In general the word ‘tradition’ evokes many negative emotions amongst conservationists. We hear ‘traditional medicine’ and think of the thousands of tigers butchered under the ignorant belief that their parts can cure ailments ranging from mouth ulcers to malaria. We hear ‘traditional cure’ and are cursed with the images of rhinos and elephants brutally left to bleed to death under the idiotic conjecture that their horns and tusks increase virility and even cure cancer. Not to mention the threats from ‘traditional symbolism’ and its monochromatic ideas that ingesting shark fin soup promotes wealth, or trophy hunting displays power and supremacy.

With such a storm cloud of negativity it has surprised me to discover that the erosion of some traditions can be just as damaging as many of those that have been preserved.

Malagasy culture generally dictates that animals have souls and can therefore bestow good will, or act vengefully in death. Lemurs penetrate this ideology further in that they are believed to be ancestral humans that when lost in the forest were forced to adapt and diversify. Clans across Madagascar have adopted individual species of lemur as their own individual ancestors, and colourful stories locally known as fadys, dictating how one should act in their presence (usually that killing/eating them is forbidden) permeate history.

Endemic to Madagascar, lemurs are one of the most endangered primate groups in the world. 40% of the 101 taxa are red-listed in one of the threatened categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable) and a further 45% are recorded as Data Deficient. Since the arrival of humans on the island 2000 years ago, 8 genera and at least 17 species have become extinct. Why then, in a country where tradition dictates the preservation of a species, are those species in decline?

It is widely know that Madagascar has been heavily deforested. Conservatively, an estimated 28,500km² of primary forest was lost between 1992 and 2011. Much of this deforestation is attributed to industry, and with industry comes migration. A paper published in PLOS one in 2011 investigated lemur exploitation and noted that “Rapid immigration is known to cause social change and is often associated with rapid economic development, such as mineral extraction or tourism, and immigrants to an area are less likely to respect local traditions.” Furthermore, when bush-meat enters the equation, it appears that many migrants and workers that have moved from subsistence farming to other more lucrative work are unknowingly chipping away at tradition in their leisure time “They spend more time in local bars, eating fried meat snacks with their drinks. Lemur hunting appears to have increased to supply this new market. It is also possible that people (especially young adults) who observe someone else consuming [bush-meat] without incurring any visible negative impacts may be more inclined to ignore the fady in the future”.

Culture is dynamic and often replacing tradition with knowledge is a favourable transition, but in this case the beliefs being phased out are the ones that can compliment conservation efforts. In 2006 Madagascar updated their wildlife legislation in accordance with the IUCN and CITES however the cruelty of irony has seen that it is much more difficult to dictate a cultural change than to diffuse into one, and remaining traditionalists do not understand nor accept governance.

I can’t help but feel deeply frustrated. Tradition protected lemurs, Industrial development eroded tradition, science and conservation is now trying to protect lemurs, but tradition defies modern law. For the moment at least, the inspirations for traditions, those beautiful and charismatic lemurs are still a part of our present and I for one won’t stop trying to keep them here. Though it pains me to think that the fadys of the future may talk less of the Indri who joined human souls to the lemurs of the forest, and more of the industries that led human souls astray and lemurs to a desert.

David Attenborough’s Madagascar.

Article image- Jenna Barry, 2008

Damien Aspinall (Son of John Aspinall and current Chairman of The Aspinall Foundation) recently stated that if it were in his hands he would “close down 90% of all zoos“. For those who are not familiar with the Aspinalls, this is a very bold and significant statement for such a prominent zoological figure to make. First opened in 1975, Howletts Wild Animal Park was the baby of the eccentric John, who closely followed it with the opening of Port Lympne in 1976, and finally the registered charity The Aspinall Foundation in 1984. There is no denying that the Aspinalls are unorthodox, but I don’t wish to dwell on that here, for regardless of opinions of their conduct they are responsible for two highly acclaimed and very successful zoos.

Many may now be wondering what is meant by a “successful zoo”, a very good question with no absolute answer. In the simplest of terms the success of a captive population is most often related to the success of reproduction, and I think this is a relatively good baseline. Animals will very rarely breed in an environment where they are malnourished, unwell, or fearful (where welfare is compromised) therefore in many cases when captive animals are breeding well this often reflects well on their housing and care. (There are official guidelines that dictate appropriate institutions, addressed in compulsory inspections overseen by DEFRA. See the links here and here for detail on the inspectorate and the Secretary of States Standards for Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) which will be referenced as I continue).

This leads well into a common misconception that captive bred animals are a direct manifestation of conservation. Captive breeding is often considered analogous to Noah’s Ark, threatened species being maintained in captivity until factors putting them at risk in the wild are removed; staying in the ark until the floods pass. Understandable in theory, but in practice zoos do not only house threatened species. Captive breeding is exactly the face value of the words, animals that have been bred in captivity. The ones you see will very rarely be destined for a future in the wild.

So why are they there?  If you are a regular visitor to zoos you will often find that you are asked for feedback on your visit, and will commonly be asked why you came. The standard answer is for recreation, for a good day out, and this is often where complications arise. The Zoo Licensing Act (1981) defines a zoo as “an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition, to which members of the public have access with or without charge for admission”. Words like ‘recreation’ and ‘exhibition’ are often subconsciously associated with entertainment, and keeping wild animals for entertainment  is in gross conflict with conservation.

The Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) is an organisation dedicated to ending animal exploitation. They fund and promote efforts to abolish the exotic pet trade, to prevent animals being forced to perform in circuses, and significantly to close all zoos in the UK. They provide a damning explanation of their inclusion of zoos in their aims here.

There is no doubt that some distressing and unsavoury truths are revealed, however for me their work highlights the significant flaws in zoo legislation as opposed to the condemnation of all establishments.

In their own report ‘A License to Suffer‘ (2011) CAPS identify extreme shortcomings in the upkeep of the SSSMZP. They highlight that “An average fully licensed zoo holds over 2,000 animals. Formal inspections should be carried out once every two or three years by qualified government inspectors. Usually lasting no more than one working day, this allows each animal a maximum of 36 seconds of the inspectors’ time. For the largest zoo in England, this is reduced to just 1.4 seconds”. They further explain that this blink of an eye assessment “therefore operates under a culture of exceptions. 84% of zoos have dispensations and only 16 % of zoos have full licences, which would not be the case had DEFRA correctly applied its own criteria”.

CAPS are not alone in their findings, in 2012 The Born Free Foundation also released a report looking at standards across the European Union. The document provides an exceptional insight into the pitfalls of current legislation. In England, this namely lies with the Local Authorities who are tasked with the actual implementation of the Zoo Licensing act, and all financial ties associated with it. In short, there is an absolute conclusion that in many instances Local Authorities are failing to meet the requirements set by DEFRA, and DEFRA are failing to crack the whip.

Born Free suggest that “ The limitations that Local Authorities face with respect to time, funding and expertise should be fully considered and additional support should be provided where necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the licensing system.” with which I fully agree. A well maintained and tight legislature for zoo housed animals, and not a blanket abolition would be my ideal solution as I do feel that zoos have a place in our society.

Captive wild animals in good zoological collections can raise significant awareness vital to conservation. I firmly believe that my own childhood experiences with zoos helped to shape the active and passionate defender of the environment I consider myself to be. Furthermore, I certainly found my niche in zoo keeper roles and have never worked in an organisation that has made me doubt their validity. Education is paramount to the purpose of a zoo, and in a good zoo you will notice concerted efforts to deliver knowledge via every medium. You should come away feeling improved and inspired, not entertained.

For me, welfare is the front runner in any debate. There is another very lengthy aspect to this; observing diets, correct housing, correct social grouping, health risks and more which it is simply not possible to cover in this instance.

Fundamentally there has to be an acceptance that no zoo can recreate the native habitats of it’s occupants, but all zoos can and should uphold their duty of care to the highest of standards. I believe it is possible to create captive environments in which animals can be healthy and stimulated, and it is the responsibility of zoos to put that above visitor experience on their list of priorities. Even the most conscientious zoo visitors are disappointed when they feel they have not ‘seen enough’ on their trip. Zoo education needs to help move society away from one of demand, and towards one of privilege. As a zoo visitor you should be a guest in the animals environment, it should be an experience of uncertainty as to what you will and will not spot throughout your day. This is possible and is just as enjoyable but relies on a dramatic shift in public perceptions.

I fully agree that in-situ habitat protection is the only solution for long term effective conservation. However, as a conservationist I don’t feel a right of exclusivity to the wonders of nature I am able to experience. I hope that zoo visitors are in awe of the things they see, and that that awe can transition into respect, which can develop into vital awareness.

There is no comparable sense of wonder to seeing wildlife first hand, an experience without which my childhood would seem incomplete. Instead of banishing zoos based on their problems, we should help them live up to expectation by rectifying the wrongs.

 Article image- Alex Crawford, 2006.

Locomoting animals show remarkable diversity and capability. From the ease at which a gibbon can swing through the trees, to the profound efficiency of the hops of a kangaroo. Some of the more perplexing and intriguing modes of movement are documented in our more miniature companions to whom the smallest crevice can seem a gargantuan ravine. Life in the undergrowth often means negotiating relative Grand Canyons repeatedly, and it appears that both the cockroach and the gecko have an innovative solution for survival.

To the naked eye, when pursued along an incline towards an edge with no escape, both geckos and cockroaches miraculously and seamlessly continue to run over the edge and back down the incline on the underside. The manoeuvre was baffling to the team at the University of California, however when filmed at high speed and viewed at a reduced frame rate all was revealed. Both animals ran flat out, and with no reduction in speed leapt from their ‘cliff edge’ only to grasp with their hind legs producing a pendulum like inversion allowing a completely continuous, albeit upside-down run onwards.

This wonderful analysis inspired Biologists and Engineers to put their heads together dissecting the movement in a way that was computational to robotics, and a small mechanical mimic was born. The hexapedal robot named DASH can execute the inversion relying on velcro hind hooks, and can navigate much more complex terrain than previous types of rover.

So why, you may be wondering, is this worth the time and investment? Whilst superhero style scrambles over buildings are not on the horizon (of which it’s acceptable to be a little disappointed), the scientists involved sum up their truly heroic ambitions perfectly in their publication-  ”We have designed robots that can run or climb, but few can do both and effectively transition from one surface to another. We anticipate that the quantification of acrobatic behaviors in small animals will continue to provide biological inspiration resulting in small, more highly mobile sentinel and search-and-rescue robots that assist us during natural and human-made disasters.”

The team have a long way to go in terms of replicating the efficiency at which this type of locomotion is carried out by their little legged inspirations, however the continued quest has extremely important prospects stretching from the afore mentioned rescue rovers through to more stable and intuitive artificial limbs and wheelchairs.

Studies like this highlight that many of our most perplexing questions can already be answered by Mother Nature, it is simply a case of asking her!

Article Image- PolyPEDAL Lab/PLoS One 2012 

Hermit crabs, although decapod crustaceans are not true crabs. Their hard exoskeleton does not encompass their whole bodies leaving their soft abdomens very vulnerable. As is so often the case, nature has an innovative solution for these animals to protect themselves- salvage! The sea beds and beaches that are home to these sneaky critters are littered with the shells from other organisms, most commonly sea snails.

Most shelled organisms either synthesise their own homes using a special organ known as the mantle, or repeatedly grow and shed an exoskeleton. This means that the protective armour grows with the animal. For the hermit crab however, empty shells from deceased animals make the perfect temporary ‘jacket’. The natural perils of ocean life mean that shells are abundant in many different shapes and sizes, therefore as these little fashionistas grow, they can simply ditch their old jackets and pick up a fancy new and larger one. This is often a very competitive spree and it is common to see crabs of all different shapes and sizes gathering to either exchange their statement pieces, or fight for the seasons new arrivals.

Hermit crabs are very common throughout British rockpools and shorelines, however one particular resident based at Legoland Windsor is surely set to win the trident this year with his 100% unique, 100% lego choice. Aquarists at his ‘Atlantic Interactive’ exhibit always provide Harry with ample choice of shells, however this year they placed a decorative lego shell in his environment only to find Harry defying convention and opting for the bright, bold, angular option. As a result of his preference, the legoland model makers stepped in to switch the decorative tank ornament for a more anatomically correct lego shell (constructed around a real shell for comfort) and Harry immediately slipped in.

You may be dubious as to the legitimacy of Harry’s choice, indeed there are suggestions that this may be a publicity stunt of sorts. However as yet reports suggest that Harry is very happy in his new get up, and I’m never surprised at the diversity of behaviour in the natural world. Perhaps Harry has been forced into his new garment, but research suggests that hermit crabs would rather remain naked than accept a shell that did not live up to expectation, furthermore the leading cause of nudity is thought to be associated with high stress so it seems sensible to assume that if he’s wearing the lego, it’s simply because he wants to.

Animal behaviour is a constant stream of surprise and discovery, and is very rarely conformist. I think this is a sweet example of that ever variable dynamic and I hope they continue to provide Harry with a variety of options in his future!

Section 2780-(d-e) of the California Fish and Game code states: “Deer, mountain lion, and other wildlife habitat within… is disappearing rapidly. Small and often isolated wildlife populations are forced to depend upon these shrinking habitat areas within the heavily urbanizing areas of this state. Corridors of natural habitat must be preserved to maintain the genetic integrity of California’s wildlife. This chapter shall be implemented in the most expeditious manner. All state officials shall implement this chapter to the fullest extent of their authority in order to preserve, maintain and enhance California’s diverse wildlife heritage and the habitats on which it depends.”

Section 4800-(a-b) states: “The mountain lion (genus puma) is a specially protected mammal under the laws of this state. It is unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof accept as specifically provided in this chapter.”

The man pictured, Daniel W. Richards, is the recently elected president of the California Fish and Game commission and was taken in Idaho in early February this year by WON (Western Outdoor News) magazine, California’s only remaining pro hunting publication. Richards was said to be fulfilling a lifelong ambition stating that he “took the big cat over iron sights using a Winchester Centennial lever action 45 carbine.”

Asked about California’s mountain lion moratorium, he replied “I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho.”

Unsurprisingly both the Commissions head office and that of the US humane society have been bombarded with calls for Richards to relinquish his position. Although the governor of California is not permitted to remove him, legislature can on a majority vote.

The Commission does acknowledge that it’s objectives are to promote “sound and enlightened resource management” which includes observing a balance between “not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources” in other words, attempting to keep both conservationists and hunters happy. However, as Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society states “It’s not illegal. But he’s thumbed his nose at the people of California. He’s supposed to be representing the interests of all California citizens. It seems like such a tone-deaf action. What part of ‘no’ doesn’t he understand?”.

Officially his term as president expires in January 2013, however with hope he will be forced to step down much sooner than that.

Closer to home looked at some of our most beloved native species and some of the individual threats they face, but one thing that unites them all is a relentless war against non-native invaders.

More than 2,000 uninvited guests have forged a home on British soil. Some, granted are relatively harmless and even well loved, the staple conker tree of childhood (a horse chestnut) is a 16th century alien! However many are not so forgiving in their integration. Widely know examples like the grey squirrel and the ring necked parakeet (pictured) are forming such strongholds that they are overwhelming our native flora and fauna with losses that would be unacceptable to our biodiversity.

Assessing the damage and monitoring all these species is an incredible challenge for the scientific community and research is highlighting the need for a more specific understanding of distribution, in order to target conservation efforts. This has led to a new initiative known as ‘citizen science’ in which members of the public are being asked to document sightings of particularly worrisome species and send them in. This will build up a bank of data invaluable to those trying to preserve our native habitats and their occupants.

The top 10 culprits of concern are:

• Signal crayfish
• Grey squirrel
• Muntjac deer
• Ring-necked parakeet
• Red eared terrapin
• Harlequin ladybird
• Horse-chestnut leaf-miner
• Rhododendron
• Floating pennywort
• Himalayan balsam

For more detailed information including images, why the species are particularly threatening, and where to send in your findings click here. Get cracking with some simple, effective DIY science and be spectacularly patriotic for your environment!

Article image- Alex Crawford, 2008

The natural world boasts many awe inspiring ambassadors. The polar bear, the giant panda, and the Sumatran tiger are all stunning species acting as worthy symbols of conservation. When we see these creatures we immediately recognise their peril and most of us would be able to name one or two organisations playing a key role in their protection.

But what about the struggles and strife closer to home? British wildlife has been in a steady state of decline for the best part of a century and we are at significant risk of losing some of our most iconic species. In 1994 our government launched a campaign known as the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) to identify and monitor endangered species and habitats. At the time of its declaration, the report highlighted 391 species and 45 habitats as priorities for conservation efforts and in line with a Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) set a target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss”.

The figures for priority species and habitats now stand at 1,150 and 65 respectively.

Whilst reviews show that there have been some success stories within the history of BAP, the general consensus among UK conservation organisations is that the CBD targets have been missed. In May 2011 the European Union, in conjunction with CBD reassessed their aims committing to “halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible.”

In general, British conservation tends to work better when species have specific or confined ranges that can be easily targeted. The otter for example is one of the species that seems to be benefiting from its action plan. Cleaner rivers, legal protection, and dedicated reintroduction efforts have seen otter numbers rise to a presence of between 65 and 80% across many or their historical home ranges.

However, when we take a species like the hedgehog with their relatively non-specific range of the UK, targeting conservation efforts becomes ambiguous. In the 1950’s estimates numbered 50 million, in 1995 this was down to 1.5 million, and in 2007 they were worryingly added to the BAP species list. Habitat fragmentation is thought to be a huge problem, urbanism creeps into our rural patches year on year reducing natural habitats. Furthermore, smaller more isolated gardens coupled with an increase in home pesticides like slug pellets means many gardens end up repelling our spiky friends. Finally, with habitats in patches and gardens cut off, many individuals are forced to cross our roads with devastating consequences. One decade alone (1990-2001) yielded road losses thought to have halved the hog population.

Red Squirrels are one of the species whose plight is more familiar. Outcompeted by the larger, more hardy (non-native!) grey, their numbers have taken a nose dive by 50% in 50 years. 75% of the remaining reds are located in Scotland and as for the rest of the UK, island habitats such as Anglesey and the Isle of Wight are likely to be the only hope. Not only are they aggressive competitors but the greys also carry an enteric disease known as squirrel poxvirus (SQPV) fatal to our humble reds, meaning strict vigilance to keep greys out is the only likely scenario for small scale preservation. Sadly, current estimates predict the red squirrel to be extinct within the next 20 years.

House sparrows, bottle-nosed dolphins, ladybirds, Atlantic salmon, hazel dormice, great crested newts, basking sharks, pine martins, water voles, natterjack toads, garden bumblebees… to name but a few are all species currently at risk. These creatures great and small genuinely helped inspire and nurture my love for the natural world. The possibility that future generations will be robbed of that privilege is in my mind unacceptable.

So what can we do in the here and now to circumvent this crisis? Well that’s the beauty of conservation in your own country, it really is on your doorstep and in your back gardens. I recommend getting familiar with UK conservation initiatives, then exploring your local trusts for priorities that directly affect your area. If you are passionate about a particular species look them up, there are almost certainly others that share your feelings and there will be great tips available to help you encourage biodiversity.

It is very easy to assume that members of parliament, government officials and policy makers should be taking control of this situation. But the stark and simple fact is that our beautiful country has been irreversibly transformed, preservation by the individual is now our strongest force.

Don’t mourn losses, prevent them.

• The Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES)
• The Observer Ethical Awards
• The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV)
• The Bat Conservation Trust
• The British Hedgehog Preservation Society
• Natural England
• UK BAP

Article image- Alastair Rae, 2008

Over the last two months conservationists have declared the Javan rhino extinct from Vietnam, leaving only one small pocket of 44 on the Indonesian island bearing its name; the West African black rhino as extinct in the wild, and the critically endangered Sumatran rhino as declining with only 275 individuals thought to remain. What is happening to these charismatic creatures to render them so vulnerable?

There are many more species in peril as highlighted by the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) red list. Newest data suggests that almost 25% of mammals are at risk of extinction, up from the 20% estimate in 2009. The rhinoceros however stands out in this database as its transcontinental ranges and habitat types sadly fall victim to a multitude of threats.

Deforestation is a global issue and the effects cannot be underestimated, but there is an ever more prevalent and violent threat sweeping through the rhino populations. Poaching.

Currently South Africa is experiencing its highest ever record of killings numbering 341 this year so far, compared to a total of 13 in 2007. Whilst the Southern White rhino is the most abundant of the extant species, the fact that such high levels of poaching are taking place in one of the better policed environments is a significant indicator of the demands of the trade as a whole.

In 2010 CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) concluded that Vietnam are leading the way in a lust for rhino horn products. Furthermore, they are believed to have initiated the myth that rhino horn can cure cancer. Despite being denounced by leading medical councils in China and Thailand, the belief still holds firmly in the minds of many Vietnamese citizens who according to an official from the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) now represent the “vast majority” of poaching prosecutions.

Aside from cancer rhino horn is believed by some to have many more curative properties from fevers to impotence, as well as more trivial uses such as anti-aging and increased hair shine. There are even suggestions that it can rid demonic possession. Both environmental and medical communities are certainly not quiet in their efforts to refute these claims. Publications confirming the complete lack of antipyretic properties have existed since 1983, so is it possible that there is another driving force keeping these fraudulent ideas afloat in so called tradition?

When you assess the value attributed to rhino horn – up to £35,000 per kilo – it would seem that ulterior motives may be present. Rhino horn is made of a protein known as Keratin. Keratin is abundant in the animal kingdom, most notably in humans. Our hair, our skin, and our fingernails are made up of the exact same protein. We would likely cringe at the idea of ingesting somebody’s nail clippings or stray hair, yet when known to be rhino horn the value is nonsensically twice that of gold and worth more per gram than cocaine.

Increased policing is often suggested as an instant method for the prevention of poaching, however there are many barriers to its success. It is widely reported that perpetrators have become significantly more advanced, operating in gangs and using sophisticated weaponry. Equipping rangers and guards with a similar arsenal tends to instigate a ‘fight fire with fire’ approach leading to the loss of innocent human lives. Furthermore, as poachers are often acting for a client, their death is not a deterrent and there are always more to send in their place until the job is done.

So with the value of rhino horn apparently superseding human life, is there another way to inhibit the demand? A growing number of people in the field believe that legalisation of the trade will bring control, forcing prices down and compressing viability on the black market. South Africa are looking to lead the way, the idea being that they become directly responsible for meeting the demands for rhino horn across the globe, placing the power in the hands of the authorities. There are ways to surgically remove rhino horn without the loss of life (some rhino owners adopt this de-horning method already in an attempt to keep their animals safe) thus theoretically balancing out the issue.

There is much controversy surrounding this notion, the WWF feel that it would undo the decades of effort that has gone into protecting the species, saying that the inability to control an already illegal trade leaves too many unknowns. The head of Campfire Zimbabwe, an organisation supporting efforts to make a living from wildlife, believes that by taking over the control and distribution of the rhino horn the South African government will be able to dictate its use i.e. not allowing sale for medicinal purposes and promoting more accurate education.

This does appear to negate the original issue of value. The moment a restriction like that is applied surely medicinal value will be back on the increase and buyers in that market will again pursue alternative routes. This could then drive poachers towards the far less efficiently policed pocket of Javan rhinos, or the tiny population of Northern White rhinos currently thought to number only 4. Recently there have even been thefts reported from museums across the country where break-ins have seen exhibits destroyed in this pursuit. In most cases the horns on display are replica, however clearly the possible pay off from a real find is worth the risk to the thieves. We have to be concerned about what is next, are our captive zoo populations at risk also?

It does appear that this battle has surpassed being one of conservation alone, and is now coupled with a criminal and a legislative army. Perhaps legalising trade will have the desired effect, but we would be forced to allow its pointless use in medicine to prevent a backlash. Perhaps pushing more accurate education to the Vietnamese and others who hold false beliefs is the way forward, standing by the relentless efforts of conservationists and their organisations. Or perhaps we need a more political driving force, pressuring governments to tighten the laws around trade and abolish redundant technical loopholes that continue to allow poachers to slip through the net.

Whatever the correct path, for the sake of such a majestic creature I hope we find our footing soon.

Article image- africa-wildlife-detectives.com

Towards the end of September this year the RNLI Plymouth lifeboat crew responded to a call out from a dismasted yacht. On their return to the station they were accompanied by an exciting and welcome visitor- a lone bottle nose dolphin. He swam along in the bow wave of their boat for around 15 minutes, twirling in the water and very aware of his courteous audience. A short video captured by the crew can be seen here.

On hearing about their playful escort I carried out some research and it seems this dolphin has been doing the rounds in the South West. He has been christened Billy and is easily identifiable by the notch missing from his dorsal fin. As well as Plymouth he has been seen in the shallows of Beer playing with swimmers (pictured above) and as far as Mounts Bay twirling for boats in the harbour.

Billy is not a unique case, this type of behaviour has been documented frequently across the globe. Moko a young male took up residence in Mahia beach, New Zealand where his sociability with locals gave him celebrity status. He gained notoriety during the stranding of two pygmy sperm whales in 2008. Exhausted rescuers had been trying for hours without success to guide the whales past a shallow sandbar and back out to sea but despite their efforts the whales kept getting disorientated and repeatedly beaching. Just as the team were contemplating euthanising the animals Moko swam in, approached the whales and led them along the coast line to a channel in the sandbar returning them to the open ocean.

Documentation of Moko’s friendly games are rife on the internet however there are other aspects of lone dolphin behaviour to consider. Dolphins are exceptionally inquisitive and playful, people will always be willing participants of this fun but our terrestrial nature means that we can’t permanently remain in the water. As the dolphin grows, their demands tend to follow suit. When Moko was approximately 3 years old he trapped a woman out at sea as he was not happy to end their play session. Eventually exhausted and worried she called out to shore and a boat was sent to her rescue. She later admitted that she had gone out to seek Moko on her own in the early evening for a more personal experience with the ‘tame’ animal and did not blame him for her carelessness.

Worryingly, lone dolphins frequently tend to fall victim to the darker sides of human interaction. In 1994 one such animal named Tiao off the coast of Caraguatatuba, South Brazil became surrounded by a large crowd of bathers all wanting ‘a piece of the fun’. People were seen trying to force feed him treats and the situation escalated when ice cream sticks were inserted into his blow hole. The dolphin was obviously distressed, thrashing and charging at the crowd he left 29 people injured with one later dying in hospital from internal bleeding.

These situations rarely ever culminate in the vilification of those responsible. Despite being the first ever documented case of a dolphin causing the death of a human being, Tiao was instantly branded a ‘killer dolphin’ and mysteriously disappeared shortly after. The much loved Moko was subject to similar behaviour when a frustrated canoeist lost patience with his continual play and struck him in the head with her oar. Towards the end of his short life injuries were spotted more and more frequently on Moko and in early 2010 at around 4 years of age he was found dead, the cause of which remains unknown.

Typical dolphin pods constitute 20-40 members, they have a very complex social hierarchy and considerable intelligence and are thought to be able to live to 50. So why do we get such cases where an animal appears to forsake their group? It is thought that their thirst for play is the driving force. A young, immature individual may have a positive encounter with humans and form an association leading to the pursuit of further interactions. In the majority of cases people will always be overjoyed at such experiences and the link between humans and instant play is reinforced.

It is exceptionally hard to recommend how to treat these animals. Moko became very much an ambassador for the species and a great tool for marine conservation campaigns, and in the majority of cases clearly thrived on and relished his chosen companions. However, at the time of his death literature reviews were published stating that of the 30 significant cases of lone dolphins, 14 had ended up injured or mortally wounded by humans.

Despite their apparent choice to socialise with people lone dolphins are still unpredictable wild animals that will not cope will with the pressures of becoming tourist attractions. More importantly humans are still unpredictable wild animals with a propensity to seek ownership of all things. The overwhelmingly unidentified point is that by pursuing these animals we are intruders masking ourselves as guests in their environment, not the other way around.

Note: It is an offence under the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 to disturb a wild animal. An example appropriate to this article can be found here.

Article image- thisisexeter.co.uk

Not just an insight into my most random of thoughts, but an extremely important question for the biological community. In general we accept that ageing is an inevitable consequence of life, but sadly the declining mental and physical health that can often be attached leads scientists to ask not only why we age, but what we can do to reduce its effects.

So where do lobsters fit into the equation? Well it seems that conventionally at least, lobsters don’t age. Of course they acquire years and grow with time, but significantly they do not appear to experience detriment. They don’t weaken or loose fertility, they don’t become more susceptible to disease; in fact cause of death is most commonly physical trauma as opposed to any internal failures. As with many questions in biology, the answers explaining this capability are thought to lie within DNA.

The science of ageing is known as senescence. Within our bodies cells replicate and divide to replace those that are wearing out, however these divisions are limited and for humans, after around 50 divisions from its first generation a cell will die. Over time this leads to the degeneration we associate with ageing. Although there are many alternative theories for why this happens, there is significant grounding in an explanation known as the telomere theory.

Telomeres are protective caps at the end of chromosomes containing non-essential repeats from the DNA sequence. When DNA undergoes replication the process initiates at the centre of the chain, consequently as the double helix forms the very end regions of the chromosomes (the telomeres) remain un-replicated and a small portion is lost in the process. This continues each generation until the telomeres have depleted and a cell can no longer afford to divide.

There are however ‘immortal’ human cells, cells that can up-regulate their telomeres by releasing an enzyme known as telomerase. These are commonly referred to as cancer cells. Understanding the role of telomerase in the vigilance of cancer could lead to the advance of better treatments, and this enzyme is also present in our long lived anti-ageing lobsters.

Telomerase clearly has positive effects for the lobster however it is unlikely that they are immortal meaning that telomerase is likely inhibited at some point. There are other exceptionally long lived animals like giant tortoises and sea anemones, the difference being that as yet there is no definite ‘old age’ for a lobster. Like most arthropods they moult in order to grow, shedding their exoskeleton and growing a new one. This means that size tends to correlate with age, and much to the joy of science fiction the potential of either of those factors is as yet unknown. The possibility of discovering a gigantic lobster trawling the oceans depths old enough to remember Napoleon is still plausible…

80% of cancers appear to manipulate telomerase meaning it is an attractive target for breakthrough research. Recently samples from long lived animals have helped understand the enzyme on a sub-microscopic level and this will be crucial for drug production in the future. It is by no means a wonder conclusion for cancer research, however it is sure to yield some significant advancements.

The potential influence of telomerase extends to Alzheimer’s, organ failure, bone diseases and other age related conditions. It is another cruel irony of nature that a substance responsible for lengthening life in some organisms can prematurely terminate life in others. However it could equally be considered an exemplary representation of the potential rooted in a harmonious relationship with our natural world.