Unintelligent Research Design

Hello everyone! I'm sorry I haven't kept up on here as often as I should (if any of you want to see what I've been up to lately see http://laelaps.wordpress.com), but it's primarily because copy/pasting the posts from wordpress to here usually results in a jumble of HTML that's not very pretty. Even so, I thought I would mosey on back to write something just for everyone who has been wondering where I've been based upon a clip of National Geographic documentary I saw yesterday. The program was about Jaguars, the big spotted cats of the Americas, focusing on conservation efforts in the field to save the cats from extinction by hunting & human encroachment. Although I myself wish to be a conservation biologist someday in the near future, not everything done in the field is good for the animals, as was certainly the case with the design of the project led by one woman whose name escapes me at the moment. Working for WCS, she was attempting to determine if certain jaguars were feeding exclusively on cattle (as the local farmers lamented) by radio-collaring the animals and tracking their movements. In order to capture the animals in the first place she went out with some of the farmers and their dogs (beagles and mutts), hoping to corner the jaguar, tranquilize it, take measurements, and then affix a hefy radio-collar in order to later track the animals movements.

In some sense of the word the program was a success in that some cats were bagged, but I can only wonder at the potential harm done to the animals, especially the pregnant female caught by the group. Think of it this way; rather than set a trap (which does cause some amount of stress for the animal) and then determining what the best thing to do with the jaguar, this woman chases a pregnant female for 7 hours through the thick brush, dogs howling and scaring the mother-to-be all the way, then shoots it with a dart and then tranquilizes the animal further (though a lower dose) to poke, prod, and affix a radio collar which may affect the mothers ability to hunt prey. The documentary then says the mother gives birth a certain number of months afterwards, but the footage is stock and I have yet to track down the paper that should have come from this "conservation" program that would confirm this. Such methods are archaic and irresponsible, putting not only the researchers, the dogs (one of which was actually attacked), and the jaguar in danger, but also the unborn cubs as well. Determining if the jaguar was eating exclusively cattle could have been achieved by determining when the attacks took place and how many animals were taken from what locales with camera traps set up (every jaguar has a unique spot pattern) at the various ranches. Radio-collaring has also been dismaying to me, the bulky collars likely having an effect on hunting or even interactions between members of the same species. This has yet to be confirmed, but I wonder if a radio-collared jaguar has ever been denied by a mate because of the uncomfortable plastic ring around its neck, thus inhibiting species reproduction. We've reached a point in technology where microchips can be implanted in the skin or trackers ingested (eventually to pass on, as it were) that are less stressful to the animals, yet the "tradition" of radio-collaring continues, most likely because of lack of funds to advance tracking methods properly. At this point we must also ask the question what good is data that is altered because of the data-collection technique? If a radio collar alters jaguar behavior or hunting/mating success then the results aren't worth as much as they would be otherwise. Even my proposed implantation methods are still invasive and may effect the animals behavior, most likely requiring capture (unless they tracking chips could be implanted via a dart).

I am happy people care enough for the jaguar and other animals to want to conserve them, but I truly feel that the long held methods of radio-collar tracking and tranquilizing animals for measurement need much improvement. Both give us insights into morphology and behavior, but both are so invasive and stressful that I can't say that they lead to truly unbiased or natural results. There is a constant desire to touch and get close to animals we care for, and I'm sure many conservationists feel this way about the animals they love, but it would be far better to leave the animals alone as much as possible, for we may even be decreasing their chances for survival by intruding so violently into their lives.