Feral Monkeys on Mauritius

[Guest guest]

*Dear Mr Clifton,*

* This is a very important issue and I would like

to present my thoughts as someone who has had some experience on how feral

animals are treated. The principal overseas coordinator for conservation

programmes in Mauritius is the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust of which

I have been a member since 1991 and a trainee in 1999. I also took part in a

model PHVA(Population and Habitat Viability Analysis) exercise on Jersey

where the Mauritius monkey issue was discussed and one of the suggestions

made by a group suggested that they should be sent abroad for experiments.

Durrell's principal focus is the same as Mr Clifton has written about, they

believe in feral animal elimination. When I joined Durrell Wildlife

Conservation Trust I did not fully appreciate the gravity of the feral

animal issue but now that I do, I am in two minds. I certainly do not

approve of monkeys being sent for experiments from Mauritius but I also

recognise that the monkeys are a threat to the native birds like the Echo

Parakeet and Pink Pigeon amongst others. A potent example of feral animal

control is Round Island near Mauritius, an island that is home to several

endangered species of reptiles and was colonised by introduced rabbits and

goats. The island was cleared of all rabbits and goats which were killed by

the conservation groups that were trying to save the reptile species from

extinction. Gerald Durrell wrote about it in his book 'The Ark's

Anniversary' and it is thought to be the crowning achievement of the Durrell

Wildlife Conservation Trust. I have several questions on the situation in

Mauritius and would be glad if they could be discussed here:*

*1) Do animal rights activists and animal welfarists accept the contention

that feral animals can be a threat to indigenous animals, especially on

islands? If yes, why yes? If not, why not?*

*2) If feral animals on islands constitute a threat to indigenous animals,

is it acceptable to control them? By control I mean capture and

translocation.*

*3) Is it acceptable in animal rights and animal welfare principles to

kill some individuals of a thriving species to help the existence of an

endangered species? If yes, why yes? If not, why not? If yes, who decides on

the value assigned to the respective species, common and endangered? Can

there be a situation where the interests of survival of two species are

directly in competition?*

*4) In the current scenario in Mauritius how does one look at the

situation involving the monkeys? If the birds like the Mauritius Kestrel,

Echo Parakeet and Pink Pigeon are threatened by monkeys who are killing them

and destroying their nests, can one argue that monkeys as mammals are higher

up in the evolutionary ladder and deserve more attention than birds? The

same argument could be used for leaving the rabbits and goats alone on Round

Island in a hypothetical situation. Do rabbits and goats as mammals deserve

more attention than reptiles? How does one assign which species to save and

which to let go?*

*5) Is there any other way of controlling the Mauritius monkeys apart from

sending them for experiments abroad? Can contraceptives be used for monkeys

in Mauritius? *

*6) Mauritius, to my knowledge has introduced birds like the Red Whiskered

Bulbuls. Is it all right to let them prosper if they constitute a threat to

native birds in terms of usage of nesting space and food?*

* I do not pretend to know the answer to these questions and consider them

worthy of exploration since I believe they are not rhetorical ones but very

much in the here and now. The feral animal question in my opinion is one of

the toughest challenges posed to animal rights, welfare and conservation. I

am being honest on this but would be glad if some AAPN members shed some

light and exchanged their views on this platform. The feral animal issue

has made me somewhat uneasy about my long term association with the Durrell

Wildlife Conservation Trust since I am uncomfortable with culling and

sending animals for experimentation in any situation. But I also do not know

what the alternative is in Mauritius so am soliciting your views. I also

recognise that introduced plants can displace native plants and wonder if

plant species like lantana and eucalyptus should be weeded out where they

have been introduced. There are such programmes in India.*

* I look forward to receiving your input on this. Many thanks for writing

about it.*

* Warm regards,*

**

* Sincerely yours,*

* *

 

 

On 10/26/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

>

> From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:

>

> Conservationists give cover for Mauritian monkey sales to labs

>

> PORT LEWIS, KUALA LUMPUR, HANOI--Nearly 500 years after

> Dutch sailors are believed to imported the first macaques to

> Mauritius, claims of a need to control them as an alleged invasive

> species have become a front line of defense for the booming Mauritian

> macaque export industry-- which captures some macaques from the wild,

> but breeds them in captivity to comply with U.S. and international

> laws that prohibit or restrict the use of wild-caught animals in labs.

> Six Mauritian companies export macaques. The largest may be

> Noveprim, founded in 1980. " Monkeys are not indigenous to

> Mauritius, " emphasized Noveprim chief executive Gerald de Senneville

> in an October 2007 interview by Nasseem Ackbarally of the Inter Press

> Service, based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

> Ackbarally found quick agreement from Mauritian Wildlife

> Foundation executive director Jacques Julienne and conservation

> manager Vikash Tattayah.

> " The monkeys are a nuisance from a conservation point of

> view, " said Julienne. " They eat birds' eggs, kill small and adult

> birds alike, and attack indigenous plants. "

> Added Tattayah, " Endangered species like the pink pigeon,

> the echo parakeet and even the Mauritian kestrel are regular monkey

> victims. Their impact on our forests is disastrous. "

> The Mauritian Nat-ional Parks & Conservation Fund collects an

> export tax of $70 per monkey.

> The conservation argument, if globally persuasive, could

> buy Mauritius and other island nations that export non-native monkeys

> a political edge in competition with nations that sell native monkey

> species to labs.

> The conservation argument joins the older argument for

> macaque export as pest control, voiced to Ackbarally by Mauritius

> Agricultural Marketing Cooperat-ive Federation chief Tunaz Rampall.

> Macaques " eat around 20% of our production, thieves take 10% and 15%

> are destroyed by insects and vermin, " Rampall said.

> But both the conservation and pest control arguments are

> undercut by the modus operandi of the monkey exporters.

> " Breeding monkeys are captured between Septem-ber and

> December, when food is rare in the wild, " wrote Ackbarally. " The

> captured animals are checked for diseases such as tuberculosis. If

> found fit for breeding, they are kept in quarantine. Eight to twelve

> months later, they give birth. Two years later, the small monkeys

> are quarantined, checked for diseases and then exported. "

> The captures leave more food for the macaques who escape

> capture, who then are able to birth and raise more young the next

> year. Rather than lastingly reducing the population, the captures

> amount to " sustainable yield " cropping.

> Mauritius exports about 10,000 monkeys from the island to the

> U.S., Britain, and Japan, generating foreign exchange revenue of

> more than $20 million a year, Mauritian agro-industry minister Arvin

> Boolell told Ackbarally.

> His report came as protest rose in Malaysia over the June

> 2007 declaration of national resources and environment minister Seri

> Azmi Khalid that his office had relaxed a 23-year-old ban on

> exporting long-tailed macaques, specifically to supply laboratories

> and Chinese live markets. Khalid claimed that the macaques to be

> exported would be captured from the urban population of about

> 258,000, rather than the wild population of about 484,000.

> " These poor primates will be destined for the cooking pot and

> be subjected to horrendous suffering in laboratories, " objected vice

> chair M. Kula Segaran of the opposition Democratic Action Party, in

> a statement to Agence France-Presse.

> " Segaran said that Azmi should make clear who would profit

> financially from the export of macaques, and say whether it had

> considered sterilization or humane culling " to reduce the macaque

> population, AFP reported.

> The Malaysian Animal Rights & Welfare Society on October 19,

> 2007 asked the national Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate Khalid

> and former Department of Wildlife & National Parks director general

> Musa Nordin.

> " In July, the Animal Rights & Welfare Society submitted a

> memorandum to Khalid demanding the reinstatement of the ban and a

> halt on all pending macaque shipments, " reported Bede Hong of the

> online political news web site Malaysiakini. " They also lodged a

> police report against Azmi and ministry officials for [allegedly]

> violating the 1972 Protection of Wildlife Act. The police forwarded

> the case to the ACA last month, saying it has elements of abuse of

> power. "

> Musa Nordin admitted to the Malaysia Star in September 2007

> that he is " indirectly involved " in the monkey traffic.

> " We have information that the decision to export the monkeys

> was made when Musa Nordin was still the director general [of Wildlife

> & National Parks], " alleged Animal Rights & Welfare Society chair N.

> Surendran. " We have information that there is a connection with the

> company. He has close contacts with the Department of Wildlife.

> Clearly there was some hanky panky going on there with elements of

> corruption, " Surendran told Malaysiakini.

> Circumstantial evidence suggests that many of the wild-caught

> macaques who are supposedly sold to China to be eaten are instead

> becoming breeders or being sold to labs as allegedly captive bred.

> Of note are that relatively few monkeys are seen in live

> markets, as the Chinese government has moved since the Sudden Acute

> Respiratory Syndrome outbreaks of 2002-2003 to suppress commerce in

> wild-caught mammals, while some laboratory monkey exporting

> companies have grown much more rapidly than the birth rates of their

> monkey troupes appear to account for.

> An instance of suspect trafficking was intercepted in

> northern Vietnam on September 17, 2007. Police in Quang Ninh

> province confiscated 91 longtailed macaques from a truck heading

> toward the Chinese border, police spokesperson Cao Manh Hai told

> Associated Press.

> " Sixteen of the animals were dead and the rest were very weak

> when the police found them, " Associated Press reported.

> Cao Manh Hai said the surviving macaques were being looked

> after at a local conservation center.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>*1) Do animal rights activists and animal welfarists accept the

>contention that feral animals can be a threat to indigenous animals,

>especially on islands? If yes, why yes? If not, why not?*

 

 

Normally the animals indigenous to a given habitat have a

huge survival advantage over an other animal who might arrive there,

having evolved under entirely different conditions.

 

However, over time, environments change--sometimes slowly,

sometimes abruptly, as result of storms, volcanic eruptions, or

human activity. Then the habitat may become more hospitable to a

supposedly " non-native " species.

 

What nativists typically overlook at this point is that the

habitat is no longer truly the " native " habitat for species who

evolved under former conditions. It may be the same patch of real

estate, but if the weather, water availability, food availability,

cover availability, and challenges from other species are all

different, the fact of it being the same real estate is misleading.

 

The " native " species can then only survive by adapting

successfully to the new circumstances, including the challenges from

new arrivals.

 

Usually what actually happens--except on very limited island

habitats--is that the species establish a different population

balance. Usually the " native " species continues to hold the niche

that most resembles the habitat in which it evolved, and the

newcomer species take the parts of the habitat that are most

transformed.

 

On small islands, the usual tendencies tend to be

exaggerated, and the effects tend to be more extreme.

 

 

>*2) If feral animals on islands constitute a threat to indigenous

>animals, is it acceptable to control them? By control I mean

>capture and translocation.*

 

Regardless of anyone's philosophical and aesthetic beliefs,

" control " is basically damned foolishness, because even if X species

is " controlled " now, " Y " species will equally challenge the

threatened indigenous species later, with the same effect.

 

Longterm survival requires that the evolutionary process take

place. Trying to " protect " species by eliminating challenges is like

the effort the Buddha's parents made to protect him from knowledge of

unhappiness--unlikely to succeed, and virtually certain to have a

very unexpected outcome, but much less likely to have a positive

ending.

 

 

>*4) In the current scenario in Mauritius how does one look at the

>situation involving the monkeys?

 

The birds survived alongside the monkeys for 500 years. The

effects of the monkeys' presence only came to be blamed for the

decline of the birds after humans had done many other things to

transform and limit the Mauritian forest habitat, which affected the

less adaptable bird species much more than the more flexible monkeys.

 

Incidentally, the whole concept of " restoration ecology " is

fundamentally and fatally flawed, because it originates out of the

pre-Darwinian notion of a perfect steady-state universe.

 

What " restoration ecologists " try to do, basically, is

repeal the process of evolution to create living museums of earlier

epochs.

 

This is literally ordering the winds and the waves to cease

working, even if human effects could be removed entirely from the

scene, which really cannot be done no matter how vigorously one

tries to exterminate one's way to recreating Eden.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]