Feb 132018
 


War is by nature a deadly affair, yet when all is said and done, we tend to only take stock of the human casualties. The loss of human life is plenty devastating on its own, but make no mistake: in times of war, animals get caught up in the carnage, too.

It probably goes without saying that when bullets are flying and bombs are exploding that animal bystanders are inevitably going to be killed, as well. However, succumbing to weapons by being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not the only way that animals suffer.

Beyond that, more locals turn to poaching during times of war to sell ivory and carcasses as their only source of income in a collapsed economy. Others simply kill the animals so that they have something to eat since food in a warzone is otherwise scarce. Plus, due to the inherent danger, animal charities and governments have to back off their conservation efforts, leaving the animals vulnerable to threats that could be more adequately addressed in times of peace.

Photo Credit: Mario Micklisch

These are the conclusions of Joshua Daskin and Robert Pringle, scholars from Princeton University. Curious about the cost of war on animals incidentally caught up in battles, the pair studied animal populations in nature preserves throughout the continent of Africa between 1946 and 2010. Their study is the first to demonstrate how war has a negative effect on animal populations.

The Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique is the most startling example of animal casualties during wartime. From the mid ‘60s to the mid ‘70s, Mozambique was in upheaval, first in search of independence, and then in a bloody civil war. During that time, 90 percent of the area’s large herbivores (we’re talking hippos, zebras, elephants, antelope, etc.) perished.

Though it’s the most extreme example, it’s hardly an isolated one. Since 1946, 70 percent of Africa’s protected nature reserves have been turned into battlegrounds, typically knocking down animal populations along with them.

Thankfully, the research comes with some optimistic news: damage inflicted on animal populations during times of war is reversible. Although it’s not as simple as ending the war and the animals returning, with some deliberate conservation efforts, communities can create the conditions necessary to revive the numbers over time.

Even the aforementioned Gorongosa National Park, despite the massive losses, is back up to having about 80 percent of the animal population it did about 40 years ago. That success did require intervention, however.

The Princeton team hopes that their research is utilized by conservation organizations to better allocate funds. With the knowledge that animals in war-torn regions are most vulnerable and that post-war regions could use the most assistance, animal charities could maximize their efforts accordingly.

Although this study focused on Africa, be aware that this problem is not limited to one continent. For example, there were 750,000 animal casualties during World War II. More currently, animals are abandoned as humans flee for their lives, as summarized in “In Times of Conflict, We Often Forget Animals Trapped with Nowhere to Go.” Finally, if that last story leaves you sad, you’re entitled to a related pick-me-up: “9 Animals Rescued from Zoo in Aleppo.”

This article was first published by Care2.com on 11 Jan 2018.

 

Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter

 

Share this post with your friends





Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

avatar
Maggie Frazier

People tend to forget that anytime we confine wild (or domestic) animals – just walking away signs a death warrant for them. At least in the wild – even with all the dangers today – they have a chance to remove themselves from areas of danger. Captivity doesn’t mean safety.

The state the worlds in now it’d be better if it were run by animals !!

Kanchan Bangia

vry ture …

Arlene Labbe

I have always said this and the earth itself is murdered, all because men want POWER over one another, via war instead of negotiation – I believe if MEN REALLY cared for its citizens and/or the world there would be no wars. WOMEN DO CARE, they have more to lose and are not testosterone driven to do damage without THINKING about the consequences.

Top-Viewed Posts Last 30 Days

  1. POLL: Should Europe’s Wolves be Rewilded? – [1413 Views]
  2. 7 Common Food Items Not Good for Backyard Birds – [1359 Views]
  3. Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts – [1137 Views]
  4. Coast Guard Rescues Sea Turtle Entangled Amid Bales of Cocaine – [999 Views]
  5. Nepal’s Last Dancing Bears Have Been Rescued – [963 Views]
  6. Poachers Shoot Down Sea Shepherd Drone in the Gulf of Mexico – [929 Views]
  7. Beak fitness: New Zealand develops roadside gym for endangered keas – [917 Views]
  8. POLL: Should the trafficking of Hippo Teeth be banned? – [860 Views]
  9. Fang trafficking to China is putting Bolivia’s jaguars in jeopardy – [803 Views]
  10. Florida Is ‘Raining Iguanas.’ Will The Invasive Reptiles Adapt? – [781 Views]

Top-Viewed Posts Last 12 Months

  1. POLL: Should hunting with hounds be banned? – [7803 Views]
  2. POLL: Should there be a worldwide ban on fur farming? – [4519 Views]
  3. POLL: Should the trophy hunting of bears and wolves be banned? – [4097 Views]
  4. Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts – [4067 Views]
  5. POLL: Should Japan be sanctioned for slaughtering dolphins and whales? – [3395 Views]
  6. POLL: Should the slaughter of badgers in the UK be finally stopped? – [3100 Views]
  7. POLL: Should the cruel sport of bullfighting be banned? [2873 Views]
  8. POLL: Should Canada ban the hunting of seals? [2667 Views]
  9. POLL: Should the Tories be allowed to bring back fox hunting? [2578 Views]
  10. POLL: Should wild elephants be sold to Chinese zoos? [2322 Views]