WILDLIFE IN MALAYSIA
• Wild animals were plentiful during early Malaysia in the 1950s.
• Historically, because of the richness of flora and fauna, in the past hunters and animal traders and specimen collectors came to the Malay peninsular and Borneo to hunt and buy variety of wildlife.
In the event of the death of Dato’ Biji Sura the house was divided between several members of his family, wives and children, according to whatever mutual agreement as well as the practice been subjected to the law of inheritance accorded in Islam. Those who have been granted a portion of the house moved elsewhere and build a new house out of the original part of Kota Duyung that they have brought with them. The apportionment of inherited property clearly contributed in disintegrating Kota Duyung.
Commercial and subsistence poaching are forms of resistance to certain types of wildlife policy and thus anti-poaching messages have been a consistent theme in conservation policy in Zimbabwe (Duffy 1999). Budget constraints often prohibit protected area managers in developing countries from completely deterring extraction and the resulting resource degradation (Albers 2010). This situation is also similar in non-protected and partially protected areas which also experience a slow but steady degradation of their resources, mainly owing to a general shortage of funds and human capacity in the environmental sector, together with a lack of proper incentives for land- holders to conserve these areas (Du Toit 2002). However, in GNP law enforcement budgets were boosted beginning in 2007 following the involve- ment of the Frankfurt Zoological Society in the management of the park which led to the increased law enforcement efforts (Gandiwa et al. 2013a).
Development activities in the region affect the turtles because of pollution, habitat
destruction, and artificial illumination (Shanker, 2007). These have most recently taken the form of a mega-port project which has come up near the sanctuary.
Olive Ridleys in Odisha are offered legal protections by the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary and under the Indian Wildlife Protection Act and the Orissa Marine Fisheries Regulation Act. These protections have come into being because of the efforts of conservation groups working here. They have also attracted a fair deal of opposition. The regulation of fishing for conservationist objectives has pitted fishing communities against the forest department and conservationists because of impacts on livelihoods, harassment by forest officials and other problems commonly seen in ‘fortress’ conservation (Sridhar and Shanker, 2007). A fishing union leader 5 even accused environmental groups of practising neo-colonial conservation (Adams and Mulligan, 2003): “they are getting foreign money to conserve turtles; they are hindering the development of fishermen as per the wishes of foreign interests (sic)”.
Congress mandated that wildlife-dependent recreational uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, photography, and outdoor education and interpretation) were appropriate uses of the NWRS and should be permitted if compatible. It is this mandate that may help ensure oppor- tunity for moose hunting well into the future, though this applies mostly to Alaska where the majority of moose and moose habitat occur in the NWRS. Kenai NWR has a specific purpose to provide for wildlife-oriented recreation in- cluding hunting. The other 15 Alaskan refuges have a specific purpose to provide continued opportunities for subsistence hunting and fishing, but also have the general mandate to permit hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses whenever compatible with other purposes. While subsistence hunting in Alaska is administered differently under Federal law than state managed recreational hunting, ample opportunity exists for both user groups. This dual management program began in 1990 and has resulted in frequent philosophical debate and legal challenge, but no significant conservation concerns have developed to date.
From Table 8, adopting land use practices compatible with wildlifeconservation, enumerating benefits/liabilities of wildlife outside Amboseli, enabling institutional arrangements that enhance wildlifeconservation, enhanced benefit sharing and community rights and adoption of land use plan which guide land use types within certain areas are highly recommended measures for creating more space for wildlifeconservation in the Amboseli ecosystem as the mean scores were within this range (8.0ME<10.0) equivalent to was equivalent to 8.0 to 10.0 on the Likert scale. It was established that more space for wildlifeconservation is required so as to secure the ecosystem for sustainability to provide resilience to critical ecosystems as well as species as climate change and climate variability poses new threats. This calls for an integrated and adaptive ecosystem management approach to sustain wildlife and habitat diversity by empowering the local community to take control of their natural resource, secure their livelihoods and protect their communal land and environment.
species (Lorimer 2010) and garden character similar to Anglo colonial cities in North America and Australasia (Ignatieva & Stewart 2009).
G4W members are residents of Knox City who join G4W simply by signing up online or by post. Members receive an on-site garden visit by garden assessors who explain the program’s purpose, identify environmental weeds and indigenous biota in the garden, and describe specific opportunities for wildlife gardening. Members then receive an illustrated assessment report, a G4W booklet (Knox City Council & Knox Environment Society 2008), and free vouchers for 20 KES nursery plants. Members whose property is deemed by council staff to contain habitat of sufficient quality and proximity to a conservation-significant site are invited to apply for a grant for their wildlife gardening activities (entailing an initial on-site planning visit and a post-completion review). Three to six newsletters are sent to members and posted on Council’s website each year. Members also receive invitations to three to four program events that vary year to year, e.g. wildlife information sessions, open-garden days and visits to local reserves. In December 2012 G4W started a Facebook page to enable and stimulate members to communicate with and support each other virtually. Members can request advice or subsequent garden assessments from Council.
Abstract: Success of biodiversity conservation projects is determined by a suite of biological and economic factors. Donor and public understanding of the economic factors is becoming increasingly central to the longevity of funding for conservation efforts. Unlike typical economic evaluation, many costs and benefits related to conservation efforts are realized in diverse and non-‐monetary terms. We identify the types of benefits and costs that are assigned to biodiversity projects and examine a number of well-‐developed and some new techniques that economists use to convert benefits and costs into monetary values so that they may be compared in a common metric. Commonly costs are more readily identified than benefits, with financial project costs the most frequently reported and to a much lesser extent, opportunity and damage costs. Additionally, costs have been recognized as being largely spatially
One message that came across loud and clear was that local communities surrounding these conservancies were not ‘part of the deal’. In fact, the widening of the gap between conservancy and neighbouring communities seems to form the baseline of conservancy development. In the first place by the employment of game guards who tried to prevent the communities from poaching and in the process, tried to seal the borders between the two. Later, in the 1980s, when hunting was being increasingly promoted and considered a lucrative economic activity for conservancies to pay their way, the separation became even more visible and rigorous through the erection of fences around hunting areas to prevent wildlife causing trouble in neighbouring communities, to keep the ‘walking monetary value’ on your property, but also to prevent people from coming in. Commercial hunting and the involvement of communi- ties seemed fairly antithetical developments. According to a NPB officer working on the programme of Community Conservation ‘a fence is thebottom line for conservationists and for the communities’. In the particular context of KwaZulu-Natal there is an interesting connotation to fences in relation to the Zulu language. In Zulu the word for fence is icingu, which means the material the fence is made of. Shaya icingu means ‘hit the wire’ and figuratively means making a phone call. A conservancy fence is in this context thus a very potent way for the communities to communicate their message to the other side of the fence; communities talk back through fences. This officer told the story of how the NPB had created Forums to be used as a platform to talk about problems and other issues of communities. In the Forums NPB Officers as well as community representatives participate. The NPB thought that the community was setting the agenda for a particular meeting. So the NPB was satisfied about the progress these Forums made and also thought that the communities ‘were happy’. All the while these communities were damaging fences and fence material was stolen. In the end it came out that this was their way of indicating that they wanted a more senior NPB representative to attend the Forum to speak with. 71 In the domain of formal conservation there was an increasingly louder,
South and Central American (including Mexico) approaches to wildlife conserva- tion are rooted in traditions of resource use derived from interactions between complex biological, cultural, and socioeconomic systems. South and Central American peoples inhabit a land rich in biological diversity and complexity, with several nations considered megadiversity countries (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador) (see Mittermeier, Robles-Gil, and Mittermeier 1997). The most extensive tropical forests and wetlands of our planet occur in South and Central America. Unlike the situation in many parts of the world, most of these ecosystems still func- tion as intact ecological entities little disturbed by human activities (Mittermeier et al. 1998). The Amazon rain forest, for example, extends over 2500 km from east to west and about 2000 km from north to south. It is the largest continuous tropical forest on earth and the second largest forested ecosystem after the Eurasian Boreal forest. The world’s largest wetland, the Pantanal, is located in south central Brazil and northern Paraguay, and the Andean Mountain range supports some of the most extensive montane forests and grasslands in existence. With the exception of high altitude Andean habitats and Atlantic forests, these “natural areas” are rela- tively unfragmented and continue functioning as continental level “natural” ecosystems. Many are considered as some of our planet’s last great wilderness areas (Dinerstein et al. 1995; Mittermeier et al. 1998). The “intact” condition of South American biomes is unusual, given the high levels of species extirpations and ecosystem fragmentation that have occurred in North America, Europe, Africa, and much of the rest of the world.
this sound and call back to her to show where they are. Lions are famous for their deep resonating roars that can be heard up to eight kilometers away. They roar for a number of reasons; advertising territorial ownership, intimidation of rivals, locating pride members and strengthening social bonds. Roaring is most commonly done when the lions are most active, and as such can be heard mostly at night, especially just before dawn. Like the two people greeting each other at the café in Nice, lions do not only communicate with each other vocally. The act is often accompanied by bodily gesticulation. In fact, lions perform a very similar greeting ceremony to humans, especially after a lengthy separation; or to reaffirm social ties and confirm pride membership. It begins with a pair of lions approaching each other, often moaning or grunting and moving their lips, before rubbing their heads together, and moving on to rubbing each other’s sides, usually with the tail held high or draped over the other lion, similar to a pair of humans hugging, minus (in our case) the very expressive tail. As with most mammals, human included, when lions feel threatened, they show off their teeth and try to make themselves look as big as possible by standing on their tiptoes. If a dominant male wants to show another pride member, say one of his cubs, that he is not happy, he will give him a sharp swat with his paw or a gentle bite to the neck. He doesn’t want to hurt the cub much; just to let the little fellow know he has stepped out of line. To express they are happy and relaxed in each other’s company, lions will lick or gnaw softly at each other.
The Florida orchid flora possesses the largest number of orchids in North America, possessing approximately 120 species, natural hybrids, and color forms (Brown, 2002, 2005). Florida’s high orchid diversity is due to the wide range of habitats within the state – temperate coastal plains in the panhandle, temperate oak and pine forests in north and central Florida, and subtropical/tropical wetlands in south Florida. Currently, many problems raise orchid conservation concerns such as habitat loss due to agricultural and residential land use, exotic plant and pest invasions, poaching, and habitat mismanagement. These have all contributed to the decline of Florida’s native orchid populations. Although no Florida orchid is listed as federally endangered or threatened, many of the state’s orchids face the immediate threat of extinction if conservation efforts are not initiated appropriately and timely.
Carcinoma of the vulva A Malaysian experience CARCINOMA OF THE VULVA EXPERIENCE V SIVANESARATNAM AHMADADLAN T A SINNATHURAY KHAIRUDDIN YUSOF A KULENTHRAN L M LOOI Med J Malaysia Vo! 37 No 2 June 1982[.]
The activation of the tourism cycles in areas with low levels of tourism activities may pose significant risk to an area given that these areas are poorly planned and therefore lack the ability to take in any form of uncoordinated expansion of tourism activities. These uncoordinated expansion can lead to loss of habitats for wildlife due to the increased pressure from the disturbance caused by wildlife watching activities (Tapper, 2006; Newsome et al., 2005; Shackley, 1996; Duffus and Dearden, 1990). The impact of the increase in tourist’s numbers is evident in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve in Mexico which is witnessing a rapid increase in day time tourists numbers in Riviera Maya necessitating the building of hotels near to the Reserve to makes access for tourist easier (Bozec et al., 2005). The Meso-American Barrier Reef system has also seen an increase in day time visitors who mainly perform diving and snorkelling activities but spend very little in the Reserve and the community while posing a major sanitation and waste management problem (Harborne et al., 2001). Furthermore, these diving sites are being overused and therefore experiencing damage that is slowly reducing their attractiveness for the low-volume high-value tourism which has been an important stream of income for many years. However, there are efforts to improve the management of the dive sites with the Reserve working closely with the local dive operators, but still lacks the power to control the population of visitors who visit the Reserve during the day (Butynski and Kalina, 1998; Litchfield, 2001; Lewis and Newsome, 2003; Newsome et al., 2004; Harborne et al., 2001).
This activity typically involves the collection of information on turtles that are found dead or debilitated. All permit holders participating in this program are required to complete a Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) stranding report for each dead or debilitated turtle encountered. Completed STSSN forms should be faxed within 48 hours to the FWC Tequesta Field Office at (561) 743-6228. You do not need to put a cover sheet on the report, it will be routed correctly without a cover sheet. The fax machine will answer 24 hours a day, if you get a busy signal, please try back in a few minutes. If a fax machine is not available or practical, summary information should be reported within 48 hours by phone to FWC marine turtle stranding staff at Tequesta (561) 575-5407 or St. Petersburg (727) 896-8626. To avoid any long distance phone charges, you may also page stranding staff at 1-800-241-4653, then enter pager number 274-4867 and then enter your phone number including area code. The pager is monitored 7 days/week 8 am- 8 pm. Someone will return your page and take the stranding information. FWC is required to report all strandings on a weekly basis to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Additionally, timely notification of marine turtle strandings is essential to addressing mortality factors. In order to meet these requirements, which are very important for the conservation of marine turtles, you must notify us each time you document a stranded marine turtle. You must also mail the original of the completed STSSN form within one week to the FWC Tequesta Field Office at 19100 SE Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida 33469. FWC stranding staff will provide all the blank STSSN reporting forms. Please do not make your own copies of blank forms.
Ranks can be applied at various geographic levels: Global or range-wide (G); National or country-wide (N); and Subnational or province/territory-wide (S). The Conservation Status Rank of a species is usually different at each level, although if a species is of global conservation concern it usually is also at the national and subnational levels. Combining the different levels of Conservation Status Ranks provides a useful geographic perspective as well as providing information to target conservation priorities. For example, the sharp-tailed snake (Contia tenuis) has a Global Conservation Status Rank of G5 indicating its secure status across its entire range; whereas it has a Subnational Conservation Status Rank of S1 to convey its very high risk of imperilment with its occurrence in British Columbia. Since the species only occurs in British Columbia, it also receives a National Conservation Status Rank of N1 similar to its subnational rank, although for many species in Canada this country-wide rank using NatureServe’s
IgA Nephropathy A Malaysian Experience Med J Malaysia Vol 41 No 2 June 1986 IGA NEPHROPATHY A MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE CHEONG I K s PHANG K s ABU BAKAR SULEIMAN ZAKIMORAD KONG B C T SUMMARY A total of 45[.]
Helping aquatic species will improve water quality and reduce flooding, while increasing opportunities to enjoy outdoor recreation, like fishing and boating.
Restoring wildlife habitats can protect communities by reducing the risks from extreme wildfires and storms.
Objectives: This section should answer the question, “What do you want to achieve in the short- term?” An objective is the specific outcome that you want to achieve in order to reach your stated goal, and should reflect a desired change in capacity, threat, or species status. Your objectives must be specific (i.e., clearly defined so that all reviewers should have the same understanding of what the objectives mean), measurable (i.e., definable in relation to some standard scale), realistic (i.e., achievable and appropriate within the context of the project site, and in light of the political, social, and financial context), results-oriented (i.e., represent necessary changes in threats, conditions or capacity that affect one or more conservation targets or project goals), and time-limited (i.e., achievable within the specific period of time of the grant award).
tremendously in the without-wildlife scenario, while that of environmental income plunges to lower levels.
In line with our goal of using wildlife resources to bring about community welfare, we believe that policy experiments of increasing wildlife income could highlight the importance of wildlife resource for redistributive policy targeting. So accordingly, we considered 5%, 10% and 15% policy induced increments in wildlife income from the baseline case. The result show that increases in wildlife income can greatly impact poverty, but not inequality because inequality is less responsive to policy induces increments in wildlife income. The results also show that we need an increase in wildlife income slightly greater 15% in order to complete reduce poverty in the whole sample to zero. However, it should be noted that the GINI decomposition method might not be suitable for changes as large as 10% to 15% as it is designed for marginal changes. The results of the ordered logit model suggest that the likelihood of belonging to a wealthier category of income increases with an increase in environmental income. The marginal effect of environmental income is very small, suggesting that only households that are positioned on the boundary will be able to move to the next income quintile because of an increase in environmental income, while the impact of environmental income in general and wildlife in particular may be less pronounced for households that are located farther away from the boundary. As expected, household wealth significantly and positively affects environmental income generated by households. Finally, the results reveal some evidence of the relationship between benefits and the quality of the resource system. Households generated more environmental income in areas with good biodiversity than in areas where there is an unhealthy population of wild animals.