Authorities from two law enforcement agencies arrested two suspected rhino killers in Kaziranga National Park.

India Blooms News reported that Dilowar Hussain and Altaf Hussain were arrested in Biswanathghat with a .303 rifle and live ammunition.

Kaziranga security forces and agencies have staged several joint operations this year, resulting in ten arrests during the past three months.

Although at least five rhinos have been killed in India since the beginning of the year, there is good news: This year’s census revealed that India’s greater one-horned rhino population is on the increase.

Continued, strong performance from local law enforcement will support this wonderful trend.

Image © iStockphoto.com

Staff Writer

Saving Rhinos website: savingrhinos.org | Blog: Rhino Horn is NOT Medicine | Web series and podcast: Behind the Schemes | World Rhino Day: worldrhinoday.org |

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Nepal authorities have arrested two rhino horn dealers identified as Tej BK and Pramod Adhikari.

The Himalayan Times stated the two suspects were trying to sell a rhino horn to an “unidentified client” over the phone.

In a separate incident, officials in Nepal also arrested Bishnu Tamang with a leopard skin.

Unfortunately, big cat trafficking is on the rise.

For example, as tiger populations have decreased, lion bone trade has increased significantly over the past few years.

Photo: © & courtesy of Partnership for Rhino Conservation, Nepal.

Staff Writer

Saving Rhinos website: savingrhinos.org | Blog: Rhino Horn is NOT Medicine | Web series and podcast: Behind the Schemes | World Rhino Day: worldrhinoday.org |

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

The International Rhino Foundation has set an ambitious target of raising $10,000 on “Cinco de Rhino” — May 5^th — and you can help make it happen!

On May 5^th (or anytime!), set aside a moment to make a donation to International Rhino Foundation — or go all out and host a Cinco de Rhino party! (Check out what the International Rhino Keeper Association and San Diego Zoo Safari Park are doing for Cinco de Rhino!)

Hosting a Cinco de Rhino celebration is a fun way to raise money for rhinos, and IRF has posted a party guide with ideas and recipes on their website.

For your Cinco de Rhino party, you can set a fundraising goal and ask your friends to donate. You can send your party proceeds to IRF via their online donation form (or mail a check).

Every dollar makes a difference!

• $25 will provide four days of food and veterinary care for an orphaned baby rhino in Zimbabwe.
• $50 will employ an Indian rhino monitor for 2 weeks on anti-poaching and monitoring patrols.
• $100 will provide 1 week of food and veterinary care for a Sumatran rhino at the Sumatran rhino sanctuary.
• $500 will purchase a high-quality GPS unit for rangers in South Africa to help track rhinos and help fight poachers.

To learn more about the amazing work of the International Rhino Foundation, visit their website.

“Cinco de Rhino” image #1: Saving Rhinos. Additional materials supplied by International Rhino Foundation.

Rhishja Cota-Larson

I am the founder of Saving Rhinos LLC, which publishes news and information about the global rhino crisis. I am the Editor of Rhino Horn is Not Medicine and Project Pangolin, author of the book Murder, Myths & Medicine, a writer for the environmental news blog Planetsave, and the host of Behind the Schemes. When I'm not blogging about the illegal wildlife trade, I like to rock out to live music.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Acting on intelligence reports, Kaziranga forest officials have arrested two individuals identified as Rupam Kutum and Manoj Pegu, believed to be part of a rhino-killing gang operating in India.

Although the pair was not in possession of a rhino horn at the time of their arrest last week, a Kaziranga National Park spokesperson said via the Times of India that “specific information” has linked them to previous rhino crimes.

We have specific information that the arrested persons were involved in one more rhino poaching attempt in the park and are members of an interstate rhino poaching gang. However, no incriminating articles were recovered from them. We are still interrogating them.

At least five rhinos have been killed for their horns in India since the beginning of 2012.

However, there is great news for greater one-horned rhinos: This year’s census revealed that India’s rhino population is on the rise.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Rhishja Cota-Larson

I am the founder of Saving Rhinos LLC, which publishes news and information about the global rhino crisis. I am the Editor of Rhino Horn is Not Medicine and Project Pangolin, author of the book Murder, Myths & Medicine, a writer for the environmental news blog Planetsave, and the host of Behind the Schemes. When I'm not blogging about the illegal wildlife trade, I like to rock out to live music.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Rhinos, lions, and other imperiled wildlife are being exported from South Africa to a Bangladeshi zoo with a dark and suspicious history.

After purchasing at least 19 wild animals from a “safari park” in South Africa, government-run Dhaka Zoo apparently received its first shipment last week – pairs of white rhinos, white lions, striped hyenas, and a spotted hyena.

The New Age reports the new captives are among some 270 animals (many of them threatened or endangered) that the zoo recently bought from other countries to add to their collection.

However, Dhaka Zoo’s past is riddled with corruption, scandals, and an alarming number of concerning and even suspicious deaths – including those of many wild animals imported from South Africa.

As the circumstances at the facility have even been described as “an insult to the concept of a modern zoo”, one wonders why anyone would consider selling an animal to the establishment.

It is unclear from whom they purchased the rhinos and other animals, but the zoo appears to have bought wild animals from the private sector of South Africa’s game industry in the past.

One Indian rhino dead, another dying

Dhaka Zoo received a pair of six month-old Indian rhinos (also called Greater one-horned rhinos) as a gift from the King of Nepal in 1992.

The male of the duo died in 2004, reportedly from self-inflicted injuries sustained in a violent episode they say stemmed from an unsuccessful attempt to mate with the female.

In a scientific report published in Zoo Print Magazine two years later, researchers suggested that the bull’s injuries had not been properly care for.

Larger zoo animals are really difficult to manage for treatment (Acharjyo, 1999) and even more difficult with inadequate facilities.

The researchers also explained that the rhinos’ enclosure was not suitable for the animals to be kept in.

The clay soil is not comfortable and there is no gradual sloping which is a very major problem for this species. There is no jungle or enough area to maintain privacy from the visitors the whole day.

Indian rhinos are known to live for 35-40 years and even the Dhaka Zoo website says this species lives for as long as 47 years in captivity, meaning the female currently in their possession would be far from “old” at her current age of 20 years.

But that didn’t stop the zoo’s curator from claiming, in a 2009 article from The Daily Star, that the rhino was expected to die soon from “old age complications” and (along with several other animals) was already in “critical condition”.

It was later confirmed that she was suffering from pyometra, an extremely painful uterine infection that requires surgery — one that the zoo was apparently unable or unwilling to provide.

Amazingly, photos taken a month ago prove the pachyderm was still alive — although she appeared quite thin and her overall condition seemed concerning. (A disturbing photo can be seen here.)

South African giraffe scandal

In June 2008, Dhaka Zoo imported five giraffes (and 22 other wild animals) from South Africa – and a scandal was born.

Instantly the star attraction, The Daily Star reported that the zoo had not had any giraffes since 1998.

In July 2009, the zoo apparently told the publication that the giraffes all had Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) – a potentially fatal virus that affects even-toed ungulates, which the curator claimed had probably spread from a “slum” area that borders the zoo.

He added that other animals in their establishment were also infected.

Two months later, three of the giraffes died within a month’s time.

• September 7, 2009: The Daily Star reported that a giraffe less than three years old had died of dehydration, after refusing food and water for a week.
• September 30, 2009: The zoo told BdNews24.com that a three year old giraffe died suddenly, despite being in “good condition” up until that point. A **graphic** and disturbing photo (seen here) of the dead animal seems quite unnatural and certainly seems to warrant an explanation.
• October 4, 2009: A three and a half year old giraffe died after falling ill a few days before, according to BdNews24.com.

After the third death, the zoo curator admitted that, not only is the climate in Bangladesh unsuitable for giraffes, but that the zoo also lacked adequate facilities and equipment to care for them.

Mounting controversy over the 2008 purchase of the giraffes in South Africa and their subsequent deaths prompted the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries to investigate the issues in 2010.

BdNews24.com said evidence of corruption and misappropriations of funds in the transaction were discovered.

The probe body also found evidence of corruption and misappropriation of funds in the purchase of the five giraffes, as officials falsely represented the animals as younger and more costly, which incurred a loss of nearly Tk 5 crore [around US $611,277] for Dhaka Zoo.

The investigation committee claimed that despite being specifically instructed to purchase five giraffes between the ages of 18 and 24 months, their procurers had instead bought five aged five and a half to six years old and failed to submit the required documentation on the animals’ ages and health statuses.

This, the Ministry said, was the reason the three giraffes had died – from “old age complications”.

However, giraffes live an average of 25 years and even the Dhaka Zoo website says they live up 26-30 years of age in captivity, which means none of the animals they bought in South Africa could have truly been considered “old”.

In July 2010, BdNews24.com reported that a fourth giraffe was sick, and yet the zoo has already purchased more giraffes in South Africa and plans to fly them in soon.

(It’s worth nothing that this is not the only case of corruption allegations and financial discrepancies. BdNews24.com reported on a scandal involving funding allotted for the purchase of food for the animals in 2010.)

Animals from South Africa dead within one year of arrival

Dhaka Zoo imported 27 animals (including the five giraffes) from South Africa in June 2008, according to The Daily Star.

The publication later reported that twelve of the animals (44% of all imported) from South Africa died within a year.

In addition to the three giraffes, there were also:

• Two kudu – one of which died in quarantine within 15 days of its arrival at the zoo and the South African supplier of the animal, “Hoor and Company”, was forced to repay the amount it was purchased for.
• Two kangaroo, two oryx, and an impala that all died within three months of landing at their new home. A wildebeest died less than a year later.
• A mountain zebra that died (fourth months after arriving) from a gangrenous leg injury it apparently sustained while being transported from South Africa.

The zoo curator explained to The Daily Star that infection was a leading cause for many of the untimely deaths.

“Although timid in nature they reacted violently in their cages in the beginning and sustained injuries. Most of these animals died of infection in their hind legs while a few of them developed a type of infection in the horn,” he added.

Somehow, an investigation into the wave of deaths did not find any negligence.

Keepers killed tigers to sell skins

In 1996, four tigers died over a three-day period at Dhaka Zoo and it was later determined that the felines had been intentionally poisoned to death by their keepers.

The Daily Star reported that the keepers had planned to procure the animals’ valuable skins, probably for sale on the black market.

Of 14 zoo staff arrested for the crime, Dawn said nine were acquitted nine years later and five were fined and sentenced to fourteen years in prison.

Highly sought after body parts of deceased captive animals – especially tigers and lions – have been known to enter the trade from the back doors of unscrupulous zoos, safari parks, and tiger farms throughout Asia.

A plethora of big cat deaths

Numerous tigers and lions have died at Dhaka Zoo under alarming and sometimes suspicious circumstances over the years.

Apparently, all of the lions and tigers at the zoo are hybrids of multiple different subspecies – a fact that seems to have been withheld from the media.

In 1999, BBC News reported that four tigers had died from trypanosomiasis (a disease caused by blood parasites) over a four week period, while a fourth remained quite ill.

At least four tigers and one lion died over the next five years.

• 2000: A tiger died of “acute renal failure and shock”.
• 2001: News.ch reported that the zoo chief had been fired after it was determined that a lion’s death had been caused by being fed excessive amounts of fat in its diet. (The same year, the zoo announced plans to begin breeding tiger-lion hybrids. A disturbing and **graphic** photo, seen here, shows the horrifying condition of one of the zoo’s lions at the time.)
• 2003: A tiger died from a “severe cold” and another from an “inbreeding effect”.
• 2004: While it reported in Zoo Print Magazine that a 16 year old tiger had died from “shock (senility)”, the zoo appears to have told The Daily Star that it died of liver cirrhosis.

Another two tigers died in 2009 (one is said to have died from “old age complications”), as did a lion that apparently hemorrhaged to death after suffering from paralysis for at least a year.

Inbreeding in tigers and lions

Over the next few years, Dhaka Zoo’s tiger and lion populations multiplied to overwhelming levels – and so did inbreeding amongst the animals.

In fact, the business considered castrating the male felines to control the problem in 2005, but later opted for non-permanent measures in case they decided to breed the animals again in the future.

In 2004, a report in Zoo Print Magazine explained that Dhaka Zoo only had the resources to sustain a maximum of eight lions and nine tigers.

However, the zoo has consistently had far more than that for over a decade.

Despite sending seven tigers and two lions to other zoos in 2004, AFP reported in 2005 that 36 tigers and lions were crammed into enclosures that were meant to hold no more than 16 of the felines.

Today, it purportedly holds 10 tigers (down from 18 in 1999) and thirteen lions (down from 22 in 2007) — including the two new white lions from South Africa.

BdNews24.com reported that the inbreeding had caused physical abnormalities in the big cats and other animals at the zoo – including a crippled lion and a tiger with painful spine curvature.

Researchers reported other oberservations resultant from inbreeding in a 2006 Zoo Print Magazine article.

Due to inbreeding effects, weak Kittens with various nervous syndromes, developmental anomalies occur and many unnatural behaviours are observed.

A 2007 study in the Bangladesh Journal of Microbiology suggests that the inbreeding problem could’ve been prevented fairly easily.

Here in the Dhaka Zoo, the inbreeding effect is a serious problem by not having any breeding policy or road map.

Unusually high numbers of reckless deaths

Dhaka Zoo has a long and dark history when it comes to deaths stemming from unsanitary conditions, negligence, and a general lack of proper equipment and expertise.

• BBC News reported that over 250 animals had died at the zoo over a six month period in 1999.
• The 2007 study in the Bangladesh Journal of Microbiology said that a total of 144 had died between February 2002 and September 2006.
• News Today reported last year that 80 animals died at the zoo in 2009 and 50 in 2010.

There was little media coverage of negative events and accounts of death at the zoo in 2011.

Infectious disease disaster waiting to happen?

The Dhaka Zoo curator recently told The New Age that their policy requires imported animals to remain in quarantine for a period of 21 days.

A 2006 report in Zoo Print Magazine explains that the zoo’s quarantine block is situated in very close proximity to a commercial poultry farm that abuts the zoo.

Obviously, this raises grave concerns over the risk of diseases spreading from the farm animals to zoo animals and even potentially to the three million human visitors that patronize the zoo each year on average.

In fact, in 2008, an avian influenza (bird flu) outbreak at the neighboring poultry farm resulted in the culling of 19,000 chickens.

A Daily Star article reported that a rhea died suddenly a few days later and showed signs of bird flu. (IRIN News also reported that both an emu and a rhea had died.)

The zoo claimed the exotic bird had died of enteritis (a cold-like disease), but felt it necessary to put the zoo on high alert for bird flu – which included spraying disinfectants throughout the zoo grounds and disinfecting all bird cages twice per day.

It appears the zoo lacked a formal plan of action for dealing with urgent cases of infectious diseases at the zoo (e.g. avian influenza, tuberculosis, FMD, etc.) prior to their actual occurrences.

Tuberculosis outbreak

Failure to develop a long-recommended pathology lab (to diagnose diseases and assess the health of the animals) at the zoo likely contributed to another ticking time bomb situation.

After tuberculosis killed a lion in 2005, BdNews24.com revealed an extremely concerning situation unfolding at the zoo.

Sources said though the authorities fear that the disease has affected almost 90 percent animals at the zoo, many of those are yet to go through blood test.

The article also claimed even staff had been infected.

A 2007 study published in the Bangladesh Journal of Microbiology reported that tuberculosis was responsible for 35 (24%) of the 144 deaths that occurred at Dhaka Zoo between February 2002 and September 2006. (It’s worth nothing that the report also found that an additional 30 of the deaths could only have been caused by “physical/traumatic injurious death by any objects or by predators”.)

Indeed, the study found that tuberculosis and Coccidioides immitis (a fungus native to the western hemisphere) were the “most common causes of death” of animals at the Dhaka Zoo.

Alarmingly, a 2005 Zoo Print Magazine article explained that an adult lion and five cubs were living in the quarantine block during this time because there were not enough cages to house them in.

Zoo’s inabilities threaten animals’ health and welfare

The aforementioned 2007 report suggested that the spread of infectious diseases at the zoo was being encouraged by zoo’s inabilities, with the researchers noting:

• The lack of a proper veterinary unit and adequate laboratory facilities
• Methods used to clean enclosures were not scientific and feeding areas were not hygienic
• Water houses were outdated, poorly constructed, not cleaned regularly, and promoted algal growth – a recipe for “repeated contamination”

All of these things have been referenced as being serious concerns for the zoo multiple times over the years.

Earlier this year, Professor Anwarul Islam (CEO of the Wildlife Trust) was quoted by TheIndependentBd.com in discussing the abysmal conditions in which the animals live at Dhaka Zoo.

“The problem with such animals is that the zoo authorities do not know what to do with them. Obviously, hostile condition and poor supply of food make it almost impossible for the animals to survive. The animals are brought from abroad at a huge cost, only to be pushed to death through utter neglect. The overall situation prevailing here is an insult to the concept of a modern zoo”, Prof Anwarul Islam, chief executive of the Wildlife Trust of the government said.

Professor Islam also said that the establishment did not have any zoologists on staff.

According to BdNews24.com, the zoo only had one veterinarian on staff in 2009, but had requested funding to bring on two more.

Despite multiple members of the zoo staff being suspended, fired, and replaced numerous times over the years, the zoo’s conditions appear to remain the same.

”Overburdened” with animals

In 2009, when the zoo apparently had 2,160 animals, an official told The Daily Star that they were “overburdened” with animals and were in need of more space.

“Right now we are overburdened with some animals as we have 17 pythons, 17 lions, 14 tigers and nine hippopotamus and many deer. We need lots of space if we want to ensure proper management of these animals,” he said.

The New Age claims the establishment has some 1,974 creatures today, but plans to add 270 more to its collection within the next three to four months.

In 2010, the zoo told The Daily Star that they had submitted a proposal to purchase more animals, despite admittedly being unable to care for the animals.

“We need more space to take good care of the animals. We are doing our best within this limited space and budget,” said Shahid Ulla claiming that all the staff of the zoo work hard all day long.

Last year, a zoo spokesperson admitted to the zoo’s ongoing inadequacy for accommodating its animals in a Priyo News article.

‘The current environment at the zoo is unfriendly for the animals because of sound pollution, visitor’s aggressive behaviour to the animals and also the improper health care management,’ he added.

At a total of 2,244 animals (if all of the 270 new ones survive), the zoo will continue to exceed its apparent threshold, as it appears that housing has not yet been expanded nor improved – another thing experts have urgently recommended multiple times over the years.

’New’ zoo modernization project not new

The zoo reports the new animals being procured for their collection currently are part of a new ‘zoo modernization project’ – a plan that was first proposed eight years ago, according to The Daily Star.

The details haven’t changed much since 2004 and include updating caging systems, importing more animals, constructing a railroad for a train to circle the perimeter of the park, erecting jumbotron screens at entrances for guests to watch what is happening inside the facility, and introducing boat rides to allow visitors to view caged animals from the zoo lake.

Although experts have long recommended that the zoo immediately improve the living conditions for their captive animals, establish a desperately needed pathology lab, and drastically improve veterinary care, it seems the zoo’s main priority is to first replace their diminished collection — apparently starting with the wildlife they recently purchased from South Africa.

Additional sources:
Ahasan, S.A. and A.Z. Rahman, “Mortality in Dhaka Zoo due to Microbial Agents,” Bangladesh Journal of Microbiology 24(2007): 154-156.

“Dhaka Zoo Activities,” Zoo Print Magazine XIX (2004): 5-6.

Ferdous Ara, “Dhaka Zoo to have 270 new animals,” The New Age, April 20, 2012, Accessed April 23, 2012.

Malakar, B., Hasan, M. K., et al., “The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction­ Visitor Reactions and Perceptions: The Case of Dhaka Zoo, Bangladesh”, Dhaka University Journal of Business Studies 28(December 2007).

Pinaki Roy, “Lion dies in Dhaka Zoo,” The Daily Star, September 11, 2009, accessed April 26, 2012.

Rahman, Z.A. and S.A. Ahasan, “Status of Bengal Tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Dhaka Zoo,” Zoo Print Magazine XXI (2006): 13-14.

Raihan Sabuktagin, “Dhaka Zoo: Fund constraint stalls breeding program,” The Daily Star, December 27, 2006, accessed April 26, 2012.

S.A. Ahasan, “Bangladesh: Seminar and Animal Donation Ceremony Held in Dhaka Zoo,” Zoo Print Magazine XIX(2004): 8.

“South Asian Zoo News,” Zoo Print Magazine XX(2009): 22.

“Zoo News from South Asia,” Zoo Print Magazine XXII(2007): 21-22.

Sarah Pappin

I am a writer for Saving Rhinos, as well as for her sister blog, Project Pangolin. You may know me from my previous role at Bush Warriors. I am a biologist-turned-writer, with a BSc in wildlife science from Oregon State University. When I'm not blogging, I enjoy loud music, creating art, hula hooping, and being outdoors.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

For the second time this month, Nepal’s Central Investigation Bureau has successfully nabbed a gang of rhino horn racketeers.

According to The Himalayan Times, Ram Bahadur Gurung and Keshav Bahadur Rokka of Dhading, Rudra Bahadur KC of Myagdi, and Krishna Bahadur Dhital of Gorkha were arrested “as they were on their way to find prospective clients”.

Authorities confiscated a rhino horn from the gang.

Under Nepal’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973, the suspects could face up to 15 years in prison, plus heavy fines, for killing and trading in endangered species.

In Nepal, court delays and postponements for rhino-related crimes are usually avoided because the cases are handled directly by the divisional forest office.

The country has a history of administering serious punishments for rhino crimes.

Last week, two rhino horn traders were busted in Kathmandu.

Nepal enjoyed an entire calendar year of no rhino killings, until tragedy struck earlier this month: A female rhino was found dead, with her horn missing, in Chitwan National Park.

Greater one-horned rhinos in Nepal

One of the three Asian rhino species, greater one-horned rhinos (Rhinoceros unicornis) were once widespread throughout the northern floodplains and nearby foothills of the Indian sub-continent between Indo-Myanmar border in the east, and Sindh River basin, Pakistan in the west.

Nepal’s most recent rhino census found that the population of greater one-horned rhinos has increased to 534. The count was conducted in April 2011, and revealed an increase of 99 rhinos since the last count in 2008.

Chitwan National Park was found to have 503 rhinos, while 24 reside in Bardia National Park, and Shukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve holds seven of the precious pachyderms.

Today, greater one-horned rhinos are found only in a few protected areas in northeastern India and lowland Nepal.

Traditional medicine myths continue to threaten rhinos

Although the greater one-horned rhino population is steadily increasing, these rhinos remain under threat of being killed for their horn.

Despite the fact that extensive scientific analysis has confirmed that rhino horn has no medicinal value, myths about rhino horn persist throughout China and Vietnam, where rhino horn is considered a key ingredient of traditional Chinese medicine.

Photo © Partnership for Rhino Conservation Nepal/Saving Rhinos

Rhishja Cota-Larson

I am the founder of Saving Rhinos LLC, which publishes news and information about the global rhino crisis. I am the Editor of Rhino Horn is Not Medicine and Project Pangolin, author of the book Murder, Myths & Medicine, a writer for the environmental news blog Planetsave, and the host of Behind the Schemes. When I'm not blogging about the illegal wildlife trade, I like to rock out to live music.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Greater-one horned rhinos at risk.

A greater one-horned rhino was killed last week in the Bagori forest range of Kaziranga National Park, bringing India’s rhino death toll to at least five.

The Times of India reported that the rhino’s horn had been chopped off and twelve suspects were arrested.

This tragic death brings this year’s death total to at least five greater one-horned rhinos in India.

Despite the recent deaths, Assam’s rhino population is on the rise.

Staff Writer

Saving Rhinos website: savingrhinos.org | Blog: Rhino Horn is NOT Medicine | Web series and podcast: Behind the Schemes | World Rhino Day: worldrhinoday.org |

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Busted!

Two suspected rhino horn traders were reportedly arrested by Nepal’s Central Investigation Bureau.

The Himalayan Times identified the pair as Krishan Bahadur Khadka and Kamala Shakya, who were busted with a rhino horn in Kathmandu.

They will be sent to the Kathmandu District Forest Office for further questioning.

After a remarkable calendar year without any rhino killings, the first rhino murder in Nepal occurred earlier this month in Chitwan National Park.

At the time of this writing, it is not known if the confiscated horn is related to the Chitwan National Park tragedy.

Image © iStockphoto.com

Staff Writer

Saving Rhinos website: savingrhinos.org | Blog: Rhino Horn is NOT Medicine | Web series and podcast: Behind the Schemes | World Rhino Day: worldrhinoday.org |

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

Is the attempt to gather support for a ‘legal’ trade in rhino horn a solution — or just a long-standing agenda?

Although the notion of “legalizing” the trade in rhino horn has recently been touted as a “solution” to the rhino crisis, it turns out that the same agenda was proposed 15 years ago — during a year when four rhinos were killed in South Africa.

At the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 1997, South Africa’s pro-trade syndicate* (PTS) sought to expand its Southern white rhino trade from “international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies” to include rhinoceros “parts and derivatives”.

Despite trade in rhino horn being banned internationally in 1977 and China banning its use in traditional Chinese medicine in 1993, the PTS wanted to seek “support for open and transparent discussions with practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine concerning the possibility of a limited, tightly controlled trade in rhinoceros horn”, using the argument that this would “generate funds for conservation and reduce incentives for illegal trade”.

However, it was determined that South Africa lacked “adequate control mechanisms” for a legal trade — even at a time when illegal killing numbers were declining and continental rhino populations were rising.

Proposal rejected — twice

South Africa’s proposal was ultimately rejected at the 1997 Conference of the Parties, when it twice failed to gain the required two-thirds majority vote.

After losing in the initial standard vote (60 in favor, 32 against) , South African delegates then demanded a controversial “secret ballot” vote.

Ironically, the secret ballot resulted in 50 votes in favor and 48 against.

By 1998, the WWF determined that “the mid- to late-1990s have signalled a changing tide for Africa’s rhinos as poaching has notably declined.”

Same agenda, new name

The opposition towards South Africa’s 1997 proposal revealed concerns about the country’s ability to manage a legal trade and the potential effect that the additional market would have on other rhino range states.

These concerns included:

• The lack of adequate control mechanisms for a legal horn trade
• Annotating appendices
• Southern white rhino populations outside South Africa had not yet recovered to acceptable levels
• The potential for the amendment to undermine the progress made in reducing demand for rhino horn

The recent (2008 — 2012) escalation in rhino killings in South Africa seems to have resuscitated the PTS agenda, which they have renamed a “poaching solution”.

But several issues remain inadequately addressed by this scheme.

Let’s take a look.

Rhino horn laundering and stockpiles

South Africa currently has only a tenuous grasp (at best) on its existing legal trade in rhinos, as evidenced by the arrests of game farmers, professional hunters, veterinarians, and safari operators who have been caught abusing their privileges.

And while the tiresome call to sell South Africa’s private and state-owned rhino horn stockpiles is repeatedly dusted off and trotted out as a stopgap measure, the stockpile situation exemplifies a serious “lack of control mechanisms” — particularly regarding the private sector.

These suspicions seem to have cropped up thirteen years ago, when the issue was highlighted in a 1999 report from the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group (AfrRSG).

Concern has also been expressed about the adequacy of the control and registration of horn stocks in South Africa, especially those in the private sector.

The nation’s CITES documentation shows that private stocks have been assessed for only four of nine provinces, with no information to date on those in the Free State, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Western Cape, and Mpumalanga.

(Mpumalanga coincidentally is home to what has been called the world’s largest private collection of rhinoceroses.)

According to experts, these five provinces together hold some 20% of all privately owned rhinos in South Africa.

Two failed attempts to audit the privately owned stockpiles between 2007 and 2008 apparently ended in criminal investigations, according to the 2009 report on African rhinos to the CITES Secratariat.

While investigations following these audits are ongoing, it is not clear whether any legal action will result.

In 2009, the AfrRSG estimated that an average of at least 50 horns had been illegally sold into the black market every year since 2006.

That number is likely to have increased substantially since then and yet the amount of South Africa’s privately owned rhino horn stockpiles remain largely unknown even today.

Neighboring populations and Asian rhino species

The PTS consistently fails to address the impact that South Africa’s proposal would have on rhinos in other range states.

In fact, the existence of the three Asian species — greater one-horned, Javan, and Sumatran rhinos — is rarely, if ever, acknowledged by those who are seeking to legitimize South Africa’s role as a rhino horn supplier.

Asian rhino populations might not survive the onslaught of an even larger market for rhino horn.

For example, in the case of China’s continuing attempts to have its illegal tiger farms legitimized, expert opinion from the IUCN and SSC Cat Specialist Group concluded that “products from farmed animals as well as supply from wild populations are on the market [demonstrating] that in many cases demand for wild animals has increased rather than decreased”.

Commercial use of tiger products in China is only one threat to the survival of the tiger in the wild; but it carries a very high potential of negatively affecting the wild populations not only in China but, more importantly, in neighbouring countries, if it were to drive poaching and illegal trade.

It is noteworthy that a comprehensive report on the status of African and Asian rhinos prepared for CITES in 2009 confirmed that “trade developments in South Africa” were already stimulating the demand for rhino horn in traditional consumer states.

Whilst the impact on national rhino numbers is still minimal, rhino horn trade developments in South Africa have been the principal driving force behind the resurgent rhino horn trade in Asia, most notably in Viet Nam and, to a lesser extent, China.

Demand reduction

One of the first steps of demand reduction is awareness regarding the use of rhino horn in traditional Chinese medicine. Significant progress is being made in generating awareness and the mixed message of legal trade would undermine decades of efforts to educate end users and reduce demand for rhino horn.

Recognizing the link between rhino horn use and rhino killings, the President of the American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ACTCM) and Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM) released a statement in 2011 opposing the use of rhino horn in medicines.

In March 2012, the Vietnamese NGO Education for Nature-Vietnam launched a rhino horn trade awareness campaign which will produce two public service announcements for national TV. One PSA is targeted towards rhino horn consumers and the other towards rhino horn traffickers.

Health risks

Additionally, encouraging the use of rhino horn is harmful to people who would otherwise seek medical attention.

In 2011, a woman in Hanoi became sick after consuming a rhino horn mixture to treat a rash around her mouth. She reportedly paid a large sum of money for the “treatment” – and then ended up in Bach Mai Hospital when her symptoms worsened.

From CITES (CoP15 Doc. 45.1):

It is despicable that criminals are financially exploiting sufferers, and their relatives, at a time when they will be struggling to cope with distressing and sometimes terminal medical conditions.

It is deeply troubling that potential health risks are discarded in favor of financial gain.

(A 2001 survey of private rhino owners published in Pachyderm found that “financial benefits rather than conservation principles appeared to drive white rhino management” and 79 percent of the respondents were “keen” to sell their rhino horn stockpiles. It seems little has changed during the past 11 years.)

Motivation?

While improved (radically improved) measures for rhino trade monitoring and stockpile management would be most welcome (and long overdue), it seems there is interest in such improvements only as it relates to the PTS agenda.

Indeed, this observation was made at a workshop facilitated by the Endangered Wildlife Trust in March 2011.

Concern was however raised by some conservation NGOs that the only reason there is a call to put systems in place is in order to legalise trade and that these measures should be implemented regardless of a legalised trade being assured or not.

Rhino numbers rising

The PTS and their supporters would like the public to believe that if we do not accept their plan, rhinos will go extinct.

However, since the ban on rhino horn trade has been enacted, African rhino populations have increased overall.

If there is anything positive to come of this crisis, then perhaps it is that South Africa’s bad apples, dirty players, and rhino horn dealers are being rooted out, identified — and hopefully, punished to the full extent of the law.

Co-authored with Sarah Pappin.

*The group lobbying for legalized horn trade (along with similar bodies pushing for legalized ivory trade and whaling) in 1997 was dubbed the “pro-trade syndicate” (PTS) in a media briefing paper by Greenpeace: It is often hard to tell what groups and individuals are behind the (nominally) non-governmental pro-trade lobby. By using legitimate arguments about the need for poorer countries with many wildlife species to conserve their wildlife in ways that involve and work for local people, they cloak their profit-centred agenda for trade liberalisation.

Sources:

Dublin, H. and A. Wilson. 1998. “The Fight for Survival: Four Decades of Conserving Africa’s Rhinos,” WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

T. Milliken, et al. “African and Asian rhinoceroses — Status, Conservation, and Trade.” A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89, November 2009.

Castley, J.G. and A.J. Hall-Martin. “The status of the southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum) on private land in South Africa in 2001.” Pachyderm No. 34. January — June 2003.

“Cat Specialist Group opinion to China’s domestic tiger trade policy review.” IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group (2007)

“Perspectives on Dehorning & Legalised Trade in Rhino Horn as Tools to Combat Rhino Poaching.” 1 – 3 March 2011. Workshop Report. Convened by Endangered Wildlife Trust. Sponsored by The South African Mint Company.

Rhishja Cota-Larson

I am the founder of Saving Rhinos LLC, which publishes news and information about the global rhino crisis. I am the Editor of Rhino Horn is Not Medicine and Project Pangolin, author of the book Murder, Myths & Medicine, a writer for the environmental news blog Planetsave, and the host of Behind the Schemes. When I'm not blogging about the illegal wildlife trade, I like to rock out to live music.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.

More great news for India’s greater one-horned rhinos!

The rhino population in Assam’s Kaziranga National Park has risen to 2290, up from the 2009 census which counted 2048 rhinos.

A team of 200 people and 34 elephants were involved in the rhino count, which took two days to complete.

Rhinos on the rise

Orang National Park’s rhino population soared from 64 to 100, and Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary is celebrating an increase from 84 to 93 rhinos, and Manas National Park is home to 22 rhinos.

The new numbers place Assam just 495 rhinos away from achieving the goal of Indian Rhino Vision 2020, which is 3,000 wild rhinos in Assam by the year 2020.

The Indian Rhino Vision (IRV) 2020 is a partnership among the government of Assam, the International Rhino Foundation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Bodoland Territorial Council and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that aims to attain a population of 3,000 wild rhinos in seven of Assam’s protected areas by the year 2020.

Here’s to Assam for a job well done!

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Rhishja Cota-Larson

I am the founder of Saving Rhinos LLC, which publishes news and information about the global rhino crisis. I am the Editor of Rhino Horn is Not Medicine and Project Pangolin, author of the book Murder, Myths & Medicine, a writer for the environmental news blog Planetsave, and the host of Behind the Schemes. When I'm not blogging about the illegal wildlife trade, I like to rock out to live music.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

See Rhino Horn is Not Medicine for more information.