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

Some food for thought

This is a very interesting survey (deadline Dec 4th, 2011) and I would strongly encourage the readers of this blog to participate!

https://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9ZUOhPVGtTVEFiQ

Insanity in Zanesville

1 baboon, 2 wolves, 2 grizzly bears, 3 mountain lions, 6 black bears, 8 lionesses, 9 lions, 18 Bengal tigers. Indeed a rich count for an impressive menagerie. Unfortunately, all shot dead in Ohio.

For the benefit of those readers who may be unaware: Vietnam war veteran Terry Thompson committed suicide, possibly spurred on by piling debts and a disintegrating marriage. But before this act, he did something unexpected- he released his 55 'exotic' animals from their cages in his Muskingum County Animal Farm in Zanesville and opened the fences. The result was utter chaos, resulting in the police hunting and killing the 49 animals listed above. The surviving six animals (3 leopards, 2 celebes macaques, and a grizzly bear) are being quarantined at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium.

Google image 'Ohio animals' and you will find quite a many photos of the surreal carnage (which gave me nightmares for a long time). What struck me was how the animals were shot down dead by the police. Majority of the population seemed to justify this action. After all, the deputies didn’t have tranquilisers, it was close to nightfall, and it wasn’t exactly in a middle of nowhere location. But even the use of tranquiliser darts didn’t seem to have much effect- some animals were killed since they charged at them (after all, tranquilisers does take a while to act); others were killed since they might lose sight of the tranquilised animal which might revert to normalcy when the tranquiliser wears off. Yet, I would maintain that the death count could have been significantly lowered by using strong tranquilisers and/or by strategically disabling them. Is the trigger-happy nature so ingrained that the only solution was this carnage?

More disturbing is the fact that a sizeable number of animals were donated to Thompson by owners who found them difficult to manage as adults. And what is much more disturbing is the high incidence of such ‘exotic’ animal owners in the US.
And many are the other questions: whatever spurred Thompson to make such a reckless action? Was it to spite his neighbours and the authority? Or was it just to give them some freedom as his final act? If he was deep in debt, surely selling a few acres of his farm should have been a better option than suicide? And what did these animals do to deserve such a bloody fate?

A matter of the heart

Some years ago, I accompanied a young relative, a very eager science graduate working on particulate matter, as she conducted her research survey on public perception of particulate matter and its effects in a certain borough of London. Particulate matter (PM) is used to describe solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid phase. In the environment, particulates may occur naturally (as consequence of forest fires, volcanoes, dust storm, sea sprays etc) or via anthropogenic activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in automobile exhausts and other industrial processes. PM10 is used to describe particles of 10 micrometres or less. Unsurprisingly, densely populated metropolitan areas in developing countries are hot spots for PM. The exercise with my relative was an eye-opener, and also quite fun as we pounced on shoppers, city workers on lunch breaks, pedestrians in Central London etc., armed with our clip boards and ticking or crossing their responses. I enjoyed being the magician’s assistant….but that is another story.

All this came back to me as I read the recent article by Bhaskaran et al, of the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, who studied the effects of air pollution on the risk of heart attack- specifically whether alterations in pollution levels on an hourly timescale affects the short-term risk in urban settings of England and Wales, So what is the novelity in this study? The links between particular matter and heart and lung diseases is documented and there are several publications in these topics.In an earlier post in this site, David discussed a study where PM10 caused increase in blood pressure in traffic controllers in the metropolitan area of Sao Paolo. However, there is a wee difference in what this paper covered: This work considered the overall risk of heart attack in urban settings of England and Wales over very short time frames and it involved a large population size. In essence, this study looked at effects of very short-term exposure (which was not, previously possible due to technology limitations). In this mega-study of over 79000 individuals with a diagnosis of heart attack over three years from 15 cities( including Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton) the team looked at PM10 and other pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide over five short periods of up to 72 hours. For the analysis of their results they used statistical modelling approach for single pollutant and multiple pollutants where they adjusted for factors that could influence and otherwise confuse data including ambient temperature, humidity, virus in the atmosphere ( both that for flu and for other infections- respiratory syncytial virus). The researchers found that increase in PM10 levels & NO2 levels was associated increase in risk for heart attacks 1-6 hours post-exposure;.The source of PM10 & NO2 in urban areas is largely from automobile exhausts. Interestingly the increase in immediate risks was followed by reduction in risks at longer lags and therefore they found no net risk increase over 72 hour periods. They found a protective effect for increase in CO & ozone however; there was no change in overall risk over 72 hours leading the team to speculate that ischaemic events that would have occurred soon were advanced by a few hours. Most studies so far had shown the effects after years of chronic exposure and herein lies the difference of this study. A previous small study in Greater Boston with less than 1000 subjects showed an increased risk 1-3 hours after exposure of PM10. The risk was 11% which is higher than that observed in the current study. What do the results mean cumulatively? Remember this was a statistical exercise, though a worthy one. It would still be interesting to explore the physiological, cellular, & molecular basis of organ responses to short-term exposure to PM10 which will further our understanding. It might also be interesting to pursue questions such as, are there individuals of a particular genetic signature who might be prone to the effects of short-term exposure and low doses of PM more than others? the effect of age etc. Are similar trends seen in respiratory disorders? Does PM exposure compound the effects in vulnerable populations? All these questions remain.

But what does the study mean to the society as a whole and what can we do? The results in addition to the existing body of evidence should send warning bells to the world but emerging economies that are mushrooming urban sprawls. The recent UN summit highlighted the importance of non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular disease on the global health. With NCDS (CVDS and cancer) accounting to 36 million of global deaths in 2008 WHO stats, the UN draft resolutionon (dated 16 September 2011) submitted by the President of the General Assembly - political declaration of the high level meeting of the general assembly on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases -concedes the gravity of the situation and ‘recognizes that prevention must be the cornerstone of the global response to NCDS’ and identified several modifiable factors including diet and tobacco smoke that results in the rise of NCDS and called for ‘reducing their exposures’. These are valid and commendable. However, a glaring omission is the lack of mention of air pollutants contributing to NCDs. In the UN document, the closest air pollution is touched upon is with the reference to pollution from cooking stoves used for indoor cooking and heating. In essence, the enumerated risk factors do not include particulate matter from vehicles!!.

The results in this paper and the other background research cannot be ignored and should prompt usto push for measures for cutting down particulate matter emissions. Prevention is certainly a better option than treatment and cure as the UN draft declaration as well as common sense dictate. Importantly, prevention is something that is easy to achieve, but requires efforts starting from the individual to local to the global.

http://ecoratorio.blogspot.com/2011/08/stuck-in-traffic.html

http://www.ghd-net.org/negotiations/un-summit-non-communicable-diseases/official-documents

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/code-black/blog/regulating-killer-particulate-matter.html

Bhaskaran K, Hajat S, Armstrong B, Haines A, Herrett E, Wilkinson P, & Smeeth L (2011). The effects of hourly differences in air pollution on the risk of myocardial infarction: case crossover analysis of the MINAP database. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 343 PMID: 21933824