The newest fad

One of the British newspapers has been giving quite an airtime to the rising incidence of big game hunting. In particular (and recently), it kicked up quite a hornet’s nest upon claiming that big game hunting is the newest fad of the nouveau riche of the emerging economies. This gap in the ‘market’ was identified by Scott Lupien who promptly established a ‘hunting consultancy’ called ‘I Love Hunting Club’ in Beijing, providing opportunities for the well-heeled enthusiasts to hunt in all 5 continents. Supposedly, everything is legal, with necessary governmental permission. Clients are flown into the hunting grounds, given a fast-track training, and taken out on the field. Hunted animals include gazelle, zebra, moose, black bears, pumas, lions (USD 50,000 for male and USD 15 for female), rhinos (USD 100,000 and above), and apparently polar bears (USD 61500, including taxidermy and transportation to the home country).

Lupien has since responded to the Daily Mail article claiming that he hasn’t been on a polar bear hunt. But what did emerge was how the Canadian government has been ‘managing’ polar bear populations since 1973: annual quotas (approx. 500) are issued each year, mainly to the Inuit. By employing the Inuit as guides, these quotas are utilised by the trophy hunters. The Inuit also benefit economically since these well-heeled clientele set up their base camps in their villages and purchase ethnic clothing and memorabilia. Pro-trophy hunters claim that they are doing their part for the environment by hunting male polar bears which may kill young cubs, preserving the food chain, and so on. In the meantime, the backlash from the news story has resulted in cancellation of a hunting trip from China to Resolute, one of the northernmost Inuit communities. Which makes one wonder what is the truth?

News sources:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/03/09/north-chinese-polar-bear.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110722/Rich-Chinese-thrill-seekers-paying-50-000-trip-lifetime--kill-endangered-polar-bears.html#ixzz1onTPZOL9
Image source: Ron Chapple

In pursuit of a fox

"The English country gentleman galloping after a fox - the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."- Oscar Wilde in A Woman of No Importance.

An overcast Boxing Day in a quintessentially English village/town in South Gloucestershire. The place is typically peaceful, although not so that morning. In fact, it looked like a scene from John Constable’s paintings: an excited throng at the village centre; huntsmen and women on their powerful hunters and invigorated hounds prancing at the sound of the bugle; the bystanders cheering wildly with much fervour- setting off towards the rolling countryside is a typical fox hunt.

The fox hunt might sound strange to the non-British. It is commonly viewed as a traditional English sport, integral to a country life, complete with high expenses and pomp. Packs of trained hounds pick up the scent of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and chases it across the countryside (there being no geographical limitations), followed by riders on hunters. One can easily picture the damage caused by the galloping of horses on fences and hedges on the way and agricultural fields.

However, since fox hunting is technically banned in the UK via the Hunting Act 2004 (enforced since February 2005, much to the dismay of the supporters), the hounds now supposedly follow the trail of an artificial scent (an errant fox in their path is considered as an accident). Anti-hunt groups still maintain that fox hunting is rife- after all, no one can keep up with the chase (unless they masquerade as huntsmen) and some have boasted along the lines of getting around the law.

Hunt supporters view fox hunting (or any other seasonal hunting) as neither cruel nor wrong. The supporting arguments are many: an important rural English tradition, conservation, and purging nature by eliminating diseased/old/injured/young foxes. A study, which sits on the fence, states that in the event of a fox-hunting ban, there would be no detectable population increase as the number of foxes killed by hunting is relatively small. Furthermore, foxes (which are considered vermin- along with squirrels and rats) haven’t exactly been making themselves endearing- for instance, they indulge in an incomprehensible carnage in hen coops even though all they need is only one hen. As a control measure, hunting is presented as a humane option (when compared to poisoning/shooting/snaring- which entails greater suffering, with other animals as inopportune victims) - whilst the chase itself is said to take just under an hour, foxes are killed (supposedly instantaneously) after a chase averaging 17 minutes.

Opponents of the hunt (a list which includes luminaries such as Thomas More, Oliver Cromwell, and Dr Samuel Johnson) finds it nonsensical, cruel, and unnecessary- a sport which transforms the huntsmen into beasts, sans any semblance of human virtues. Fox-hunting has no significant reduction in the fox population and doesn’t provide any sustenance. The only gain (and for those so inclined) is obtaining pleasure from witnessing such unnecessary suffering. One criticism is that the sport is limited to and glorifies the lifestyle of the rarefied strata of society and supporters of a certain political party (admittedly, a glance at my acquaintances who keep hounds supports that statement).

So here it is- an exclusive sport, a mixture of violence and sentimentality for olden traditions, transporting one back into feudal times. Any thoughts?

References/Sources:
Newall, V. (1983). The Unspeakable in Pursuit of the Uneatable: Some Comments on Fox-Hunting Folklore, 94 (1), 86-90 DOI: 10.1080/0015587X.1983.9716259

FRANKLIN, A. (1996). On Fox-hunting and Angling: Norbert Elias and the 'Sportisation' Process Journal of Historical Sociology, 9 (4), 432-456 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6443.1996.tb00106.x

Gunn, A. (2001). ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND TROPHY HUNTING Ethics & the Environment, 6 (1), 68-95 DOI: 10.2979/ETE.2001.6.1.68

Baker PJ, Harris S, & Webbon CC (2002). Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers. Nature, 419 (6902) PMID: 12214224

Baker, PJ., Harris, S., Webbon, CC (2002). Response to Aebischer, NJ, Baker, SE, Johnson, PJ, Macdonald, DW, and Reynolds, JC. Nature, 423, pg. 400

Anderson, A. (2006). Spinning the Rural Agenda: The Countryside Alliance, Fox Hunting and Social Policy Social Policy and Administration, 40 (6), 722-738 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.00529.x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/8872182/Why-fox-hunting-is-more-popular-than-ever.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8977417/David-Cameron-to-ditch-foxhunting-U-turn.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/26/fox-hunting-ban-call-repeal

Marine mammals and their future

Marine mammals have borne the brunt of mankind’s unsustainable overexploitation, resulting in population decline and species extinction. Hunting for fur, blubber, and meat in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in the extinction of three species – the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis), Atlantic gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and the Steller’s sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas). The most recent extinction, due to its use in traditional medicine, was that of the Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer) in 2008, a dolphin endemic to the Yangtze River.

In this backdrop, the August 16th edition of PNAS featured an excellent research (it truly is wonderful to come across such), entitled ‘Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals’, by Sandra Pompa and Gerardo Ceballos (National Autonomous University of Mexico) and Paul Ehrlich (Stanford). The mammalian species considered in the study were 129 in total (123 marine and 6 freshwater species), grouped into the orders of Cetacea, Sirenia, and Carnivora (common examples being whales, dolphins, porpoises, otters, seals, and polar bears) .

Method
The researchers created geographic range maps for the 129 species and the map of the water bodies were split into grids of roughly 10,000 km2. They determined the number of species in each grid cell and calculated the total number of cells occupied by each species. Breeding, calving, and feeding grounds, and migratory routes were also factored in. The result was a composite global distribution map of water bodies, revealing locations of ‘global species richness, irreplaceable sites, endemism, and threatened species.'

Results
1. All species can be represented in 20 global key conservation sites that cover at least 10% of the species' geographic range. These sites were determined on the basis: number of species present (species richness), severity of the risk of extinction for each species, and whether the species was endemic to the area.

2. Preserving 9 of such sites (mostly in temperate latitudes located off the coasts of Baja California in Mexico, the Atlantic coast of North America, Peru, Argentina, north-western Africa, South Africa, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand) would protect the habitat of 83.72% (108/129) of marine mammal species (including 5 endemic species) since these have high species richness.

3. The remaining 11 sites (6 freshwater, 5 marine: areas around Hawaiian and Galapagos Islands, Kerguelen Islands in the southern Indian Ocean, San Felix and Juan Fernandez Islands off the coast of Chile, Mediterranean Sea, Lake Baikal in Siberia, Caspian Sea, and major rivers such as the Amazon, Ganges, Indus, and Yang-tze) were tagged ‘irreplaceable key conservation sites’ of great conservation value due to the presence of endemic species, which, consequently, face a greater risk of extinction.
Eg. Galapagos fur seal (A. galapagoensis) and the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus).

4. Strong correlation of marine mammal species richness with human impacts (Spearman rank correlation (rs = 0.693, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for climate disruption; rs = 0.666, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for pollution; and rs =0.678, n = 46,164, P < 0.01 for shipping). The existing deterioration of the marine ecosystems due to anthropogenic activities (and the potential for more deterioration not just at these sites but also elsewhere) was evidenced by around 70% percent of most impacted areas being within or near key conservation areas. Factoring in other impacts such as commercial fishing would result in stronger correlation (and perhaps also global climate change, habitat degradation, ocean acidification, exploitation of natural resources such as oil and gas, hunting, tourism, and plastics?)

5. 10% of all marine mammals were considered to be vulnerable, 11% endangered, and 3% critically endangered. The following vulnerable species were identified:

i. Vaquita (a porpoise species), endemic to the Gulf of Baja California, has the most restricted range. Its population has been declining rapidly and there are only 150-300 individuals in the wild (1/5 of the population are killed in gillnets each year).

ii. Sea lions such as the endemic Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) and the Galapagos sea lion (Zalophus wollebaeki), and the restricted range New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri).

iii. Seals such as the freshwater and endemic Baikal seal (Pusa sibirica), and the endemic Galapagos fur seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis) and Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi).

iv. Whales at the brink of extinction, such as North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), due to overharvesting, pollution, bycatch, and exhaustion of prey-species populations.

v. Dolphins such as the endemic New Zealand dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) and the restricted range Australian Snubfin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni).

Implications
This research could be a useful tool for environmental organisations and governments in identifying conservation areas and anthropogenic threats so as to protect endangered marine mammals and keep the oceans’ ecosystem functional. Mammals hold a lofty position in the food chain- consequently, their population dynamics would affect all other components of an ecosystem (and in human communities, by extension).


Pompa S, Ehrlich PR, & Ceballos G (2011). Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (33), 13600-5 PMID: 21808012



And the must read: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/07/27/1101525108.DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf


Image source: Apollo 17

Migratory bird species in the UK

I will always maintain that the loveliest spring and summer are experienced in England. Apart from the profusion of flowers and exceptionally pleasant weather, there was always a persistent backdrop of birdsong, regardless of whether I was in town or country, sidewalks or fens. This chorus now stands the danger of disappearing from the British Isles, as explained in the 2010 Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) report which lists the statistics of bird population from 1995 to 2010. But first the good news…

Good news:

- Two warbler species have reached their highest numbers in 15 years: Blackcap (+73%) and Whitethroat (+25%). The Whitethroat population had plummeted in 1969 due to the drought in Sahel (the arid zone south of Sahara where they spend winter), but have now risen probably due to increased rainfall in the region.

-Chiffchaff (+52%).

Bad news:
10 species have experienced a decline in population numbers between 1995 and 2010. Of these, 8 are annual migratory species which spend autumn and winter in sub-Saharan Africa and return to the UK in spring and summer for breeding (viz, turtle dove, cuckoo, nightingale, wood warbler, whinchat, yellow wagtail, pied flycatcher, and spotted flycatcher).

-Turtle dove: a decline of 74%, with 2009-2010 experiencing a slump of -21%.
-Nightingales: decline of -63%, with a -27% fall in the 2010 level from the 2009 levels. Now seen mainly in SE England.
-Wood warblers: -60%
-Whinchats: -55%
- Yellow wagtails: -55%
- Pied flycatcher: -51%
- Cuckoo: decline of -48%; Now more commonly sighted in Scotland than in England.
- Spotted flycatcher: -47%
The two non-migratory species which have shown a marked decline are:
- willow tit (-76%)
-grey partridge (-54%)

The trend is that relatively short-distance migrants (such as Blackcap and Chiffchaff which fly down to southern Spain and Northern Africa, without crossing Sahara) are doing better, whilst those that travel further (such as Turtle Dove, Cuckoo, and Nightingale) are showing a steady decline in population. The reasons are postulated to be habitat destruction (due to anthropogenic factors), desertification, hunting, and repercussions of climate change- but it is most likely to be a combination of many factors. Since the bird species’ migration corridor covers many regions/countries during the course of the year, the manifestation of any such factor anywhere could act as a leverage point.

* I apologise for any mistakes which might occur when one had taken a cocktail of medicines (am battling a wrist sprain, (another) bout of food poisoning, and an exceptionally torturous flu- all at the same time).

Image source: Scott Barrow/Corbis

Lead: Part 1

Having highlighted a recent paper on the presence of Lead in game, I have decided to commence a series of specialised ‘limelights’ on the effects of Lead bullets/pellets in humans as a result of game hunting. However, before I address my assignment, I shall first provide a succinct background on Lead’s toxicity.

Inception
For thousands of years, Lead has been widely extracted and used by mankind, mainly due to the availability of its many ores as well as its malleability. In fact, Lead used to be the second most used metal (after Iron).

Lead’s toxicity
Despite its many benefits, Lead’s detrimental effects of morbidity and mortality in humans and animals have been demonstrated by numerous studies. These vary from mild manifestations (such as fatigue, emotional irritability, and insomnia) to the fatal conclusion of death. Published studies have established the following:
- reduced somatic growth (Hauser et al, 2008)
- impaired motor function (Cecil et al, 2008)
- decreased brain volume (Cecil et al, 2008)
- permanent cognitive damage, attention and behavioural dysfunction/problems, impaired cognitive function (Needleman et al, 2002; Canfield et al, 2003; Lanphear et al, 2005; Braun et al, 2006; Schnaas et al, 2006; Cecil et al, 2008; Jusko et al, 2008; Wright et al, 2008)
- reproductive damage, including spontaneous abortion (Borja-Aburto et al, 1999)
- nephropathy (Ekong et al, 2006)
- cancer and cardiovascular disease (Lustberg and Silbergeld, 2002; Menke et al, 2006)
- and even criminal behavior (Needleman et al, 2002; Wright et al, 2008).

A great danger of Lead toxicity is that the symptoms may lag physiological changes, i.e. the affected individual may remain unaware of the danger (similar to the effect of cholesterol). Lead in the blood does not excrete and a major proportion sequesters in soft tissues and bone from where it may be switched on especially during pregnancy (Tellez-Rojo et al, 2004) or old age (Schwartz and Stewart, 2007).

Over the past 50 years, as a result of new studies revealing the toxic effects of Lead at lower levels, the benchmark levels have declined (60 μg/dL in 1960; 25 μg/dL in 1985; and, 10 μg/dL in 1991) (Needleman, 2004). And although the current CDC benchmark level is 10 μg/dL, the published studies indicate that it would be inane to consider even a trifling level of Lead exposure as being harmless (Bellinger and Bellinger, 2006)- for instance, Lanphear et al (2005) has associated maximal blood Lead levels lower than 7.5 μg/dL with permanent cognitive damage and intellectual deficits in children, whilst Menke et al (2006) associated 2 µg/dL as having increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in adults.

Foetuses, children, and pregnant women face the greatest risk (Schnaas et al, 2006; Iqbal et al, 2009).

References:

Borja-Aburto VH, Hertz-Picciotto I, Rojas Lopez M, Farias P, Rios C, & Blanco J (1999). Blood lead levels measured prospectively and risk of spontaneous abortion. American journal of epidemiology, 150 (6), 590-7 PMID: 10489998

Lustberg, M. (2002). Blood Lead Levels and Mortality Archives of Internal Medicine, 162 (21), 2443-2449 DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.21.2443

Needleman HL, McFarland C, Ness RB, Fienberg SE, & Tobin MJ (2002). Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents. A case control study. Neurotoxicology and teratology, 24 (6), 711-7 PMID: 12460653

Canfield, R., Henderson, C., Cory-Slechta, D., Cox, C., Jusko, T., & Lanphear, B. (2003). Intellectual Impairment in Children with Blood Lead Concentrations below 10 μg per Deciliter New England Journal of Medicine, 348 (16), 1517-1526 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022848

Needleman, H (2004). Lead poisoning Ann. Rev. Med (55), 209-222

Téllez-Rojo MM, Hernández-Avila M, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, Smith D, Hernández-Cadena L, Mercado A, Aro A, Schwartz J, & Hu H (2004). Impact of bone lead and bone resorption on plasma and whole blood lead levels during pregnancy. American journal of epidemiology, 160 (7), 668-78 PMID: 15383411

Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, Yolton K, Baghurst P, Bellinger DC, Canfield RL, Dietrich KN, Bornschein R, Greene T, Rothenberg SJ, Needleman HL, Schnaas L, Wasserman G, Graziano J, & Roberts R (2005). Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an international pooled analysis. Environmental health perspectives, 113 (7), 894-9 PMID: 16002379

Bellinger DC, & Bellinger AM (2006). Childhood lead poisoning: the torturous path from science to policy. The Journal of clinical investigation, 116 (4), 853-7 PMID: 16585952

Braun JM, Kahn RS, Froehlich T, Auinger P, & Lanphear BP (2006). Exposures to environmental toxicants and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children. Environmental health perspectives, 114 (12), 1904-9 PMID: 17185283

Ekong EB, Jaar BG, & Weaver VM (2006). Lead-related nephrotoxicity: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Kidney international, 70 (12), 2074-84 PMID: 17063179

Menke, A. (2006). Blood Lead Below 0.48 mol/L (10 g/dL) and Mortality Among US Adults Circulation, 114 (13), 1388-1394 DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.106.628321

Schnaas, L., Rothenberg, S., Flores, M., Martinez, S., Hernandez, C., Osorio, E., Velasco, S., & Perroni, E. (2005). Reduced Intellectual Development in Children with Prenatal Lead Exposure Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (5), 791-797 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8552

Schwartz, B., & Stewart, W. (2007). Lead and cognitive function in adults: A questions and answers approach to a review of the evidence for cause, treatment, and prevention International Review of Psychiatry, 19 (6), 671-692 DOI: 10.1080/09540260701797936

Cecil KM, Brubaker CJ, Adler CM, Dietrich KN, Altaye M, Egelhoff JC, Wessel S, Elangovan I, Hornung R, Jarvis K, & Lanphear BP (2008). Decreased brain volume in adults with childhood lead exposure. PLoS medicine, 5 (5) PMID: 18507499

Hauser, R., Sergeyev, O., Korrick, S., Lee, M., Revich, B., Gitin, E., Burns, J., & Williams, P. (2008). Association of Blood Lead Levels with Onset of Puberty in Russian Boys Environmental Health Perspectives, 116 (7), 976-980 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10516

Jusko TA, Henderson CR, Lanphear BP, Cory-Slechta DA, Parsons PJ, & Canfield RL (2008). Blood lead concentrations Environmental health perspectives, 116 (2), 243-8 PMID: 18288325

Wright JP, Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Hornung RW, Wessel SD, Lanphear BP, Ho M, & Rae MN (2008). Association of prenatal and childhood blood lead concentrations with criminal arrests in early adulthood. PLoS medicine, 5 (5) PMID: 18507497

Iqbal S, Blumenthal W, Kennedy C, Yip FY, Pickard S, Flanders WD, Loringer K, Kruger K, Caldwell KL, & Jean Brown M (2009). Hunting with lead: association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environmental research, 109 (8), 952-9 PMID: 19747676

Paper of the Week: Beware the Lead

Staunch supporters of game will find little to be pleased with the research published by Deborah Pain (of Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Gloucestershire) and colleagues, on Potential Hazard to Human Health from Exposure to Fragments of Lead Bullets and Shot in the Tissues of Game Animals in PLoS. The findings would also shock those who happily dig into the cooked game, seldom pondering about how much lead is ingested in the process.

Lead ammunition (pellets/bullets) is often used to shoot down game. To solve their research question, Pain and her colleagues bought wild-shot game birds (grouse, mallard, partridge, pheasant, pigeon, and woodcock) from supermarkets, game dealers, shoots, and butchers. After X-raying these to determine the number of shot and shot fragments present, these were cooked using typical recipes (in wine or cider or pH-neutral cream sauce). Mimicking the traditional game eating behaviour, the visible lead fragments were manually removed.

The lead concentrations in the remaining flesh were analysed. The results demonstrated that the game tissue is littered with small pieces of shot- most likely due to the ammunition disintegrating into smaller particles upon impact (and, in some cases, these fragments embed into the tissues even though the shot exits the body). Consequently, a higher level of consumption of some species may result in exceeding the current FAO/WHO’s weekly tolerable intake of lead. For instance, weekly consumption of three meals of woodcock and/or ten meals of grouse / partridge / pheasant would certainly take a 70 kilogram person over this threshold.

So does the consumption of game birds (shot with lead) pose a threat to humans? – The answer is very much an ‘yes’ although this depends on the amount of game consumed. As in most studies, the vulnerable population stands a good risk. And one mustn’t overlook the impact on the food chains/webs- fauna which consume these shot game birds are inevitably affected as well.


Pain DJ, Cromie RL, Newth J, Brown MJ, Crutcher E, Hardman P, Hurst L, Mateo R, Meharg AA, Moran AC, Raab A, Taggart MA, & Green RE (2010). Potential hazard to human health from exposure to fragments of lead bullets and shot in the tissues of game animals. PloS one, 5 (4) PMID: 20436670