, so I’ll end by saying that, during times of war, the rules of engagement invariably change the longer and more deadly the given conflict. This leads to more and more aggressive tactics by the warring parties involved . As is the case today, there are often more than two sides fighting a given war at a given time. We have lost two major conflicts in the last seventy years in part because we weren’t aggressive enough and allowed politicians, not career military men, to decide the protocols of modern warfare. The North Vietnamese could handle the brutality and length of that war while the US never truly committed. The same could be said of Afghanistan and every engagement we’ve had in the Middle East over the last forty+ years. The lesson of going halfheartedly into another country thousands of miles distant, into lands indigenous peoples have been warring over for centuries, and expecting to win and restructure those countries to our liking is ludicrous. Go in with the full weight of our technology and soldiers and we have the capability to win, every time. This is the way war works and, unfortunately, if your goal is to win, it’s time to commit fully and remain fully committed until the job is done, all-the-while being every bit as brutal as your enemies.
Two things: I’m speaking from my experience as a guitarist who started at 50 and is now 64, and knowing a bit about the science of the ear, predominantly as it reacts to different sounds and sound levels in industrial settings over the long term (provided the ear is well protected from overly loud sounds). Can we still hear the same range of frequencies as we age and what impact does age have on hearing loss?
There is no doubt in the almost fifteen years of regular playing that my ears have become much more seasoned and I can hear nuances in tone now that I could not hear when I started. I believe part of that is due to the fact that I learned to play predominantly by ear and still use my ears to emulate lead guitar in songs I’ve never heard before. I challenge myself to see how close I can get on the first pass and on how many passes it takes me to nail it down. I was doing this well enough to enjoy my own playing from the get-go and eventually I learned the pentatonic scales without ever looking them up. The fingerboard just seemed to make sense to me. I know, I was quite surprised myself as I found this to be a skill that I never knew I had. From there, of course, I had to focus on technique, just like anyone else, so this is what “playing by ear” meant to me. I believe there’s a range to what this phrase means to different players who have this innate ability. No one just walks up to a guitar and plays songs from start to finish without undergoing years of practice. I still have difficulty in hearing the different chords that comprise a song unless it’s something simple like three well-known major chords. It is only after hearing a song numerous times that I can begin to put the chord changes together (again, challenging myself before looking up the tabs which I’ll often have to do to get it absolutely right).
I collect guitars and a lot of the research that goes into that involves A//B-ing guitars either at various guitar shops or listening carefully to well put-together comparisons online. Doing this in person is the better method but if I’m listening through a good set of headphones along with a phone designed with playing music in mind (I’ve found that the Sony Xperia I IV is superior to anything else) I can hear the minute sonic differences between two high-end guitars of the same build quality and materials, say, a Collings D-1 and the Martin D-18 that it’s modeled after. In the case between these two specific guitars, price isn’t of as much significance. The D-18 is the industry benchmark for many guitars made by boutique builders, as is the Marrtin D-28 and the Gibson J-45. Though relatively small, the differences in tone jump out at me. It would be the same if I were comparing the Standard Series Martin D-18 to Martin’s Authentic Series D-18 1937 model. These guitars sound very similar but there are differences that, when combined, make it easy for me to discern which is which. But I’ve been A/B-ing guitars for years and distinctly recall not being able to hear these differences fifteen years ago.
If I had to quantify how far my ears have developed relative to whan I was beginning to play, I would say the difference is around two times better in recognizing differences in tone and sustain, but not in overall hearing like volume. I’ve become somewhat of an audiophile and, if I can help it, will only listen to music through high-quality equipment, including headphones and earbuds. As much as my “well seasoned” ears have become a gift, it has also come at a financial cost in what guitars I know gravitate to and the expense of the equipment I use to listen to and play music.
In terms of the deterioration of hearing as it relates to age, we all know that age can have a tremendous impact on our hearing but, in speaking from experience, if we spend our lives keeping the longevity of our hearing in mind and are sure to always wear protection when the situation calls for it, we can mitigate against hearing loss to a great extent. My hearing was tested many times over the course of my career and I have experienced an almost insignificant loss. But the converse is just as true and people who are either unaware or think that their hearing isn’t something important enough in any given moment to take adequate measures will suffer the consequences. My father and his father before him have and had significant problems with their hearing because they are and were lifetime rifle hunters who practiced regularly without hearing protection. Much less was known about hearing and hearing protection back then. I grew up hunting and shooting high powered rifles from youth on, but they made sure that I wore ample hearing protection. I have also been into sports like motocross which can be extremely loud, but I wore protective foam earbuds under my helmet.
In my teens and early twenties, I saw my share of concerts but I would get nowhere near the stage and could be found in the “cheap seats” which were well past the seating and out into the grass at least 75 yards from the amplifiers. All of these things have paid off and, while I have some fairly serious random health problems, my hearing isn’t among them. Because of my career in engineering, design, and construction, I had to take annual hearing safety courses and they made an impact. Without that background, my hearing would likely not be what it is today, in my mid-60’s.
First, I’ll add that poaching isn’t something that only takes place in faraway lands. It is a significant problem right here at home, in the US.
As with most conservation issues, it’s like peeling an onion with each layer getting closer to the core. On the face of it, many of us view poachers as bed men doing evil deeds, but it can be far more complicated than that. If you look at the problem of the black market for animal pieces and parts as being an evil entity with its roots stretching far and wide, you’ll find that once you get far enough out from the root ball, you’ll reach the poaching aspect of the illegal trade. Things are a bit different in the different areas around the world where poaching exists. You may even find that poachers can sometimes be good people doing evil deeds. In Africa and India, for instance, some of the poachers are poor farmers or herdsman from the neighboring tribes and villages. The gravitational pull for those who become poachers is quite strong in terms of putting food on the table for their families. Poachers receive a small fraction of what a given animal is worth to a wholesaler within his other country and that fraction is miniscule as compared with what those same pieces and parts are fetching at the end of the line, where they are sold to dealers in countries like Japan. But as little as a poacher makes on their end, it is more than they can possibly make on their crops and livestock alone. So the incentive is extremely tempting. Add to that that there are cultural differences which make it easier to kill these animals than we in the West can comprehend. In many cases, tribesman are histlorically accustomed to hunting many of these now threatened and endangered species. I can’t say that the paradigm is the same in every impoverished country, but it is certainly similar. I would anticipate that the poaching problem is bad enough that if a particular poacher is caught or killed there’s another right behind him awaiting his turn to carry the AK.
On the other side, you’ve got guys who are paid some paltry sum to put their lives on the line protect these animals from being poached. In relation to the size of the territory they are responsible for, the number of paid rangers is very small. It is not unusual for a poacher and ranger to know one another or even belong to the same tribe and live in the same village. Graft is a very real problem for a ranger who simply gets paid to look the other way. Of course, the rangers aren’t nearly all on “the take”. But the point is, on this level of the problem, it is more complicated than it might appear to be. That being said, friendly or not, these poachers are a cog in what comprises the wheels of poaching and they must be stopped. More funding is needed so that park rangers aren’t so easily tempted to break the laws that they’re paid to enforce. There are state sponsored anti -poaching organizations and there are the smaller game management entities that are generally not-for-profit associations that operate on shoestring budgets and their anti-poaching personnel are completely out-numbered by “the bad guys”. Being a ranger for this kind of conservation effort comes with serious dangers and many rangers are simply killed in the night while out on patrol. They could use the help of privately owned mercenary companies that have been in place contracting to the US military in the neverending wars in the Middle East.Though this is an expensive option, it is possible to obtain the funds necessary to get these wildlife advocacies the help they need if the right people get involved.
The way to solve the overall problem is to work it from both ends towards the middle. There are already international laws in place to put an end to world trade in animal pieces and parts, but they are not as effective as they should be because the law-breakers aren’t punished to the fullest extent of the law. Often, they are simply fined while being allowed to continue. Corruption runs amok. Laws “without teeth” are of little value in the fight to put an end to trafficking in animal parts.
While not perfect, the poaching problem in the US has been reduced, with steep fines and substantial jail time levied on offenders. Still, highly organized poaching is the same most organized crime and can be fairly sophisticated in their cryptic ways and means of evasion.
The best thing we as simple citizens of the world can do is see that our people on the front lines are closely backed and that related anti-poaching programs ascend the ladder from being grassroot efforts to amply funded organizations with appropriate structure and enough “boots on the ground” to make a palpable difference. Make no mistake, this has gone from being a back-burner issue to one of serious urgency with mind-blowing consequences if we don’t act, in earnest, in the here and now.
I’m going to use this question about the dhole, a wonderful but little known animal that inhabits parts of Asia but is 75% absent from its original habitat, to make a point that no one seems to want to hear. The first thing I noticed in this National Geographic story are the words used to define the story category: “Photo Ark”. To me, that’s a great way to think about endangered species, particularly the ones that have little to no chance of recovering from their current status and made the Endangered Species list decades ago. To send out the message that Nat Geo is compiIing a photographic ark obviously means something. I have posted a couple of screenshots so you can read the basics on the dhole and see what they look like. Like most caniids, I am drawn to their handsome, wolf-like features. Though wildly different upon initial inspection, the dhole has similar features to all sorts of wild dogs found all over the world. I must admit that while I have at least a general understanding of most canids, sort of a “working knowledge”, other than the name “Dhole”, I knew very little about them as a species.
Of course, the second thing that struck me was just how few of them remain, 4,500 to 10,500 individuals. This is roughly half the number of African Wolf Dogs which, as the name suggests, can be found in South Africa and just a handful of countries to the north. It’s historic range was throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. Dozens of creatures are down to similar numbers, numbers that have been holding onto existence using tooth and claw and every bit of their instinct to thrive when conditions are stacked heavily against them. How would we view our own chances if there were just 20,000 of us remaining following what could have only been apocalyptic events to bring our kind to the knife’s edge of being? With this and other posts, I’m trying my darndest to wrap some “shock and awe” perspective around what’s happening to the planet. It is abundantly clear that even with biological scares like (in recent history) HIV, Influenza, COVID, Ebola, Bird Flu, Hantavirus, West Nile, and on, that we’ve become numb to the potential for something as big to come along as the Black Plague (aka Black Death, 1346 – 1353) which killed 25 to 50 million people in just seven years. Granted, times have changed, but COVID should be a reminder of how we had to enlist the help from doctors and scientists from all over the world to bring to bear their collective knowledge to come up with a solution while the clock was ticking on something which quite easily could have been much worse. This clearly reflects the extents to which we will go to save ourselves but, even then, nothing seems to shake us as we look to others to save our lives.
Credit Wikipedia
Credit Wikipedia
If that same effort, say, over a six year period, were put into saving threatened and endangered species, I believe we could have turned things around for some of the most ecologically important species. It’s amazing what we can do when pressed hard for results.
In the mid-60’s, my grandmother took me the one of the larger zoos back East and even as a child of preschool age, I was imprinted by seeing what were clearly wild animals stuck in cages and steel and concrete mini-habitats. I went some thirty years before I took a chance because my girlfriend at the time had never been to a zoo and had a strong desire to visit one. I really liked this girl and thought I could set my feelings aside for one day. I know that most people don’t feel the same way I do on many fronts. Besides, I was just a young child during that first ill-fated foray. Who was I to stop her from having an experience that millions of others enjoy every year?! The Denver Zoo was known for having a very good wolf exhibit and I had been fascinated by wolves for my entire life, reading numerous books and catching every documentary I could find on the subject. I thought I could “tough it out” for one day at one of the most progressive zoos in the country. But almost from the get-go as we were buying tickets, I began to get “cold feet”. I had lied to myself in an effort to make someone else happy. I managed to fake my way through the other exhibits (as I did not wish to have a negative impact on her experience) until we got to the wolf enclosure and, as much as I wanted to spend a few moments admiring them, I began to shed some uncontrolled tears while doing my best to quell my reaction and keep her from seeing it (I must be a decent actor because she didn’t notice).
What got to me the most was due to simply knowing too much about wolves to see them in captivity. They are an iconic symbol of everything that is pure and wild. The alpha male was probably around six years old and 120 pounds of sheer and magnificent masculine beauty. Predominantly light grey and white (grey wolves, aka, timberwolves come in a variety of colors from various shades of grey to reddish brown to all white, and all black) he was what most people think of when they hear the word “timberwolf”. It was just my girlfriend and I at the exhibit and he and I locked eyes as I watched him pace back and forth on a 6″ deep x 12″ wide groove the wolves had cut by pacing along the fence line at the front 30-feet of the enclosure. These are animals that have home ranges of up to 500 square miles and regularly travel between 20 and 50 miles in a single day. Talk about pent up energy which leads to stress, anxiety, and depression. His angst was palpable as was, I’m certain, my own. Today, some thirty years later, I can still sense his pieycing, highly intelligent eyes looking straight into my soul. I distinctly recall marveling at his masterfully efficient gait as he paced. I honestly believe he could feel my sadness and empathy for his situation. I require a lot of personal space to be comfortable and mile upon mile of open space in order to recreate and live happily. As much as I wanted to stay and observe both he and his incredible pack, we were there for just ten or fifteen minutes. When we were done at the zoo, we spent the evening having dinner and talking about a new class my girlfriend was about to start teaching. She was a chemistry professor at a Christian college in Denver. I do not remember what it was that ended the relationship other than the fact that I’d soon be moving to Durango but we weren’t together long enough for her to hear of my aversion to zoos. She had had a good time and that was all that I had cared about. The someday for telling her my genuine feelings never came. My current and by any and all means, final wife, and I feel almost exactly the same about wild things and wild places and our mutual love of nature is one of our primary connections. We prefer dogs to kids.
It has been another thirty-plus years and I’ve not been to another zoo, not even to take my daughter when she was young but all too impressionable. She’s twenty-six now and I don’t believes she’s gone to one of her own volition. She is her father’s daughter. The same goes for aquatic theme parks, though her mother once took her to the grand opening of a Sea World, near San Antonio. While knowing of my feelings on the subject, she took our then seven year-old daughter without informinng me of her plans (taking her out of state without informing the other parent was a clear breech of our parenting plan). Suffice it to say, it had the desired impact on me. What some people will do in the name of pure vindictiveness.
Between zoos and many of the conservation programs which work with them, we have literally researched many important species to death (or, followed them as they made their debut onto the threatened or endangered species lists) with just five to thirty years remaining on their respective clocks. Make no mistake, I am all for research and education, but when it comes to the treatment of the creatures involved, there must be limits.
I want to be clear. I am certainly not opposed to conservation programs. That would be nothing short of just plain stupid. They need to continue but without a reliance on zoos. Almost like the separation of church and state, they should continue on parallel path with more aggressive conservation efforts put in place to expedite the issues around key species that are almost gone and putting a real end to poaching and outright slaughter, and habitat loss as it relates to prioritized species. As an example, the American Wild Horse and the African Wild Dog. rhinos, highland gorillas, the Big Cats, wolves, elephants, and, of course, the dhole. These are but a few of the species that can still be salvaged but action needs to take place in the present, not after we’ve researched these animals for yet another ten years. I’m sorry, but they may no longer be here to study. Education and study efforts should be ongoing but targeting the next wave of species that are clearly in trouble, mostly having to do with loss of habitat. Establish new programs surrounding the next wave of creatures that will one day soon require intervention. I see it as a two-pronged approach. Long-term research and education on creatures not yet in their 11th hour, and short-term aggressive conservation measures to provide absolutely necessary aid to species in dire need of our help. In the end, we cannot save every species but we can still save many. We just don’t have the kind of conservatiion programs in place to ramp things up as it becomes necessary to save the most endangered species today. And last but not least, these programs must be afforded “teeth” so that when it becomes necessary to fight for the animals they’re trying to protect they are able to react with more than just words.
For the sake of discussion, let’s say that my childhood reaction to zoos and what I think of them is valid. I realize that zoos have enabled us to study many species that would otherwise be diffucult to study in the field, but for how long and at what cost? After so many decades -long studies have aready gathered the necessary information surrounding the long-term survival of many keystone animals, I believe we’ve got to put an end to zoos. We are long past the point of diminishing returns. If we take all of what I’ve said above as fact, we need to take an urgent look at this huge and amorphous issue and put some definition around it. To take a sound, pragmatic approach to mitigating the vast expanse of damage we’ve already done. We need to set worldwide protocols and place definitive timelines (deadlines) around the species that are at the highest risk but could still be saved. And. we need to be able to fire back when fired upon!
This is extremely difficult for me to even say, but in looking at wildlife conservation as a whole, there simply isn’t enough time remaining relative to current funding levels and tactics to save every species on the endangered species list. It’s already too late for certain species. We need to take a much more pragmatic view based on what is truly possible. What could be accomplished if we went at this global problem much more aggressively and if we did all the right things from this point forward and started today?! We won’t know until we engage the problem head-on, in a highly structured manner, and provide hard push-back to anyone or anything that gets in the way.
In the meantime, we can look for the most proactive wildlife programs currently operating and find out what we can do to help expedite things in real time with an emphasis on the word “NOW”! When it comes to species that have been on the endangered species list for decades, there simply isn’t enough time remaining for what amounts to political diplomacy.
Please pass this along as it applies to some of the spaces you follow or contribute to.
You must be logged in to post a comment.