The Endangered Species Act

The United States’ most significant law for endangered animals is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA was enacted by the U.S. congress in 1973 to protect endangered and threatened animal and plant species. There are currently 2,162 national and foreign animal and plant species listed by the ESA (NWF, 2014).  It contributes to species recovery by making it illegal to import, export, take, possess, sell, or transport any endangered or threatened species. In addition, ESA defines the species’ habitat that is essential for its survival as a critical habitat and protects the land.

The Fish and Wildlife Service oversee the ESA. According to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) ( n.d.), a species is listed as endangered or threatened if research demonstrates it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• A large percentage of the species’ critical habitat has been degraded or destroyed.
• The species has been over-consumed by commercial, recreational, scientific or educational uses.
• The species is threatened by disease or predation.
• Current regulations or legislations ineffectively protect the species.
• Other manmade factors threaten the long-term survival of the species.

The Endangered Species Act has saved hundreds of species from extinction. “Of the more than 1,400 plants and animals placed under the care of the Act over the past four decades, 99 percent have been saved from extinction” (Greenwald, 2013), including the bald eagle, Florida panther, and gray wolf. Yet, numerous threatened species on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, the leading global endangered species list, are not protected under the ESA. A study comparing the animals listed by IUCN and the ESA found that of the American species included on the IUCN Red List, 40.3% of birds, 50% of mammals, 80% of amphibians, and 88.5-95.2% of invertebrates were not recognized by the ESA (Harris et al., 2012). This large discrepancy could be due to the U.S. system’s failure to keep up with global listing assessments of threatened species and that there is a difference in criteria between the two systems. Risk prioritization and outside pressure seems to be important for species to be listed on the ESA. Harris et al (2012) states that “Petitions and/or lawsuits were involved with 71% of listings from 1974–2003 and have become even more important in recent years (Greenwald et al. 2006).” The IUCN differs from the ESA in that is doesn’t provide any protection for the species, it is merely a list of all the endangered and threatened species. “The ESA, however, legally protects species, so adding a species bears significant cost and responsibility to the agencies” (Harris et al., 2012). Additionally, the ESA can be affected by politics as listing species can have great economic consequences.

The ESA is an important law that has saved hundreds of animals from extinction. However, with the large gap of American species classified by the ESA and the IUCN, the ESA needs some improvements so imperiled species can have the protection it needs to survive. After all, it was President Nixon who said upon signing the ESA, "Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed."

 

 

References

Endangered Species Act - National Wildlife Federation. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2014, from http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Endangered-Species-Act.aspx

Fish and Wildlife Services (2014). Summary of Listed Species Listed Populations and Recovery Plans. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/Boxscore.do

Greenwald, Noah. (2013) Media Guide: 40 Years of the Endangered Species Act — Facts, Stats, Stories and Photos. Retrieved from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/endangered-species-act-05-31-2013.html

Harris, J. B. C., Reid, J. L., Scheffers, B. R., Wanger, T. C., Sodhi, N. S., Fordham, D. A., & Brook, B. W. (2012). Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act: ESA’s coverage of IUCN-listed species. Conservation Letters, 5(1), 64–72. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00205.x

 

Jane Goodall: An Inspiration to Us All

Source: National Geographic

Dr. Jane Goodall is a British primatologist, anthropologist, conservationist, and UN Messenger of Peace. Jane has extensively researched chimpanzees, lectured at several large universities between 1971-2002, has written several books for adults and children, and is a recipient of numerous awards on her work. She received a Ph.D. in Ethology at Cambridge University in 1966. Jane got into Cambridge University without getting a bachelor’s degree first with the help of Louis Leakey. Before he got her into Cambridge, Louis Leakey sent her to the Gombe Stream National Park at Tanzania in 1960, where Jane lived among and studied wild chimpanzees.

Source: National Geographic

Jane observed the behavior and won the trust of the once little-understood chimpanzees. One of Jane's discoveries was that chimpanzees eat meat, where they were first thought to be vegetarians. Additionally, Jane observed that chimpanzees makes and uses tools. She observed chimps constructing a fishing tool out of a palm frond and using it to fish out termites in a termite mound. “Up until that point, anthropologists saw tool-making as a defining trait of mankind. When Jane wrote Louis Leakey of her discovery, he replied: ‘Now we must redefine ‘tool,’ redefine ‘man’ or accept chimpanzees as humans’” (JGI). Jane, also, found that chimpanzees are, as Jane said, “just as awful” as humans. While she observed them, there was a war that broke out between two groups of chimps, the Kasakela and Kahama males, which was started by the Kasakela males.  “Their strategy was simple: hunt the enemy down, one at a time, attack them brutally, and leave them to die of their wounds. Within four years, they eliminated all seven Kahama males and at least one of the females” (JGI). These were just a few of her many discoveries while studying the chimpanzees. She continued in the field until 1986, right after she published her scientific book titled The Chimpanzees of Gombe.

Jane founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1977. It is an international nonprofit that builds on Jane’s research and humanitarian work to make a difference for all living things, especially the famous chimpanzees at Gombe. Jane is still advocating for the welfare and conservation of endangered species. As the Jane Goodall Institute’s website says, “Today, Jane’s work revolves around inspiring action on behalf of endangered species, particularly chimpanzees, and encouraging people to do their part to make the world a better place for people, animals, and the environment we all share.” She presents public lectures and inspires students all over the world, as well as meets with governments about conservation issues. Jane developed important programs in Africa at the Jane Goodall Institute to protect the environment, species, and people. One program is the Roots and Shoots program, which is a “youth-led community action and learning program” where young people in a community generate resolutions for huge challenges (JGI).

For more information about Jane Goodall and the Jane Goodall Institute, please visit the Jane Goodall Institute website.

 

 

References

The Jane Goodall Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from http://www.janegoodall.org/

The National Aquarium Making Plans for the First Dolphin Sanctuary in the U.S.

With the long debate going on about keeping dolphins and whales in captivity, it is good to see some aquariums trying to improve the lives of captive marine animals. The National Aquarium in Baltimore, MD is deciding whether to free their dolphins into a specially built sanctuary. The National Geographic had interviewed the CEO of the National Aquarium, John Racanelli, on this encouraging idea. Here is the entire interview.

Out of their eight dolphins, only one of them has ever seen the ocean, so freeing them into the ocean is out of the question. As Racanelli puts it, “These guys have never seen jellyfish drift by or watched spiny lobsters crawl on the ocean floor. So, if we are to do this, it must be a very carefully prepared and researched project.” If the sanctuary happens, it would have to be located in the south, as they don’t naturally live in the Baltimore area. Although, they will only do this if two criteria are met. First, all of their dolphins have to stay together; and secondly, they have to be able to be viewed digitally by guests.

The National Aquarium had also taken strides a few years ago when they stopped their dolphin shows. Instead, guests can watch the dolphins swim around in the dolphin viewing room or they can watch them being trained in Dolphin Discovery. Here, dolphins only do things they would do in the wild without music or balancing balls on their nose. Discontinuing their shows has probably improved the lives of their dolphins tremendously, but taking it a step further to provide them a more natural environment is a novel and inspiring idea.

Furthermore, the article mentioned that the National Aquarium ceased their captive breeding program after the deaths of two calves in 2011. These two calves died suddenly only a few days apart. The mothers of the calves were half-sisters Spirit and Maya and the father of both calves was Chinook, a dolphin brought in from the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, since there were no males of breeding age at the National Aquarium. The deaths were unexpected. One died from pneumonia and the other died from internal bleeding. Additionally, according to the Baltimore Sun, “Of 14 calves born at the aquarium since 1992, five died within their first year of life. Two more died as juveniles.” This is a large amount of animals dying in one program. Dolphins are highly intelligent animals who need a lot of interaction and a natural environment. Because of their psychological and physical needs that cannot be met in captivity, dolphins should not be bred in captivity. According to the IUCN Red List, the common bottlenose dolphin is not considered endangered or threatened, so there is no need to breed dolphins in captivity for conservation purposes.

Here is the full story on the deaths of the two calves at the National Aquarium.

The anticipated sanctuary sounds like a great advancement to the dolphins’ current living situation. As of now, there are no sanctuaries for dolphins in the United States. They have to live their entire lives working in small, chlorinated pools. However, if the dolphin sanctuary plan moves forward, then it should improve the lives of the eight dolphins at the National Aquarium where they can be in a more natural environment. The National Aquarium may even inspire other aquariums to do the same and provide countless captive dolphins refuge.

Introduction

Numerous animal species are diminishing at a much higher rate than they should be by nature. Endangerment and extinction of animal species around the world is a serious issue in conservation biology, which is my current field of study. Humans have increased the endangerment and extinction of many species.  According to McCleery, Hostetler, & Oli (2014), humans have severely threatened at least one fifth of all vertebrate species over the last four decades. This is an important issue because all animal species are interconnected, so when one species dies out it will affect the whole ecosystem. Although we don’t know the entire impact of losing a certain species, it could affect the health and wellness of people everywhere. Many plant species, and even some animal species, are used for medical purposes. All plants, including medicinal plants, are influenced by a variety of animal species from insects pollinating flowers to birds and animals dispersing seeds.



Guam rail (left), Black-footed ferret (center), Przewalski's horse (right)



One conservation technique used to preserve these species is the captive breeding program. Endangered and rare species have benefited greatly from captive breeding programs. Some species were saved from extinction due to these breeding programs including the Guam rails, black-footed ferrets, and Przewalski’s horses. According to the National Zoo, captive breeding programs are designed to institute genetically healthy captive populations that are large enough to be demographically stable and possibly reintroduce them back into the wild. However, most captive breeding programs are reducing the genetic integrity of many endangered and rare species.

 

The genetic impacts on endangered and rare species in captive breeding programs include negative genetic adaptations due to captive conditions and a loss of genetic diversity.

Captive breeding programs have a stable environment providing health care, removal of predators, and food given to the animals that they wouldn’t have received in the wild, so if many generations are kept in captivity, mutations can occur. This could cause the species to evolve with the captive environment altering the species’ genotype from the wild genotype. Therefore, reintroduction of captive species into the wild may not be possible or successful. Many species only live in captivity due to genetic adaptations from captive conditions and human expansion into their habitat.

On the IUCN Red List, 61 species, 31 being animal species, are considered Extinct in the Wild, and they only exist in captivity. For a list on all of them, click on this link.
 

A decline in genetic diversity is another harmful impact of captive breeding programs. This decline is due to a high occurrence of inbreeding because of an endangered or rare species’ small population size. Inbreeding strengthens the selection of deleterious and detrimental recessive alleles by increasing genomic homozygosity (Leberg & Firmin, 2008). This decreases the genetic diversity and causes a species to be at risk of extinction because more individuals rely on the same set of genes. For example, a study on the wild mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) presented a decline in genetic diversity, specifically a decrease by 17% in heterozygosity and 39% in allelic richness in captive populations compared to the wild population (Čížková, Javůrková, Champagnon, & Kreisinger, 2012). According to Jiang et al. (2005), genetic diversity shows the evolutionary potential within a species to evolve to new environmental changes. Therefore, the decline of genetic diversity tends to reduce the species’ ability to adapt to these new changes, which hinders the probability of survival.

Reintroductions of various species have been unsuccessful in many cases due to the genetic effects of breeding in captivity. As of today, there are only unsupported recommendations of how to implement captive breeding programs, as many of them have contradicting results. More research needs to be done to preserve our world’s endangered and rare species.

 

The following are the current guidelines by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) for captive breeding programs aiming to reintroduce a species into the wild.

These guidelines may improve the genetic integrity of captive-bred animals, however, they need to be scientifically studied for their effectiveness. Employing a set of proven procedures in captive breeding programs should allow them to preserve the species' genetic integrity, so they can achieve their primary aim: that a reintroduced species would survive and thrive in the wild.

 

References:

Captive Breeding. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/endangeredspecies/capbreedpops/default.cfm

Čížková, D., Javůrková, V., Champagnon, J., & Kreisinger, J. (2012). Duck’s not dead: Does restocking with captive bred individuals affect the genetic integrity of wild mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) population? Biological Conservation, 152, 231–240. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.008

Jaing, P.,  Lang, Q., Fang. S., Ding, P., & Chen, L. (2005) A genetic diversity comparison between captive individuals and wild individuals of Elliot's Pheasant (Syrmaticus ellioti) using mitochondrial DNA. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 6(5), 413-417. doi: 10.1631/jzus.2005.B0413

Leberg, P. L., & Firmin, B. D. (2008). Role of inbreeding depression and purging in captive breeding and restoration programmes. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 334–343. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03433.x

McCleery, R., Hostetler, J. A., & Oli, M. K. (2014). Better off in the wild? Evaluating a captive breeding and release program for the recovery of an endangered rodent. Biological Conservation, 169, 198–205. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.026