From spiderhunters@yahoo.com Sun Jan  2 15:04:50 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:34:36 -0800
From: spiderhunters@yahoo.com
To: nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU
Subject: FW: [OB] IUCN Vulture Resolutions

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

-----Original Message-----
From: R.W. Risebrough [mailto:pelecanus@igc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:37 AM
To: orientalbirding@yahoogroups.com; Vulture Conservation
Cc: Vibhu Prakash; Dave Ferguson; Bowden, Chris
Subject: [OB] IUCN Vulture Resolutions

Following are some comments on the IUCN Vulture Resolutions that were
circulated by Chris Bowden of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
to the Vulture Conservation and Oriental Birding discussion groups on
November 30. We are indebted to him for making these resolutions more widely
available.

The production of these resolutions is a major accomplishment, but it does
provoke further thinking about the relative importance of the several
priorities, both the immediate and longer-term.

It was possible to achieve a rapid phase-out of DDT in the USA because
adequate substitutes were available for almost all uses. This is not true
for diclofenac. Valuable research looking for potential alternatives is
underway, sponsored by RSPB, but surely a more massive and intensive effort
is required to find "an appropriate risk-free substitute" within the
shortest possible time.

Resolution 1 reads: "CALLS on Gyps Vulture range states to begin action
immediately to prevent all uses of Diclofenac in veterinary applications
that allow Diclofenac to be present in carcasses of domestic livestock
available as food for vultures".

Implementation of this resolution requires, however, the availability of a
substitute medicine. Among the potential substitutes proposed by the Indian
pharmaceutical industry at a meeting in Delhi earlier this year were
ketoprofen and carprofen, drugs that act on the same enzyme system as does
diclofenac. Yet a combination of these killed an African white-backed
vulture at the San Diego Zoo in early 2003, producing the visceral gout that
has been characteristic of the mortalities in the Subcontinent; all of the
drugs acting on this enzyme system, including meloxicam which is a potential
substitute, have the potential to cause kidney damage, a critical factor
being dosage. A companion resolution might therefore have been included,
reading something like:

'CALLS on all parties to support efforts to test the toxicity to vultures of
potential substitutes for diclofenac, at dosages that would be used in
veterinary medicine, such that Resolution 1 might be implemented at the
earliest possible time.'

By starting with low, sublethal, doses of the drugs and measuring uric acid
levels in the blood, which increase in response to the effects of the drugs
on the kidney, toxicity tests can be undertaken without killing any birds.
Needed are more African white-backed vultures, which could be released back
into the wild once the testing is finished.

It is unfortunate that the resolutions place so much importance on the
banning of diclofenac at the expense of another, even more pressing
priority: the preservation of adequate genetic diversity of each of the
three species.

All available information indicates that the high rate of population decline
is continuing in each species, - to be expected as long as the cause of the
population decline over 1997-2002 continues to be present in the
environment. The only qualification that can now be attached to the
diclofenac hypothesis is that other drugs used as veterinary medicines that
act on the same enzyme system are likely to have been killing vultures,
including analgin which was already in use at the time diclofenac was
introduced around 1994.

Nineteen long-billed vultures are now being kept at the Vulture Care
Facility operated by the Bombay Natural History Society in Pinjore, Haryana.
Apparently these are the only members of their species currently being
protected in captivity anywhere in the world. Although several other
species, including the California condor, the whooping crane, and the
northern elephant seal were once reduced to comparably low numbers and have
since increased, 19 birds represent only a portion of the total genetic
diversity of a species that has occupied a large area of central India and a
small area of southeast Pakistan.


Twenty one white-backed vultures are now at the Haryana facility; several
more are in Indian zoos, 4 are in the Dhaka Zoo in Bangladesh, and a few are
in European zoos. The genetic diversity of this species is therefore
marginally better preserved, but some of these birds may be imprinted on
people and unlikely to breed with members of their own species. As the
populations decline, birds become increasingly difficult to locate and,
because of the abundance of food, increasingly difficult to trap.

The sponsorship of these IUCN resolutions by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests of the Indian Central Government is a most welcome development.
Until now the seriousness of the situation has not been widely recognized;
the Ministry has consequently refused all requests to capture any of the
increasingly fewer birds in the wild. The situation is particularly critical
for the slender-billed vulture. A remnant population survives in northern
Cambodia, but it now appears that the genetic diversity of this species
across northern India, in Assam, and in Bangladesh may soon be entirely
lost. No birds that would preserve at least some of their irreplaceable gene
pool are in captivity. A few years ago they were abundant in Corbett and
Kaziranga National Parks; now, most visitors, including active birdwatchers
looking for them, see none. Total extinction in the wild within 2-3 years is
now increasingly likely.

With the support of the Division of International Conservation of the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, The Rhino Foundation for Nature in North-east
India is undertaking a survey for remaining slender-billed and white-backed
vultures in Assam. It is now the beginning of the nesting season. The
Government of the State of Assam strongly supports a program that would
capture at least some of the surviving birds, particularly of young about to
fledge. But to date the Ministry of Environment and Forests in Delhi has not
responded to requests for capture permits.

The lofty language of the IUCN resolutions is appropriate, but a simple
decision this week by the Ministry would accomplish the highest priorities -
to ensure both the survival of adequate genetic diversity of all three
affected species in the Indian Subcontinent and the survival of the species
themselves. Finding a substitute for diclofenac, ending its uses, and the
implementation of captive breeding programs are different priorities, to be
carried out with different time constraints.

Since Dr. Rahmani of the Bombay Natural History Society issued a National
Vulture Alert in 1998, there has been a series of reports of observations of
vultures, usually with an implied conclusion that populations are healthy.
Most recent are reports from Gujarat. But data on numbers of nests at the
beginning of a season and of the numbers of young that are fledged are very
few; all indicate a high mortality rate that will not sustain the
populations. Reports of slender-billed vultures - once so numerous in Assam
and what is now Bangladesh - have just about stopped.

Ending the uses of diclofenac and related drugs as veterinary medicines, the
testing of potential substitutes and their introduction into the market, and
the development and implementation of national vulture recovery plans are
processes that would require substantial amounts of time in any country or
region of the world. In the world's largest democracy they will inevitably
take longer. The extinction of these species in the wild is also a process
that will be completed after a certain time interval, perhaps as low as 2-3
years. Which will happen first? All bets are off. There are too many
uncertainties. But the possibility of complete extinction in the wild of
one, two or all three species is highly likely; whatever they are, the
probabilities of extinction in the wild before a ban on diclofenac is fully
implemented are too high to be ignored in any responsible conservation
policy. The birds can no longer be saved if they are all gone.

Of the world's bureaucracies, surely some in India are among those most
resistant to change - and particularly to suggestions from outside. But
resolutions from a prestigious international organization such as IUCN come
with the full authority of the global scientific and conservation
communities. Moreover, the specific suggestions advanced here have all
originated in India. They are hardly an interference into someone else's
affairs. The present situation has no precedents. Given all available
information and a balanced interpretation of its signficance, even the most
conservative of bureaucracies may respond to an issue of such great
importance to all of the Subcontinent, an issue that increasingly is the
object of global attention.

Some months ago I also received a draft of the IUCN resolutions for comments
and suggestions. Nothing more seemed necessary at the time. It's just that
the issue has come into greater focus, in part because of the timely
appearance of these resolutions.



Bob Risebrough

Berkeley California

8 December 2004









This group is run in association with the Oriental Bird Club. To find out
more about the Club and its conservation work, and to become a member,
please visit www.orientalbirdclub.org
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orientalbirding/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    orientalbirding-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/