Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Rhino Resource Center: Rhino Forums > Rhinos In Situ > Natural distribution > Should we help rhinos the way we do?

Posted by: Elmar44 Nov 23 2007, 01:41 AM

Hi All, First of all I'm not saying we shouldn't save rhinos, I'd just like to get your opinions on several topics I'd like to discuss: Throughout all conservation projects there seems to be one focus, conserving nature as we know it. Conserving ecosystems and species as they are since, in the first place, nature conservation became an issue, and also as literature and records tell us how and where species should live. But how can we be sure rhino (sub)species should live where they live now? How can we be sure rhinos fit in the habitat they live in right now? An example: The Javan Rhino can only be found on a small peninsula, Ujung Kulon, in a lush dense tropical rainforest. But, most records of hunters from when the Dutch first came to Indonesia tell of Javan Rhinos roaming the fields and sawa's. They seem to have preferred open spaces. There are even theories that Javan Rhino numbers increased once large area’s of Indonesia where deforested and made into open grassland. Couldn’t it simply be true that the Javan Rhino has been pushed into the peninsula, where poachers couldn't easily shoot or trap them anymore? And couldn’t it be true that they will never flourish in the Ujung Kulon rainforest because their habitat is actually the forest-grassland boundary? They do look similar to their Indian, grassland roaming, cousins after all. Are we doing the right thing by looking for ecosystems quite like Ujung Kulon for translocation purposes, or should we ship some to Kaziranga? Another issue could be the Northern White. I know it’s sad to loose a subspecies, but why don’t we look at it as loosing just another small population. After all man defined subspecies and maybe caused the isolation of the two subspecies. Is it really nature we are trying to save or are we just scared of changing our taxonomic records? Is it really that much of a problem that a group of animals dies, while the other group is actually flourishing? Also, are rhinos really meant to last? They are one of the last living Perissodactyla, a group of mammals that arose and spread out to occupy several continents in quite a short time, but then slowly decreased in numbers once Artiodactyla became more adapt to the ever changing world. I know rhinos are diminishing rather fast, but wouldn’t they have perished in a rather short time anyway if we wouldn’t have been here? Anyway, I hope I haven’t stepped on too many toes and that this leads to a healthy discussion! Looking forward to your reactions.

Posted by: Duncan Dec 5 2007, 01:28 PM

Just responding to your last question, and given that the most recent demise of rhino is directly and unequivocally attributed to unscrupulous human activity, and that the palaeontology of rhino go back so far, are we in fact qualified to ask the question about their future survival? Surely we are being hypocritical if we question the logic of the survival of a species, when it is in fact humans who are currently the greatest challenge to their survival? Would the Dodo, Tasmania Wolf and more recently Yangtze Dolphin, have died out in the absence of humans? We don't know, but certainly our actions pushed them over the edge. How many species will humans drive to extinction before we become extinct ourselves? Climate change appears to be our most recent concerted effort to self-destruct. If I were a critically endangered species participating in an online forum, I would be asking the question "When can we expect humans to become extinct?"

Posted by: Elmar44 Dec 15 2007, 03:44 AM

Interesting question: When will humans become extinct? Although we are doing the most we can to demolish our environment and are consuming the resources we need to survive, we are the only species that ever lived that knows about our situation. And may in fact, act appropriate when time 'really' comes. Although my last question is probably the easiest to answer in a fashion appreciated by all (no offence Duncan, and thanks for the great reply) I would really like to hear your opinions about the Javan Rhinos whom have had a habitat appointed to them that may not be the one suitable for them. Currently the WWF has been assessing a small national park in western Java for their translocation (off which the name I have forgot), but habitat and even soil type are the same as in Ujung Kulon, which may not even be the suitable habitat. Are the people that are trying to save this species looking in the right direction?

Posted by: irek Dec 15 2007, 04:38 PM

I'd like to write something about northern white rhinos. I thing loosing any subspecies we loose unique genes responsible for accomodation to conditions in place of their origin. We loose immunity fof local diseases. So with no doubt I can't say "nothing happened" when northern white subspecies is almost dead. Additionaly I am emotionaly related with them as a keeper of most of live speciments. Talking about javan rhinos. I've read somevhere that last speciments of przewalski horses lived in desert, not because they wanted, because they had to. It was cause of human presure and lose of their normal habitat. So maybe You are right.

Posted by: Duncan Dec 17 2007, 11:37 AM

I take your point. However I feel that we are moving towards a position where we just have to select the best that is available given a set of variables. I do not know much about the Javan situation (I work with black rhino in Zimbabwe), so cannot comment directly. At the end of the day, we (humans) do seem to be putting animals into 'boxes' of various sizes from Transfrontier Conservation Areas to Zoo pens, and there are justifications across the spectrum (from large landscape and community participation in conservation all the way through to breeding and education). Sometimes the box that we have selected for a particular animal or indeed species might not be a 'perfect fit', but it might be the only box currently available (another box might become available at a later stage). Using the same analogy, a rhino box becomes a little more complex because of the poaching variable. In the equation of success, we need to make sure that the poaching variable does not have such a negative impact on the outcome so that the equation ends up with a negative (trend). Habitat is another variable that needs to be considered, but when it is shown that rhino can breed in captivity, then possibly the habitat variable begins to loose some of its strength in the equation. If it can be shown that habitat has a greater effect on the equation than poaching, then we need to acknowledge this and accept the consequences. These are only two (poaching and habitat) of what I am sure are a multitude of variables in the equation that leads us to conserving rhino. Successful rhino conservation = +/- habitat (box) - poaching + protection + education + outreach + ... + ... - ... etc. On the flip side of the coin, it is large herbivores like rhino and elephant that are then used as flagship species to protect habitats and all the less charismatic species that depend on that habitat. Just looking at your original email again, we can also assume that in years gone by when there were certainly more rhino than there are now, it might be expected that the javan rhino also existed in the forest area, exploiting a niche (albeit less than ideal) on the edge of the expected habitat. I just do not know enough about the distribution of javan rhino, but any species will be pushed into marginal areas as the population expands. In the case of the javan rhino, it might be that these marginal areas now carry a greater weight in the survival equation.

Posted by: Tom Jan 2 2008, 06:19 PM

Hi Duncan, hi everyone, - concerning the Javan rhino: I didn't know this before, but I found this on the IRF website: "Javan rhinos appear to be more adaptable feeders than other rhino species: in the tropical rainforest where the species now survives, it is a pure browser, but it possibly was a mixed feeder (both browse and grass) in other parts of its historic range where the species is generally believed to have occupied more lowland areas, especially along watercourses." So maybe you are right. Scientists believe numbers in Ujong Kulon are not really recovering for two reasons: a human-introduces agressive vine that shades out critical rhino food plants and food competition with banteng deer that eat the same plants as the Javan rhinos. But what to do? Relocate some rhinos to mixed grassland/river/forest areas where they will be easy targets for poachers or safeguard the existing rhino population in Ujong Kulon where habitat may not be ideal but they remain safely hidden in the dense forest? As long as the poaching threat remains it seems almost impossible to relocate them to open areas, especially while there are so few (between 40 - 60) of them left in the whole world with no captive population? And taking even a few animals from the wild population may cause the extinction in the wild. And knowing that rhinos are notoriously difficult breeders in captivity, even a captive population wouldn't guarantee a population increase. It may even accelerate extinction. It's a precarious situation for our Javan rhino friends... - concerning the northern whites: they are considered a subspecies on a genetical basis. So that must mean that, at least genetically, they are different from their southern cousins in such a way that they would be worth the term 'subspecies'. With those slightly different genes they adapted to a habitat and climate that is different in some ways and are evolving on another evolutionary path than their southern cousins. So even for me, just technically, it is worth trying everything to save them from extinction. Because if they die out, the world has lost something that can't be replaced, not even by the southern whites, how similar they appear to be. They belong in their northern habitat. And I didn't even mention the most important argument for trying to rescue them. It's a moral one: man has to try to make amends for his mistakes. Because if it wasn't for men, there would be tens of thousands northern whites roaming the plains of central africa. - concerning the issue of rhinos dying out even without the interference of men: I really think this is a non-issue. The staggering decline in rhino species last century has only one reason: man! From tens of thousands of animals at the beginning of the 20th century to a couple of hundred at the end of that century. This is to be solely attributed to human persecution, habitat destruction and even human-induced climate change. Sure, like all animal species, rhinos would go extinct eventually or be replaced by other species. But that is a timeframe of millions of years, not one century! Even the way the southern whites rebounded in numbers from one hundred to more than 11.000 in a couple of decades, just because of adequate protection against humans, proves to me that it is not their 'natural time' yet to go. Greetings and to everyone a happy newyear and best wishes, Tom

Posted by: Elmar44 Jan 10 2008, 01:44 AM

True, Protecting Rhinos is a moral issue and it's not our right, as humans, to decide weather or not a species should survive. But, as I see it now, most species that have been saved from the brink of extinction have been saved by either good marketing strategies or by strong genetic traits. Panda Bears eat bamboo, a plant containing little nutrients; not a good thing to do, especially considering Panda Bears are originally carnivors. On top of that they only have young every four years. Although still endangered this species is coming back. I believe this is not because the are so good in surviving but more because the WWF has decided to use them as their logo and thus making them a key-species to protect, whatever it takes. White Rhinos (Southern) have been protected just as much as Black Rhinos but seem to have recovered faster. Might this be because they can cope with changes and different habitats easier? Due to the commercialisation of wild-life protection it seems as if the species with the pretty face are the most succesfull. Isn't this unmoral aswell? I know that by protecting some, easier marketable 'flag species' we can save others, but who are we to decide what species we protect? (Almost the same question as: Who are we to decide which species we can kill or hunt.) I'm liking this discussion, and am thrilled to hear your views.

Posted by: Tom Jan 19 2008, 10:59 AM

Yes it is certainly true that good marketing is a key factor in conservation these days. WWF for example handles the 'flagship species' approach to conservation a lot: they really focus on the bigger and 'cuter', more marketable species like rhinos, tigers, polar bears, sea turtles, whales, giant panda, gorillas,... I see a lot of benefits from this approach though cause the species selected are 'attractive' species that rely on a solid ecosystem and a large intact habitat to survive. Protecting them automatically means protecting their habitat with all other food and prey species in it. Furthermore conservation relies greatly on local community awareness and support and this is easier accomplished marketing the bigger, more attractive species. But the other animals, like all kinds of less obvious critters, in their habitat benefit from the protection of their habitat and ecosystem as well as they usually are necessary for the flagship species to survive. So even if it seems a bit immoral that the bigger animals get all the attention, I see a lot of benefits from this approach. But on the other hand we are losing species at an appauling rate that the public never even heard of or knew they existed. That's a sad but true fact. If a large, well-known animal like for instance the baiji goes extinct, it's all over the news and the internet. But if some kind of rare snail goes extinct, no-one knows and I expect not a lot of people really care. As for the adaptability of black vs white rhinos: I don't really know if whites are more adaptable than blacks. It could be that whites, since they are grazers, have fewer habitat requirements than the blacks, which are browsers. But I really don't know. I'm justing thinking out loud. On the other hand, for the most of the last century, blacks were the most numerous species until they became the prime target for poachers. And even now, whites are so numerous because over 90% of them lives in South Africa, a country wich achieved a phenomenal conservation success with the white rhino. But the blacks are doing well there too and are on the rise. It's true though that it seems that whites can recover more quickly than blacks. I don't know however if this has to do with their biology or their adaptability. Does anyone have ideas about this?

Posted by: DZiegler Jan 19 2008, 03:36 PM

To comment on your post...historically the reduction in rhinoceros populations is not a natural phenomena, but entirely linked to predation by humankind. Following your logic are all large mammals destined to extinction? For those of us that support (financially and otherwise) rhinoceros conservation projects and programs in captivity or in the wild there is a tacit belief that these animals have a right to exist on this planet. When I look at the recently posted picture of the slain sumatran rhinoceros I can only think of what possible pleasure can humankind derive from the slaughter of creatures that are in fact competely defenseless from the impacts of modern weaponry. Remembering an appropriate statement from the 'Lord of the Rings' 'we (as responsible adults) must decide what to do (with our lives) in the time we are given'. The world wildlife conservation movement in general is an attempt to preserve portions of the planet (and their inhabitants)before humans destroy them forever. One only needs to read the paper, watch the news, or look around where you live everyday to become aware of the state of the planet and its inhabitants. As I approach retirement I have made a real committment to rhinoceros conservation. I can't think of more worthy objects of my financial support. So, for me the answer is yes I will help rhinos and no I will not support their hunting or poaching.

Posted by: Elmar44 Jan 20 2008, 09:42 PM

Tom, DZiegler, Thanks for you replies and views on the subject I'm actually glad nobody took on my point of view as I too would like my grand childeren to be able to see rhinos in the wild rather than in books. And my grand childeren would probably just turn the page if they see that snail your talking about, Tom. Although it is a pitty they are vanishing. But if a gorilla, panda or rhino makes the public spend more money, I guess that's the way to go. DZiegler, may I ask what rhino species you have dedicated your life to, and what projects you were (and are) involved with?

Posted by: Willem Jan 20 2008, 09:46 PM

Nice discussion here. Indeed, DZiegler, what projects were you involved with. Nice to see more professionals joining the forums.

Posted by: Duncan Jan 22 2008, 12:03 PM

Unnatural Selection "Nature conservation is a cultural project, and however it's dressed up the killing is done for cultural ends. If we are being persuaded to protect the nature we like from the nature we don't, we'd better have more of an open public debate about it than we do at present, and a thorough investigation into the attitudes, prejudices and values that are being bandied about" Guardian Weekly August 30 1998 I thought that this statement was very interesting and quite thought provoking, especially in light of this discussion thread. Given that we have decided to protect rhinos (for very legitimate reasons) and picking up from the previous iconic topic, how do we make rhinos "cute and cuddly"? (Opposed to being labelled as a relic from the past!) Moving on to the main threat to rhino in-situ... One of the greatest threats to rhino survival is obviously poaching for the horn. There are many 'actors' in the 'activity' of rhino conservation. For example; Conservation Organisations, Funding Organisations, Poachers, Poacher Market, Surrounding Community, National Parks Authority, Veterinarians, Tourists, Law Enforcement to name a few. All the 'actors' have a 'role', some positive e.g. Conservation Organisation, some negative e.g. Poacher and some passive e.g. Tourist. For some of these 'actors' the 'role' does not change, Conservationists will always conserve and there will always be an illegal market. What about the 'role' of the Surrounding Community. This 'actor' can shift from negative (assisting poachers), through passive (don't care) to positive (have an interest in participating). This is one of the few 'actors' that can actually shift 'roles'. Possibly one of the greatest challenges is to ensure that the surrounding community is an 'actor' with a positive 'role'. Outreach and education are two tools with which to influence these 'actors', but if the livelihood of these actors is so low, then money might talk louder than education. How can we convince a rural community with a very poor livelihood that saving rhino is a good thing, with out using a financial incentive? What is our justification, what can we promise to the community when the animal in question does not provide any obvious or material benefit to a rural subsistence farmer? Most 'actors' have a predictable 'role' that does not change. I think that the 'role' of the surrounding community is an area that is sometimes overlooked, especially given its ability to change.

Posted by: DZiegler Jan 26 2008, 04:55 PM

Thanks to all for you comments and honest discussion. Current literature probably would support most asian sp. being generally adaptable to most available habitats as long as preferred food plants and water sources are present. I have financially supported indian rhinoceros relocations in nepal although I am concerned about the political situation there and about increases in indian rhinoceros poaching in general. I believe the solution to this problem must be intense, broad based, creative, multi faceted and benefit local people. At the present, this situation appears reversable but impacts must not be minimized and responses weak. I also believe NGO's must pool their resources and purchase natural areas as eco systems for protection and preservation of their inhabitants. I would like to see more of this especially in asia. I am particularly concerned about the northern white rhinos. From the media's view the conservation movement is 'behind the curve' on this crisis. I applaud European efforts at AI. However, I would support the purchase and removal of all remaining specimens from Garamba. At some point I would even support cloning. I believe we need more effort in this area. Governments and NGO's need to do more to provide investment vehicles to local people to buy into all aspects of the conservation movement. In the long run natural areas and their inhabitants have more worth being intact than being developed. If private investors establish private reserves to the exclusion of locals that could be counter productive. As usual there are no easy answers here and a lot of what people do is a matter of personal value and committment. Local people can be partners in this process. The degree of their involvement seems to be the issue and must not be overlooked. I support the progress IRF has shown recently particularly with this develpment of this website as a communication vehicle. I frequent the websites of many of the other rhino conservation and keeper organizations worldwide. People worldwide are committed to rhinoceros conservation. As I approach retirement this is one train I don't want to miss.

Posted by: hodilu Aug 8 2008, 05:34 PM

Hi Elmar44, looking at paleontology you may be right. A lot of rhino-species are extinct now without any human interference: Baluchitherium parvum, Brontotherium platyceras, Uintatherium mirabile, Arsinoitherium zitelli to name a few. As it took millions of years until they vanished from our planet, I am afraid that the rapid decline of the remaining species has nothing to do with a natural (evolutionary) process. I agree with Tom and others, that above all man is driving the rhinoceros to the brink of extinction, which was already an educated guess in the 1934 edition of "Brehms Tierleben" (small edition,volume 4, Die Säugetiere, Bibliographisches Institut AG Leipzig). There great concern about the unscrupulous hunting of rhino was expressed. In particular the impending extinction of Rhinoceros unicornis was predicted. Fortunately the Great One-horned Indian Rhinoceros survived due to strong preservation activities in Nepal and India. Concerning the habitat of the Javan Rhino I doubt, that the species do not flourish in Ujung Kulon N.P. because of lack of open grassland. Due to the report of the IUCN Asian Rhino Specialist Group (IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 1997 - ISBN 2-8317-0336-0) the population of Javan Rhinoceros increased from about 25 animals in 1964 to an estimated 54 - 60 animals in 1984 (they flourished in those day despite the asssumption of missing grassland). This seems to be a stable number of animals since then (see IRF). While human-introduced aggressive vine, that shades out critical food plants and food competition with Java Banteng (see Tom, Jan 2nd 2008) may play a roll, I do not believe that it's the wrong environment that prevents the rhino-population from growing (limited open space and grassland is provided even in Ujung Kulon), but it's the limited space of that area as such. I suppose, that Ujung Kulon N.P. is too small to carry more than 60 individuals, and that there is an kind of natural (instinctive) rhino-birth-control (not only depending on food resources) , as it is known from other animals as well. The rhino-population of Ujung Kulon N.P. flourished until 1984 and then did not grow anymore (and was not reduced either) because to keep a certain natural balance as guarantee for the suvival of the species. - As 60 individuals restricted to only one area (apart from the few animals in Vietnam) cannot suvive in the long run, it seems essential to me to establish other populations in the wild, as proposed by the IUNC ARSG and has been successfully executed in Nepal, Assam and West Bengal (I know that's more difficult in Indonesia).

Posted by: Grem May 25 2011, 03:02 AM

Wow, deep stuff . If we do choose to protect rhinos, which we are doing now, will they ever be able to leave the protection of National Parks and fend for themselves, so to speak. Although rhinos in Parks or Reserves are in-situ, they don't have a 100% natural environment. If there was zero human intervention (A fantasy at least) would there be a different outcome from today . I wish that these creatures remain on Earth, but I don't want them to be heavily patrolled and constantly on the brink. I also feel that if actions with good intent impair the rhino in the sense of habitat or maybe even privacy (I wouldn't want to be poked and prodded and darted and data collected on) then maybe it should be looked at a different perspective. Maybe I am crazy , but I don't know.