News that conservation group WWF has captured rare footage of the critically endangered Javan rhino is bound to set a few hearts racing in the wildlife loving community.

You can view the footage of the mother and calf here.

With fewer than 60 believed to be left in the wild, the footage provides a fleeting glimpse into the secretive world of this one-horned creature on its dwindling home turf on the Indonesian island of Java, where most reside.

The Javan is the world’s rarest rhino species and is probably the rarest large mammal species in the world.

Rhinos everywhere — there are five extant species — are threatened though the news over the past few years has been mixed.

In Africa, the southern white or square-lipped rhino has made a remarkable recovery after it was pushed to the brink of extinction a century ago. It now numbers several thousand mostly in South Africa. 

But the nothern subspecies of the white rhino is almost extinct in the wild with just a few animals left in the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The black rhinos of Africa have seen their numbers rebound in the south but may be extinct in west Africa.

Habitat destruction and hunting for their horns, which are valued for medical reasons in Asia and to make daggar handles in Yemen, have been the chief culprits leading to this sad state of affairs.

So the footage caught on WWF’s remote cameras of the Javan rhinos is cause for celebration.

The late great science fiction writer Douglas Adams once co-authored a delightful non-fiction book about some of the world’s rarest wildlife creatures called “Last Chance to See.”

So savour this footage of the Javan rhino and hope we have other chances to see them in the wild in the future.

A new survey by the Pew Research Center indicates that U.S. Republicans, never warm to the idea of human-induced climate change or rising global temperatures, are growing even cooler to the idea.  

Most scientists have linked climbing temperatures to so-called greenhouse gas emissions from carbon fuels such as oil and coal.

“The proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased modestly since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans,” Pew says.

It was refering to findings from its latest nationwide survey of 1,502 adults which was conducted April 23-27.

“Republicans are increasingly skeptical that there is solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the past few decades: just 49 percent of Republicans say there is evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been rising, down 13 points since January 2007,” it said.

It said that overall 71 percent of those surveyed thought there was solid evidence of a warming world compared to 77 percent in January of 2007.

It further found that about half of Americans or 47 percent believe global warming is the result of human activity but views on the subject reflect a sharp partisan divide. It said 27 percent of Republicans hold this view versus 58 percent of Democrats.

This partisan divide narrows among the non-skeptics in both parties.

“Despite the huge partisan differences over whether the earth is warming, majorities of those in both parties who say there is evidence of global warming believe that it is possible to reduce the effects of higher global temperatures,” Pew said.

“Overall, 74 percent of those who say there is solid evidence of global warming say it is possible to reduce its effects, up from 67 percent in June 2006. Among those who believe there is solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer, there is little difference in those who think that it is possible to reduce the effects among Republicans 69 percent, Democrats 74 percent, and independents 77 percent.”

Pew does not speculate about the causes of the overall shift in sentiment.  On the Republican side this may not be good news for the party’s presumptive presidential candidate John McCain who advocates a more activist policy on the issue than that pursued by President George W. Bush.

Perhaps  environmental awareness wanes when the economy hits a rough patch. Or perhaps the skeptics would argue that they have not seen any really convincing new evidence or studies over the past year on the subject.

Scientists have joined forces to save magical Madagascar by using a new method they hope to apply to other hot spots of biodiversity. For full details you can check my colleague Deborah Zabarenko’s story.

As someone who has had the great privilege of visiting this island continent twice I can only say: “Right on!”

Madagascar is a classic example of natural selection at work: most of its species have evolved in splendid isolation because the island broke free from the rest of Africa tens of millions of years ago. 

This is what evolution and natural selection are all about. It is no coincidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace separately stumbled upon this profound notion in the 19th century while observing life on islands — or, more specifically, the difference to be found in life on islands often only a few miles apart. 

Madagascar, because of its size and the length of time it has been a cast away, is a prime an example of natural selection run riot.

Its snakes have no venom because that is an evolutionary trait they picked up after Madagascar and the rest of Africa went their separate ways.

It has boa constrictors (which I have observed in its forests) which are found nowhere in Africa but are found in South America. Why? How? Because, or so goes one theory I have heard, Madagascar and South America BOTH broke free from Africa at one point. So it stands to reason that they might both keep something that died out in Africa and vice versa.

That is the dynamic of natural selection.

I could go on and on and on. Madagascar is most famous for its roughly 70 species on lemurs, dainty primates that come in all shapes and colors. The largest among them, the indri, has a haunting cry that belies its small stature and which sent tingles down my spine the first time I heard it.

Much of the indri population is now restricted to a fragment of isolated habitat in a protected reserve. An island on an island.

For a good popular introduction to the study of island life I would recommend David Quammen’s superb book “The Song of the Dodo.” It inspired me to go to Madagascar in the first place with my wife when I was a Johannesburg-based correspondent.

And if you really want to see natural selection at work on an island, go to Madagascar yourself. Eco-tourism can help preserve species by giving rural people an economic incentive not to hunt them or destroy their habitat.  And that can only help the scientists and their new efforts to save this cradle of weird and wonderful evolution.

An unfolding saga in South Africa highlights one of the many divisions that are emerging between those dedicated to animal welfare and those devoted to saving creatures in the wild.

South Africa’s National Council of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is once again in a flap over the methods used in a fascinating project that seeks to “rewild” rare Chinese tigers so their offspring can then be released into a natural setting.

It is a project that I followed closely when I was based in South Africa — I covered the arrival of the first cubs in Pretoria — and that I now track from afar in Dallas.

The project, run by the charity Save China’s Tigers and set on a 33,000-hectare ranch in South Africa’s Free State Province, basically tries to “teach” the big cats to hunt for themselves and other survival skills. It is the brainchild of an energetic Chinese woman named Li Quan.

The hope is that the adult tigers will impart their acquired skills to their offspring which can then be released into the wild in China. Estimates and data are scanty but there are only believed to be around 10 to 30 individuals left in the wild of the Chinese sub-species of the tiger family, also known as the South China tiger.

Two sets of cubs have been flown to South Africa and while one male named Hope has died one pair successfully bred last year, producing a male South China tiger cub. The reserve also has a five-year-old male for breeding purposes.

This is the backdrop to this tale which one would think would have the whole-hearted support of the animal-loving community. It doesn’t.

The problem in the eyes of some animal welfare groups is that the tigers are being trained to hunt through the use of live animals such blesbok, a kind of antelope, which are released into a 40-hectare camp.

South Africa’s SPCA claims in a statement on its website that “Life Feeding - It Happens Here” and has taken the issue to the courts.

“It is a spurious argument that carnivores need to be fed animals, live. Not in captivity they don’t!,” the SPCA, which regards the practice as cruel, says.

As cubs they were allowed to have a go at live chickens and I recall the SPCA raising a fuss about that as well. I recall thinking at the time what was more important, a few chickens or the fate of a wild species and an iconic one at that whose plight could help draw attention and save others?

In the case of blesbok one could argue that as a wild African antelope they can only expect to come to a sticky end anyway — that is the typical fate of herbivores in the real world. And how else are the tigers expected to learn how to hunt? Would it not be cruel to cast them into the wild with no survival skills or lock them up for life in a zoo?

And if this experiment works it could help save wild populations of other large predators — animals that are finding they are less and less welcome in an increasingly crowded world.

Or does the SPCA have a good point? Is it just plain cruel to feed live animals to predators in a simulated setting?

This story does point to one of the many forks in the road where animal welfare groups and some conservationists part company. Other “green divisions” include broader battles that are being waged over the sustainable use or commercial exploitation of wildlife and those who oppose it, often on cruelty grounds.

What do you think?

DALLAS - Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders on Monday shook up their flock by issuing their strongest statement to date on the potential perils of climate change and the need to take action on the issue.

The statement, which was signed by SBC President Frank Page, past presidents and other church leaders, was short on specifics but represents a significant departure from the group's past pronouncements on the issue, which have urged caution and not much else.

Monday's statement by some of the leaders of the 16 million-member SBC -- America's largest Protestant Church and one of its most conservative -- said such caution could be taken as "uncaring, reckless and ill-informed."

If the membership at large accepts the document, the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain could stand to gain as he has broken ranks with much of his party by highlighting the issue of global warming and talking about "common sense" ways to limit carbon emissions, such as promoting advanced energy technologies.

Having the SBC on the side on climate change could give McCain some needed traction with conservative evangelicals who have not warmed to him because of his failure to adopt their strident positions on a range of social issues from gay marriage to stem-cell research.

The SBC statement also is another step in closing the divisions between the old culture warriors of the religious right and the so-called "evangelical center," which sees a broader Biblical agenda that includes issues such as combating poverty and environmental degradation.

The statement was not entirely unexpected since many conservative evangelicals are known for their passion for the outdoors. A comprehensive nationwide survey in 2006 of licensed hunters and anglers commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation found that half of those polled identified themselves as evangelical Christian.

Hunters and anglers often are the first to note changes in the climate or environment.

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
-Photo credit: Reuters/Larry Downing (SBC President Dr. Frank Page, second from left, meets with President Bush in the White House's Oval Office in 2006 with Dr. Morris Chapman, left, president of the SBC Executive Committee, and Chapman's wife, Dayle, right.

Rainbow trout are a classic example of what biologists call an “indicator species” — if they are found in abundance in a river it is usually taken as a good sign that the water is clean and the ecosystem healthy. But what if the river in question is the Lower Mountain Fork in southeastern Oklahoma, an area with scorching summers and mild winters where cold-water rainbows don’t naturally reside? The thought crossed my mind during a recent flyfishing trip there in early December. Its deep pools and gushing water offer superb angling for self-styled “trout bums” like myself — which is hardly surprising as it is stocked on a fortnightly basis with plenty of fish. The trout ower their existence here to what at first glance may seem an unlikely source: the local dam. This was bass water at one time but the dam’s construction four decades ago meant the water released from its artificial depths was suddenly too cold for bass. Trout were then brought in, resulting in what is known as a “tailwater.” In the eyes of many, the trout have simply replaced a predator which could not adapt to human-induced temperature change and are therefore not in the same category as “invasive” species which drive out the native critters.  ”The bass were not usurped by the trout, they were replaced by them,” says Ken Cole, a Dallas-based fishing guide who knows these waters well.  I for one enjoy this trout fishery which is about a 3-1/2 hour drive from Dallas and “tailwater” trout are now common in many parts of the United States. But the long-term ecological consequences of this experiment remain unknown and so the green jury is still, I think, out on the practice. ” Photo: compliments of Ken Cole

Ann Arendarczyk scans the beach for the tell-tale signs that a Kemps ridley turtle has emerged from the water to lay its eggs in the soft sand.

It looks like someone has dragged a cooler box or a chair through the sand, she told me as she walked along the beach of South Padre Island on the steamy southeast Texan coast.
Ann is a local volunteer and her mile and a half stretch of beach is along a developed part of this popular Texan resort island. It is lined with towering hotels, bars and restaurants.

Turtles dont often come here to nest because of the crowds but they sometimes do.
Trying to decipher turtle tracks here is much more of a challenge than on the more remote parts of the island or the unspoiled parts of South Africas eastern coastline, where I have observed loggerheads and massive leatherback turtles nesting before.

Even at this early hour of the morning there are plenty of human-made signs in the sand, possibly obscuring any turtle signs. Plenty of cooler boxes have been dragged around here.
Ann is part of a volunteer turtle patrol network that locates nests, which are then moved to a coral for protected hatching. Other volunteers patrol the less developed parts of the island in ATVs.

They are part of Sea Turtle, Inc, a rescue and rehabilitation outfit devoted to turtle conservation.

The Kemps ridley only nests on the southeast Texan coast and in Mexico. By 1985 egg hunters and coyotes had brought their numbers down to about 300 nesting females.
Now they number around 11,000, the vast majority in Mexico, making efforts to save them a rare example of a marine conservation success story.

For the record we found no nesting turtles on our early morning walk. But I wont look at a cooler box track on a beach the same way again.