‘Bulldozers more dangerous than hunters’

Shereen Ali

Published: 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

All kinds of T&T animals are hunted, trapped or poached, and sold either dead for food or alive as pets—iguanas, agouti, oilbirds, songbirds, parrots, armadillos, Scarlet Ibis and even our Howler monkeys have all been victims of an unregulated hunting system, as well as an illegal wildlife trade. Here, an unidentified man sells iguana two days after the start of the 2015-2016 hunting season along the Eastern Main Road, Damarie Hill, last October. PHOTO: ABRAHAM DIAZ

Q: What is the main problem facing animal biodiversity in T&T?
A: The number one threat is loss of habitat. Poaching and overhunting are important issues but those can be reversed through proper management and enforcement, provided that ecosystems are left intact. If we destroy the forest, drain the wetlands and develop the beaches then there is nowhere left for animals to live. 

We see a trend of people moving to “the country” where they can buy cheap land and live among greenery. Before you know it, the bulldozers are called in, the trees razed, the hills flattened and what was once an ecosystem is now somebody’s lawn. Nearly everything that lived there before will have died. 

A bulldozer is a far more dangerous than a hunter. Our wetlands are under constant threat from development and agriculture. Successive governments have encouraged squatting which often means squatting in Forest Reserves and other protected areas. 

The PP gave the environment a parting shot when all squatters were given tenancy rights in a votes-for-land deal. Unless proven otherwise, I do not expect the present lot to do any different. 

This is part of T&T’s political culture in which the environment is placed last. “T&T has too much bush and too many mosquitoes”—this is how the illiterati think. This is how at Maracas Beach the wetland is filled in on one side for a car park and on the other side squatters are draining the wetland for agriculture, and there is no outcry from the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader.

Maybe the real threat is apathy? Caroni Swamp is encroached upon on all sides. A part of the Caroni Swamp Ramsar site was even bulldozed by a developer who made a “mistake” but no action was ever taken.

Bush fires cause habitat loss too. Slash and burn agriculture to clear a garden for sweet potatoes or ganja gets out of hand easily, and with the stroke of a match, hundreds of acres can be destroyed. After a rainy season, green grass will cover the hills, so from a distance the hills look lush, but the forest will take decades or centuries to recover.

Loss of habitat is not always the obvious: the prolific streetlights that radiate light where it is not wanted and not needed can make areas unlivable for both nocturnal animals and animals that have the bad luck to nest where it is too light for them to sleep.

Has the Wildlife Division had much success in protecting our biodiversity? Why or why not?
No. The major problem is lack of enforcement officers and the lack of a scientifically-managed hunt with quotas. There are only about one dozen game wardens in Trinidad. The Wildlife Division is recruiting new game wardens right now. I urge qualified and motivated wildlife defenders to join the force. 

Some laws need revising—but a law that cannot be enforced is pointless. Fines need to be raised. Current fines are a joke, a slap in the face of anybody who cares about nature. We are talking $2,000 for poaching. The PP government had some good initiatives and raised fines to $50-100K, but they never managed to have the laws gazetted, so it was all a big pappyshow.

How can we better enforce laws and protect wildlife, given the permanent staff shortages and deliberate underfunding of wildlife agencies here under all governments? Any creative ideas? 
Poverty and corruption is the number one threat to the environment. Both of these are largely a result of bad governance. 

Lack of resources is at the core of lack of enforcement, even though many will rightly argue that the T&T government has all the resources it needs; but it is a monstrously wasteful entity that misallocates resources. Solving this socio-economic-political problem will take up more time to discuss than we have here, so let’s keep it simple for now. 

Train the army to enforce wildlife laws. Get them out of the barracks and in to the bush, under supervision of trained game wardens and/or civilian volunteers. 

Involve communities. Do a count of wildlife in an area and reward the community with bonuses when wildlife numbers increase. UWI could do this to ensure that the count is scientific. This is something that needs to be a part of wildlife management in any case.

The current hunting system seems unsustainable. It is based on no data for existing animal populations. It lasts five months of the year (October 1 - end of February), arguably too long a time. Anyone can buy up to three hunting permits at the very low cost of TT$20 (yet an iguana sells for $300), which imposes no limits on numbers you can kill, and apparently no limits on killing mothers with young or pregnant animals or babies.

And there is no accountability, as no one checks animals caught (numbers or species or ages), but depends on the word of hunter returns, which are unverified. It seems like a recipe for wholesale slaughter in a very small island with limited wildlife resources. 

What can we do to make this system more sensible? If we cannot reform it, or have no hope of policing it, should we ban hunting? What about higher fines for poaching, and a significantly higher cost for hunting licenses? 

Banning hunting is supported by many scientists who say that Trinidad is simply too small to allow the extraction of 20K+ agoutis each year. In the three years before the hunting ban was introduced, 140,000 game animals were hunted. This is official records and it does not include poached animals. 

Unfortunately, scientists do not run Trinidad, politicians do. And politicians are sensitive to the well-organised hunters’ lobby, who, credit given where credit is due, punch politically far above their weight. Registered hunters represent less than one per cent of the population, but they can teach the environmentalists a thing or two about systematically and vocally organising their members. 

In any case, a ban cannot be enforced without adequate boots on the ground. So a political compromise is sought which allows hunting to continue, but with a promise of a scientifically managed hunt. The recipe that is on the table now is as follows: establish a baseline so that we know how many animals are out there. 

Scientifically manage the hunt through quotas and tags. Have enough game wardens or auxiliary personnel to enforce the laws. If the quota system works, then the cost of a permit is irrelevant to conservation, although it will probably make citizens feel better that hunters are not unfairly benefitting from a good (wild meat) that belongs to all citizens of T&T. 

In my opinion the permit fee should be close to the value of each animal. This is exceedingly difficult to calculate. The value to the ecosystem for one agouti can be tens of thousands of dollars or more if we look at the agouti as a keystone species that disperses seeds through the forest. 

For ecotourism, an agouti can be worth thousands of dollars to the local economy. Just ask Asa Wright Nature Centre how much the agoutis that their clients come to see are worth. Then there is the value of an agouti in the marketplace for meat. That is about $300. 

Let’s say that 10,000 tags are given for agoutis to be hunted, and that each tag will be priced at $300 for one agouti; then that is $3 million that the Chief Game Warden can spend towards enforcement and conservation. 

If I say that an agouti should be priced at its true value to biodiversity, which will be in the thousands of dollars range, then people will say that I am against the poor man and the cause of world hunger, so let me not go there.

Should we make the sale of wild meat illegal, and radically increase the fines for this offense?
Raise fines to at least $50,000 and ban commercial hunting if there is no quota. If there is a quota, and the quota system works, then I see no problem with commercial hunting. It is a question of governance and enforcement.

Shereen Ali

Published: 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016, Trinidad & Tobago Guardian Newspaper (online)

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Caiere Chase claims no right to this article. All rights to this article belong to its author and the original publisher. This article is reproduced here for archival, news and critique purposes.

Chin: T&T to boost services to compete in tourism industry

Tourism Development Company (TDC) chief executive officer Keith Chin said tourism is the fastest-growing global industry and it was mandatory for Trinidad and Tobago to adopt innovative marketing strategies. 
Chin made the comments at last week’s Tourism Health and Safety Symposium, “It Concerns You,” at the Teaching and Learning Complex, St Augustine.
“According to the United Nations (UN) World Tourism Organisation, tourism is the fastest-growing global industry. Operating within a US$1,000 billion industry, destination Trinidad and Tobago is competing with global and regional players with vast years of experience in tourism under their belts. But as any good marketer knows, the keys to success as a late entrant, or as the underdog, are to develop distinctive positioning and innovative marketing strategies and to exploit gaps in the market,” said the TDC CEO.
Chin identified the niches which can be tapped into and exploited, such as culinary tourism (wildmeat cookout), festivals (Carnival), heritage (Comte de Lopinot complex), culture tourism (Tobago wedding), eco-tourism (Buccoo Reef) and sports tourism (annual Great Race between Trinidad and Tobago). 
“We have special offerings within these niches to attract visitors. Many of you operate within these niches. To successfully promote our tourism products, we have to put on our product development and quality control caps. We must ensure our tourism products meet and exceed quality standards. We have to set the standards.” ........................

• Published on May 15, 2016, 9:47 pm AST
• By Michelle Loubon
  michelle.loubon@trinidadexpress.com

LINK TO ARTICLE   

Caiere Chase-Editor: This is a clear example of the Government not having any real interest in wildlife conservation. The extra strain that increased game harvesting, to supply the tourist industry, would have on the local wildlife population would be catastrophic.  

Xylitol Toxicity in Dogs

What is Xylitol?

Xylitol is a naturally occurring substance that is widely used as a sugar substitute. Chemically, it is a sugar alcohol, and in nature it is found in berries, plums, corn, oats, mushrooms, lettuce, trees, and some other hardwood trees and fruits.

Commercially, most xylitol is extracted from corn fiber, birch trees, hardwood trees and other vegetable material. Although it has been used as a sugar substitute for decades, its popularity has increased dramatically in the last few years.

How is it used?

 Xylitol is manufactured into a white powder that looks and tastes similar to sugar. In many countries it has been approved for use in oral care products, pharmaceuticals and as a food additive. Products that may contain xylitol include sugar-free gum, candies, breath mints, baked goods, cough syrup, children's chewable vitamins, mouthwash, and toothpaste, to list a few.

Why is xylitol increasing in popularity and use?

Xylitol is about as sweet as sucrose, but contains only about two-thirds of the calories. As a sugar substitute, it is lower on the glycemic index, a scale that ranks carbohydrate-rich foods by how much they raise blood sugar levels compared to glucose. Being lower on the glycemic index makes xylitol useful for diabetics or people on low carbohydrate diets.

With respect to oral health, research has shown that xylitol helps reduce the formation of plaque, inhibits dental cavities, and stimulates the production of saliva.

How safe is xylitol?

Xylitol is safe for use in humans. Xylitol, like most sugar alcohols, may have a mild laxative effect when eaten in large amounts, when first introduced to a diet. This occurs because, until the digestive system adapts, xylitol may not be completely digested in the intestines. This causes mild diarrhea and/or mild intestinal discomfort.

"Xylitol is extremely toxic to dogs."

However, xylitol is extremely toxic to dogs. Even small amounts of xylitol can cause hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), seizures, liver failure or even death in dogs. ........................

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

Notice of Public Consultation on Wildlife Hunting

Game Warden I vacancies

Venomous Snakes of Trinidad and Tobago Identification Guide.

LINK TO ID GUIDE

The Secrets of Proper Nutrition

Most of us have been conditioned to believe that “dry dog food” is the diet our dogs were meant to eat. We see our friends feed dry kibble to their dogs, our neighbors feed their dogs the same thing, and we watch commercials where it seems like every dog gets fed some sort of dry kibbled dog food. Thus we are conditioned to think that dry dog food “is just what dogs were designed to eat.” What we don’t stop to consider is the sum and substance of Chapter 1: the fact that dogs are carnivores that were designed to kill and eat raw whole animals. With this light turned on, anyone who truly understands dogs recognizes the fact that the commercial dog food industry isn’t about “canine nutrition” at all, what this industry is about is human convenience and profiting from ignorance. These companies create products “cheap enough” so humans will buy them and “nutritious enough” so that the dogs won’t die being fed it (at least not right away), but the truth is many dogs do die eventually from being fed some of the lower-grade products, over time, or even immediately (as many of these recent “dog food recalls” have proven).
Anyway, the scientific truth is raw flesh, organ meats, bones, and fats are in fact what our dogs should be eating, if they are to be ingesting a truly optimal diet for their species. Therefore, let me state from the outset that I am against feeding kibble at all, and my real belief is in feeding dogs raw. Still, I also realize that these kinds of ingredients are more complicated to obtain for the average person, so I will write this article to help kibble-feeders do a better job with their choices. The fact is, most dogmen just go to the feed store to buy some over-processed low-grade feed, without really having the slightest clue about nutrition. Unfortunately, when most dogmen go to a feed store to buy 10 bags of cheap corn-based feed to throw at their yard of dogs, they fail to realize how virtually all such feeds are something their dogs were not biologically-designed to process. This article should help to steer folks in the right direction, if you “have” to feed kibble.

I mean, what do you think happens to a group of animals when they are fed a diet they were not intended to eat, day-after-day, month-after-month, and year-after-year? Do you think such animals will live longer or live shorter? Do you think these animals will perform better or perform worse when fed something they weren’t designed to process and utilize to begin with? In short, can any animal reach his full potential … when fed over-processed ingredients they weren’t designed to eat … or are such animals going to be limited to achieve a level much less than what they could have achieved being fed optimally?

What we feed our dogs, if we really get right down to it, basically defines what they have the potential to become—just about as surely as do the dogs’ God-given genetics. Yet when most people shop for dog food, the last thing on their mind is, “Is this the best I can do for my dog, to help him reach his full potential?” Instead, what is usually on an owner’s mind when he is shopping for pet food is “How can I spend as little as possible to keep my dogs alive?” That’s right, skimping on the nutrition of his prize dogs, in an effort to save a buck, is the motivating force behind most so-called dogmen when they shop for dogfood.

By contrast, good dogmen think of themselves as managers of their stable of canine athletes, because this is the correct perspective on things. As such, good dogmen immediately realize that skimping on nutrition is not solid practice—feeding cheap feed to world class canine athletes diminishes their potential and is terrible practice. In the same fashion, no top world class race car driver is going to “skimp” by putting cheap 87 octane gas in his finely-tuned high-performance racing vehicles. You can bet on that.

The truth is, in order for any machine to perform its best it needs to be fed the optimal fuel it was designed to run on. So why do so many dogmen take their performance athletes and basically give them mediocre “fuel” to run on? These are questions that really deserve careful thought. Because, while less expensive in the short term, feeding cheap inappropriate feed actually hurts our goals in the long run. Problems like lack of fertility in both males and bitches, diminished litter sizes, physical ailments in adults as they grow older, shortened lifespans, etc.—all of these are “costs” that we fail to consider and add to the price of buying cheap feed for our stock, over time.

I know this first hand, because I watched the gradual falling apart of my first key dogs, who themselves stopped producing and died way too early in their lives because I was myself feeding cheap feed when I got started. You see, I was like most dog owners, I wasn’t thinking about “optimal nutrition,” I was trying to get inexpensive feed “for $16.00 a bag” as my main priority in providing nourishment for my athletes. I simply did not know any better. I fed my dogs Diamond dog food, and they looked great—for a few years they looked great. But that was only because they were young and the effects of my ignorance hadn’t caught up with them yet. However, as their initial years wore on to middle age, my dogs suddenly stopped looking so great. Their coats got shabby, the hair began to fall from their faces, and my stud dogs started shooting blanks. And of course, with Poncho, he slowly succumbed to cancer, way before a natural lifespan should have come to its end. (Sure, all dogs have to die at some age, and in fact most dogs do die of cancer. The difference is whether this inevitable fate needs to be premature or not. Feeding well simply extends the lifespan, and the quality of life while alive, while feeding lousy shortens the lifespan, and diminishes the quality of life while alive. So the choice is yours.)

Green = Good / Red = Bad

The only “good” thing that resulted from my watching Poncho fall apart prematurely was that it made me analyze what happened to him and why? And at every angle I analyzed his demise I reached the same conclusion what I was feeding him and the rest of my dogs was killing them. Toward the end of his life, Poncho got to the point he could no longer take ANY form of kibble. I mean I tried all kinds of “special blends.” I tried kangaroo, venison, I mean some really expensive “food allergy” diets and kibbled concoctions, but none of them worked. Poncho would always vomit, he continued to have mucus-laden stools, and he would itch and scratch himself like crazy, regardless of the kind of kibbled food I tried to put him on. The only product that finally worked was whole ground raw beef patties. That was it. But by then it was too late. All I was able to do was prolong his life, but he never became fully healthy again nor did he regain the ability to produce. It was a tough lesson for me to learn, but the reality of what I had been feeding my dogs finally came home to me—the kibble I was using was slowly poisoning my dogs.

None of us is born knowing a thing about canine nutrition. We feed what everyone else feeds: dry kibbled dogfood. Some of us are so clueless we will buy brands like “Old Roy” (which actually has received Class Action Lawsuits against it for being unsuitable for dogs), because we just do not know any better. We think, “Dogfood is dogfood, right?” Well, I am here to tell you this is WRONG!

After you read this article, it is my hope that you will take the job of feeding your dog much more seriously. It is my hope that you will realize that what you feed your dogs is just about as important as what dogs you are feeding. The two are inextricably linked. The best race car is useless without the right fuel, and the best dogs are useless without top-quality nutrition. If you are a professional breeder and you get two more $800 puppies a year, out of each of your 10 bitches, because you are feeding better, that is $8000 a year in extra income. Was it really worth saving $150 a month ($1800 a year) in buying cheap dog food to have less healthy dogs, smaller litters, and to have a year’s worth of slow poison in your yard of dogs—as opposed to spending an extra $150 a month on a year’s worth of top nutrition to get $8,000 back and healthier dogs at the end? Was losing your dog’s fertility at an early age worth it too, when he or she might still be siring or whelping litters on into their 12th year, had you fed healthier feed as a matter of daily practice?

Do some of you cheapskates add all that up and factor this into your “monthly feed bill?” When you begin to look at feeding your yard this way, you begin to think of dog food not as an “expense,” but as an investment. You begin to realize that you “have” to spend some kind of money on feed anyway, if you want your dogs to live, and so therefore, rather than wasting your money on cheap feed (which compromises your dogs’ current and future health), you begin to have a desire to invest your money in top quality feeds (which maximizes every potential in your animals).

Looking at it in this way, you will set yourself up to receive positive dividends paid back to you from your investments by improved results in the future. Dividends like (1) better vitality in each dog every day of its life; (2) less vet bills through less breakdown and improved overall health and fitness; (3) improved fertility in your brood animals, which translates to better conception rates and litter sizes; and (4) animals that live longer and allow you to benefit from them for a much greater amount of time, with less problems along the way, and more positive results every step of the way. So now that you have a clearer perspective on feeding, let’s get into the heart of the matter and find out just exactly what we are feeding our dogs—as opposed to just exactly what we should be feeding them.

If You Have to Feed Kibble
Although somewhat of an omnivore, it must always be kept in mind that our dogs are primarily carnivores, and as such they have NO nutritional need for carbohydrates. Our dogs “can” utilize carbohydrates to a small degree, if the carbs are properly broken down (cooked) first, but in point of fact dogs thrive much better getting their energy sources from animal fats and oils, not carbs. So right out of the gate, any food that is primarily of carbohydrate origin (corn, wheat, soy, glutens, rice, bran, etc.) is thus primarily concocted of material that your dog doesn’t need. Since feeding your dogs is probably the single most important daily management practice of your yard of athletes, to feed your dogs something that they don’t require (or that is outright harmful to them) is ridiculous. Worse, doing so for prolonged periods of time can and will ruin their health and eventually kill them. I know, my main stud dog was useless at 7 yeas of age and was dead by 9—and yet his inbred son lived to be 13 years old because I learned to feed better. 

In order meet the nutritional requirements of your dogs, you need to understand what constitutes “a complete and balanced diet,” so that you can either buy this proper diet for your dogs or attempt to make it at home. Whether or not you are meeting your dogs’ nutritional requirements already with your chosen commercial feed (or home-made concoction) is what we are going to examine from the womb to the tomb. There are a multitude of concepts to be learned through critical reading about canine nutrition, but these four concepts really stand out:

1. Dogs require protein and energy of high biological value in order to thrive, which means their nutrition sources should always come from primarily MEAT and FAT (oil) for optimal results, and the meats should be raw. Plant source proteins will ruin a dog.

2. Although a dog “can” utilize carbohydrates for energy, if cooked properly, a dog actually has no (or little) nutritional need for them.

3. At extreme levels of stress, most authorities recommend not only increasing the percent fuel from fat, but also from protein, while minimizing any contribution of carbohydrates at all. Again, we need to utilize critical diet applications to get the most out of our canine athletes, which means we have busted the myth of “carb loading.” We find that carb loading is actually the opposite way in which you should feed the extreme distance performance canine athlete.

4. Just because a feed product has a “listed” protein value rating on its bag, does not mean that said “value” actually represents what your dog is really getting. The Biological Value (digestibility and usability) of the feed is the most critical aspect of its true value—which can only be known by a laboratory analysis.

The “biological value” of a protein source is the most important consideration to a dog’s diet. For example, if a dog food label says its feed contains “26% protein” but the source of this protein content comes from corn gluten, then really your dog is getting very little protein out of eating this feed, because he can’t digest the protein source very well. By contrast, if you are feeding your dog raw or soft-boiled eggs, your dog is utilizing almost every bit of what he is eating. This is called “biological availability” or “value,” and it is a key concept to master as you decide what you are going to feed your dogs. Here is breakdown of the biological value of various protein sources we commonly see in dog feeds:

Biological Protein Values

Eggs (whole) = 100	White Rice = 56
Eggs (whites) = 88	Peanuts = 55
Chicken / Turkey = 79	Peas = 55
Fish = 70	Soy beans = 47
Beef = 69	Whole-grain Wheat = 44
Cow’s Milk = 60	Corn = 36
Unpolished Rice = 59	Dry Beans = 34
Brown Rice = 57	White Potato = 34

These values can be further altered, for better or worse, depending on whether these items are served raw or not. Meats are rendered less usable through cooking, while grain sources need to be cooked in order to be used at all. For instance, a dog will get much more biological value from eating raw chicken than he will from eating “what’s left” of the chicken after the ultra-cooking and kibbling process of making dog food. By contrast, if a dog ate raw corn it would come out looking the same as it went in, as a dog simply can’t digest raw corn at all. Yet although “cooking” the corn may make it “more usable” to the dog, corn still remains at best a very poor source of nutrition for him, with little biological value. Yet, in mixing corns (rice, etc.) with the meat, and then cooking them all together, dog food kibbling companies cook the bejesus out of their feeds to make the corn “more usable” (which the dog doesn’t even need), but at the same time this very process destroys all of the food value of the meats, which is what the dog does need. The entire kibbling process itself is flawed.

Thus reading dog food labels becomes more confusing that what it seems at first blush. Not only are you trying to sift through the ingredients profiles of the various feeding manufacturers, in order to come to a conclusion about “what would be best for your dog,” but then you also have to figure-in the degradation to the feed that the kibbling process itself causes …

– CA Jack 

Originally published on Sporting Dog News, 10 April 2015.

Caiere Chase does not own nor claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for critique, news and archival purposes.  

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE