Powered by Blogger.

Pages

  • Home
  • About me
  • Contact me
  • Wildlife Conservation
  • Climate Change
  • Travel
  • Sustainable Living

Conservation With Kate

 ** This is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **


If you take only one things from this article, let it be the title: shark nets kill sharks.
 
When I say shark nets, what I referring to are nets that are deployed across stretches of coastline near popular beaches in order to keep water users safe from being bitten by a shark. Marketed as a necessity, shark nets are plugged to the public as a something to keep people safe from dangerous, human-eating sharks. It is assumed that without these nets, hungry sharks would have easy access to vulnerable swimmers and we’d either not be able to go in the water, or go in at our peril. This is a lie.
 
Shark nets do not prevent sharks from getting close to beaches. Firstly, they do not form a barrier to sharks. They are suspended in the water column, and there is a gap above them,  below them, and between them on both sides. Sharks can literally go over, under, or around the nets if they want to. What’s even more interesting is that in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, the majority of the sharks caught in the nets are caught on the shoreward side. Therefore, the sharks had made it past the nets and were caught in between the beach and the net when swimming back out to sea (away from swimmers). Secondly, the design of nets is not to act as a barrier, but to entangle, catch and kill large sharks.
 
Calling these lethal devices shark nets is the first big marketing win. They are actually gill nets. As in, fishing nets. Gill nets are used by commercial fishermen, and shark nets are the same nets: just on bigger scale for a bigger fish, like a great white shark. If beaches that have shark nets advertised that they have gill nets, we would avoid a lot of misconception (i.e. that these nets form a barrier).

Source: Cape Town SharkSpotters

Another important point to touch on is the non-target nature of gill nets. By this what I mean is, non-target species are also often caught in the net. This is known as by-catch: when you catch something that you didn’t intend to. Turtles, whales, dolphins and smaller sharks all get caught and die in these nets. These are animals that pose no threat to human life. Their only mistake is living in the ocean and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some critically endangered and endangered species have fallen victim to shark nets, such as the humpback dolphin in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa (Atkins et al. 2016).
 
One of the biggest issues surrounding shark nets is that people are largely unaware this is happening. However, the managers of beaches that sign off on these nets are not technically lying to us. If you look for the correct information about shark nets – i.e. they’re are designed to catch and kill sharks, do not form a barrier to shark, and the majority of sharks are caught swimming back out to sea – you’ll find it. But you have to look. You have to be deliberately searching for this information, and so you basically have to already know it to find it. They may not be lying, but they are not forthcoming with the truth.
 
I think this is deliberate. It’s not exactly a good look for them to promote that they kill  sharks, along with lots of other species. But this omission of truth means that the public opposition that I imagine would be there, is missing. Campaigns to end this culling, and to promote human safety AND shark conservation, a coexistence of both, are either not there or not loud enough to be heard.
 
Conservation-wise, the biggest issue with these shark nets is that they violate internationally agreed responsibility to protect endangered species. In Australia, the use of  these nets goes against the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Several species of so-called ‘dangerous’ sharks are endangered, and much of the by-catch is too. Furthermore, sharks carry out critical ecosystem functions as apex predators. Removing them from the system could have cascading consequences for marine life and ecosystem services (natural processes that directly or indirectly benefit humans).

BALANCING HUMAN SAFETY WITH SHARK CONSERVATION

You might be reading this and be conflicted. Yes, killing sharks for just existing in their natural space seems harsh, but if people want to continue recreationally using the water in areas these sharks exist, which encourages tourism and thus has huge direct and indirect economic benefits, then we do need to do something to keep people safe.
 
So what can we do?
 
Firstly, it’s important to understand that sharks do not attack people. Sharks bite people sometimes, but incredibly rarely. And these bites are not a calculated malicious attack. The primary theory of why this happens is curiosity on behalf of the shark. Sharks cannot come up and ask us what we are, or touch us to figure it out. Their way of identifying objects or creatures is to bite them and see. There is also a theory that sharks mistake humans (often on surf boards in wetsuits) for seals. That’s why humans are rarely eaten by sharks: they bite us, realise we are not at all what they wanted, and leave. It’s just unfortunate for us that the force of a curious bite from a great white shark could take your leg off.
 
Sometimes sharks are just aggressive, particularly juveniles. But again, it’s incredibly rare. If  you consider how many people have encountered sharks and not been bitten, or the number of people who have swam at beaches where sharks frequent and not been bitten, you get some idea of just how unlikely being bitten is.
 
Finally, there are shark management strategies that are harmless to sharks, but keep people safe. The Shark Spotters Programme in Cape Town is the most notable and successful to date. A spotter sits at a high vantage point (Cape Town is ideal for this kind of programme with mountains situated adjacent to popular surfing beaches). They use a flag system to  signify level of risk or shark activity. If a shark is spotted, the white flag is raised and an  alarm goes off notifying everyone to get out of the water. The water is evacuated until the spotter deems it safe for people to return. The flag flying also indicates how recently a shark  has been spotted, and how good the spotting conditions are.
 
There are other options too if you don’t have a conveniently placed mountain. New technologies are in the works, including cameras that detect movement in the water. They use machine learning technology to identify sharks based on how they move, so they would  be able to tell if the motion they detect is a shark. There are wetsuits you can buy that are supposed to camouflage you into the water column based on a sharks visual system, and individual shark repellent devices you can attach to yourself.
 
There is also such thing as an exclusion net! A net that actually does form a barrier to sharks  AND does not kill them! These nets form a complete barrier from the water surface to the sea floor, creating an enclosed space for swimmers which marine life cannot enter. The mesh of the net is small (45mmx45mm) and square which reduces entanglement risk. An example of this is also found in Cape Town, at Fish Hoek beach, where a section of the bay is enclosed from sharks. The net is retrieved every evening and deployed every morning, to minimise environmental impact.
 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Overall, it’s safe to say I do not agree with lethal shark management. I believe it is not only possible, but essential, to promote coexistence with sharks. These days there are ways to recreationally use the oceans and let sharks live. Some beaches, such as in Cape Town, lend themselves easily to shark spotters or exclusion nets. I acknowledge that this is not the case everywhere, and more work is needed to figure out universal solutions or technologies.
 
But, an ocean without sharks is no ocean at all, and to kill these animals for our own enjoyment of their home is senseless. It’s time to leave shark nets in the past.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

At the beginning of the pandemic, there were a lot of parallels drawn to climate change. You can see why: disaster on a global scale, disproportionate impacts on those less privileged, both systematic and individual change necessary to combat the problem. Many environmentalists also took the opportunity to highlight the global panic around coronavirus contrasted with the startling lack of panic relating to climate change. 

I think the more obvious parallel of the pandemic to a conservation issue is the spread of invasive species. Invasive species are species that occur outside of their native range AND cause negative impacts to the indigenous species or ecosystems in their new space. Grey squirrels in the UK are a classic example. Due to their introduction, for ornamental reasons by humans in the 1876, red squirrels have declined almost to the point of extinction. Grey squirrels are more generalist and so out-compete red squirrels for food and space, meaning reds have been pushed out. For example, red squirrels find tannins in acorns unpalatable, whereas greys can digest them fine. Another classic example of a successful invasion is of two lionfish species in the USA, Caribbean and Mediterranean. Lionfish are endemic to the Pacific (red lion fish; Pterois volitans) and Indian (devil filefish; Pterois miles) Oceans. It is thought their invasion into the Atlantic was a result of exotic pet owners dumping them when they realised they could not look after them (they're are predators and can be aggressive). A small number were thought to be released in the 1980s, and since their population has exploded. They have few predators in these new environments and their arrival has had severe implications on the native fish and coal reef systems.

The reason I link invasive species to COVID-19 is that invasive species and zoonotic diseases sometimes spread in similar ways. Just like a virus, invasive species do not pay attention to country borders or boundaries, and globalisation enables the spread of invasive species through travel - via airplanes, boats, or just carrying them on you (eg insects or bacteria). As with the grey squirrels and lion fish, humans are responsible for a significant number of cases where invasive species have been introduced. During the invasive species module in my CB masters, I drew the parallel that we spray planes for diseases, but not invasives. We are much more diligent of our impact on the planet when we are the victims. But our impact on the planet goes far beyond our own species. COVID-19 is showcasing to us how powerful nature is, and gives an insight into how easily things can spread around the shrinking world we’ve created.

Zoonotic diseases are diseases that spread from animals to humans and cause illness in humans. They are caused by harmful germs like bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses. They can spread from animals to humans in various ways: through both direct and indirect contact, through eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water, or through vectors (e.g. ticks, mosquitoes). Scientists believe COVID-19 spread from animals to humans at a wet market in Wuhan, China.

The current way we treat the natural world is damaging. We know that we are polluting the planet and destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate. What this pandemic has done is show us how these actions are also incredibly harmful to us. We have been playing with fire, and now we've been burnt. 

If the way we treat wildlife does not change, this will happen again. Professor Paula Cannon of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California said: "Humans are increasing the odds of diseases happening as we move into wild areas and catch wild animal.s We are creating the circumstance where it is only a matter of time when this was going to happen, and it will only be a matter of time before it happens again."

As we continue to encroach on wild space, continue to travel so much, and continue to disregard nature as we have been doing, the spread of zoonotic diseases and invasive species will persist. Every invasive species case is different, but there are simple ways to help minimise their spread:

  1. In the same way you must wash your hands to avoid corona, wash your clothes when you visit new places. 
  2. Take all your rubbish with you (even biodegradable produce). 
  3. Never release your pets - re-home them if you don’t want them or can no longer look after them. 
  4. After leaving any water body (river, lake, ocean etc.) clean & dry everything thoroughly - from swimming stuff to surf boards to boats! The tiniest little creatures can remain if not and you might mistakenly transport them to a new home. Same goes for hiking gear: clean it thoroughly before entering a new system.
  5. Keep your pets out of waterways where possible. They can act as a vector for invasive species. 
  6. Join removal efforts.
  7. Report invasive species you find to local nature trusts/organisations. Take pictures and mark your location if you can. 
  8. If a species is classed as invasive, do not breed, buy, import, sell or keep this species as a pet.
And remember during this pandemic, many species are face their own version of COVID-19 everyday because of us. 
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

Following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Artery and international outcry over police brutality in the US and systemic racism which plagues societies all over the world, many people have educated themselves on these issues more than ever before. Thus, for the first time, black women have topped the paperback charts for both fiction and non-fiction writing in the UK (Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, and Bernardine Evaristo, Girl, Woman, Other), which prompted criticism of the publishing industry over why it's taken this long. Countless petitions have been circulated via https://petition.parliament.uk generating over 100,000 signatures so parliament has to debate them (links to which are at the end of this post). Protests have broken out, forcing communities to examine why we still have statues of slavers and colonisers, and anti-racism has been at the forefront of everyone's mind in the past couple of weeks.

Conservationists are no exception, and have been engaging in this global conversation. At most climate change protests, or really whenever climate change is mentioned, you often hear the phrase: there is no climate justice without social justice. Intersectional environmentalism advocates for both the protection of the planet, and of people, whereby social issues are valued as highly as environmental issues.

The human-element of conservation is as prevalent  if not more  than any other animal. While the term "wildlife conservation" emphasises the importance of wildlife, conservation as a discipline centres around people. The needs of people, the impacts of environmental issues on people, the reliance of people on the environment, and the promotion of cultural values and equality, are at the forefront of all conservation conundrums.

Leah Thomas wrote a beautiful article for Vogue entitled "Why Every Environmentalist Should Be Anti-Racist".  In the article she explains how social justice can often be seen as an add-on to environmental justice campaigns, instead of a core element of those campaigns. To believe we can solve environmental issues without first tackling racism is a nonsense. The two issues are so deeply embedded within one another that to separate them is to deny such links between them, and to deny that is to deny the oppression of BAME people as a result of both environmental injustices and conservation actions.

For example, climate justice involves revolutionising our economies and infrastructure. This process will undoubtably create thousands of jobs. Who gets those jobs? Who benefits from a green economy? In the past, minority communities have been left out of these answers. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Furthermore, climate change impacts disadvantaged and minority communities more than it does anyone else. Black people are 3x more likely to die from asthma-related causes than white people (US data), 80% of people displaced by climate change are women, and 75,000 African Americans were displaced by hurricane Katrina. The impacts of that hurricane (2005) were disproportionately felt by the black community of New Orleans, and the population has not yet recovered. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Conservation historically has not been innocent of oppression and racism. The history of white conservationists in Africa, Asia and South America is an ugly one: "white saviours" telling local people what to do and how to do it. Conservation has historically followed a fortress model: acquire some land -> put a fence around it -> proclaim it a protected area for nature conservation. This has led to thousands of indigenous communities being pushed out of their homes; people who have unrivalled knowledge of the terrain and ecology have been deliberately excluded.

A vast majority of conservation efforts are still held by foreigners or descendants of colonial settlers. White foreigners often occupy higher paying jobs or managerial positions, over local people who often have greater local knowledge and experience of the land. Black voices in conservation are often lost in a sea of white, often male, voices who can shout the loudest because they're shouting from a raised platform of privilege.  Recent years have seen a move towards more inclusive, community based management, which is essential and important and we need to see more of. I found this instagram post explained the white saviour problem in conservation well. This article is also well worth a read, detailing how young black Africans are often not offered the same opportunities as young, white foreigners. I am very aware that a lot of the experiences I have had in conservation in Africa would not have been available to me if I was African, and that's just wrong. I hope to do more to right this wrong. 

Furthermore, treating environmentalism and racism as two separate entities is a luxury for white people that black people cannot afford. In this must-read article in the Washington Post by Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, "Racism derails our attempts to fight the climate crisis", she explains that not only do BAME communities experience disproportionate impacts due to climate change, but black conservationists and climate scientists cannot  simply ignore racism and focus solely on the environment. Racism makes it harder for them to do their jobs. She wrote: "Even at its most benign, racism is incredibly time consuming." Without fully understanding the toll racism has on black people and addressing it, we are doing a disservice to black people within our industry. The article is so powerful and thought-provoking: please read it.

The reason social equality cannot be treated separately from climate change & conservation is because they have 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦, and they aren’t now.⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣


A lot of us are undergoing a process of unlearning the white story we have been told and replacing it with the truth. The history of racism, colonisation, slavery, and exclusion. The on-going suffering of BAME communities and structural racism present in every facet of society. The disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on black communities. 

Be critical of who you get your information from. I have been deeply disappointed in many white conservationists I admired in the past weeks, who have said either nothing, or very little on these issues. You cannot call yourself a conservationist if your brand of conservation only focusses on wildlife or white people. 

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read my blog. I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope they are informative and enjoyable to read. However, I want to use this platform to amplify black voices. As a white person, it is easier for me to be seen and heard. But I can never fully understand what BAME people go through. Nor can I speak to these issues with the same authority as I am someone who learns about racism, rather than experiences it. All the articles I have linked throughout this blog post were written by black scientists/conservationists. Please, if you're reading this, read them. I am also going to link some social media accounts to follow. 

We have a responsibility to be actively anti-racist, to continue supporting the BLM movement in its entirety and to educate ourselves. Thank you again for reading and supporting this blog. 



Black conservationists to follow:

Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: if you only follow one instagram account, let it be hers. She is an incredible scientist and powerful black, female voice in this field and we should all be listening to her:  https://www.instagram.com/ayanaeliza/

Danni Washington was the first black woman science TV host and her feed is full of stunning photos and great information: https://www.instagram.com/danniwashington/

Leah Thomas, an activist who speaks so clearly on intersectional environmentalist: https://www.instagram.com/greengirlleah/

Dr Raychelle Burks. Chemistry academic with great tweets about being a scientist  and science in general: https://twitter.com/DrRubidium

I could go on for ages but THIS POST links several accounts and so does THIS POST. Check them both out.



Petitions to sign:

Here are some petitions for UK citizens/residents to sign. They need over 100,000 for parliament to debate that but the more they have the better! So do sign even when they're over 100,000 already. 

  1. Teach Britain's Colonial Past as part of the UK's Compulsory Curriculum: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324092
  2. Improve Maternal Mortality Rates and Health Care for Black Women in the UK: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301079
  3. Add education on diversity and racism to all school curriculums: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323808
  4. Introduce Mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300105
  5. Condemn the US government for the use of force against its citizens: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323863
  6. Create an independent investigatory commission to help protect ethnic minorities: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323867
  7. Making the UK education curriculum more inclusive of BAME history: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323961
  8. Make is compulsory for Black and POC UK histories to be taught in the Welsh education curriculum: https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/200034
  9. Suspend future sales of tear gas and other crowd control equipment to the USA: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324208
If there are more that I have missed, please leave a link to them in the comments so everyone can access it. They take less than a minute to sign & confirm via email, and it really can make a difference.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

Various national lockdowns as a result of COVID-19 have showcased the relationship between tourism and conservation: how dependent they are on one another, how fragile the relationship is, and how important.

In the absence of tourists, many conservation areas are severely under-funded. This applies to national parks and privately owned nature areas and wildlife reserves. Many of these places derive the majority of their income through tourism, whether it be a 5-star luxury lodge or simply through daily park entrance fees. Each year, approximately 950,000 tourists visit Kruger National Park, South Africa, every year, and over 400,000 visited India's Ranthambore National Park in 2019. In India's Ranthambore, an international tourist can spend up to £16/US$20 for one game drive. In Kruger, the daily entrance fee for South African citizens is R100 (~£4-5/US$5-6), and R400 (~£17/US$22) for internationals. Bottom line: the wildlife tourism industry can make a lot of money. 

Travel bans mean no tourists. No tourists mean this entire sector of income for these businesses is reduced to nothing. Many now have to rely on donations, in a time where people all over the world are receiving lower incomes than usual or no income at all. Donations at the best of times are an unstable and unpredictable source of income.


The relationship

The relationship between tourism and conservation is not purely economic. There are other benefits. Enabling people to witness wildlife in its natural state often sets off a passion for said wildlife. People who have experienced the best of nature tend to leave caring more for it than when they arrived. This kind of relationship is priceless. Equally, sending people home with a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the threats against it can empower them to help, whether that be through sharing their experience with others, educating people, or through donating themselves.

There are of course, also drawbacks. Inviting thousands of people annually into natural spaces is bound to have negative effects on those spaces and the wildlife inhabiting there. Noise, light, plastic, litter, and vehicle pollution are just some examples of how humans disrupt natural environments. Many tourists are considerate of their environment, but some aren't. 
Invasive species is another major concern associated with tourism. International travel, like with the coronavirus, makes it easier than ever for species to move form one system to another. International travel by humans is a major contributor to the global invasive species problem. Tourists could transport bacteria or microorganisms into new natural systems they visit while on holiday, which could become invasive. 
There is an also ethical question surrounding tourism and conservation. A lot of safari parks or national parks have strict guidelines regarding treatment of the area and the wildlife that are well enforced. But this is not always the case. Restrictions can include setting a minimum distance a vehicle can be to an animal, a maximum number of vehicles at one particular wildlife sighting, vehicle restrictions regarding noise, restricted opening times to create hours where the park is empty and the wildlife is free of cars. In some areas, breaches incur heavy fines, but these are often guidelines, or not universally enforced. Certain parks might adopt them, where other don't. Parks that allow self-drive safaris are particularly hard to police. I have sat in traffic in a national park before at a wildlife sighting. This should never be the case. 

Overall, the benefits outweigh the costs for me. I think wildlife tourism is one of conservationists most valuable tools. I do believe many parks could do a lot better at enforcing more ethical practices and this is critical. But overall, without tourism, many conservation organisations wouldn't exist. Thousands would be left unemployed, and many reserves would be forced to close. What happens to the land and the wildlife then?



The impact of COVID-19

The coronavirus crisis has seen an unprecedented ban on international travel. Borders have closed, flights have been cancelled, and airlines are facing bankruptcy. While we can celebrate the grounding of flights from a carbon perspective, the impact of this complete halt on tourism on wildlife conservation in the developing world especially, is astronomical and dangerous. 

If you want to help, look for reserves who need donations to keep their business alive, to keep their staff employed, and to keep their wildlife safe. Endangered Rhino Conservation is a good example: their donations help fund anti-poaching efforts for private game reserves in South Africa.  
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

Horn trimming has become a well practised and documented phenomenon across South African private game reserves. Horn trimming is the process of cutting a rhinos horn, like we cut our hair. The first time a rhino has their horn trimmed, the majority of the external horn is removed, and then subsequent procedures trim the remaining horn as it continues to grow. Most reserves do this on an annual or biannual basis. 

The most important thing to remember when discussing horn trimming is that rhino horn grows. Just like our hair, rhino horn continues to grow and so trimming does not leave rhinos without a horn permanently, and to keep the horn short will involve continuously trimming every year or so. This is a key argument in favour of legalising the rhino horn trade: you can sustainably harvest horn and continue to harvest horn from one rhino throughout its' entire life. Rhinos can live to be ~45 and horns can be trimmed every year, and so by horn trimming, you generate more product than if you left the horn alone. 

The second most important fact to bare in mind is that horn trimming is incredibly expensive. To horn trim a rhino you need a helicopter + fuel, at least one vet, tranquilliser and other drugs, vehicles + fuel, and a whole team of people to move and monitor the rhino, including a scientist on site to record and take measurements (necessary for permits but is also provides important data into growth rates etc.). Vets alone incur fees for their time and their drugs. Most reserves don't own their own helicopter, and so have to hire one, pay for fuel, and pay for the pilot. 

The main motivator for horn trimming rhinos is to act as a deterrent to poaching. Rhinos are poached specifically for their horns. Thus, a rhino with a trimmed horn is a much less valuable target than a rhino with a full horn. Is breaking onto a reserve, risking your life, and risking a life-sentence for rhino poaching worth it, for a horn maybe 1/4 of its original size? Ideally, we want the answer to be no to this question. The rhino poaching crisis in undeniably more complicated than that, but horn trimming does make rhinos a less desirable target.

If you're wondering why poachers kill rhinos when you can remove horns on a live animal, there are two primary reasons. Firstly, poachers often aren't qualified veterinarians with access to tranquillisers or dart guns (although corrupt vets have been implicated in rhino poaching in the past). Therefore, they shoot the animals and sometimes slash their spines to immobilise them. If they did not do this, the rhinos would either run away or charge at the poachers and potentially kill them. Secondly, poachers want to get as much horn as possible so they take the entire thing. The cut it out of the rhinos face to ensure they have every morsel of horn. This often happens while the rhino is still alive, and demonstrates the cruelty of this epidemic. This is why the rhino crisis sparks such emotion from people who work closely with these animals. It's human brutality in its ugliest form. 

There has been no evidence to imply that horn trimming has a negative impact on rhinos. Darting animals, especially wild animals, is stressful for them, but this day of stress has not been shown to evoke any long-term suffering or negative effects on the animals. Furthermore, their social interactions have not been negatively affected by the process. Rhinos do not need their horns to survive. Horns are used in fighting, but reserves that do horn trimming do so on all their rhinos, and so the playing field is levelled and the rhinos fight anyway. Horn trimming has not been shown to negatively impact rhinos in the wild.

National parks in South Africa do not horn trim their rhinos. There are a couple reasons for this. Firstly, the cost is immense. Most private reserves, while owning 45% of all white rhinos between them, individually have smaller populations. National parks have many more rhinos, and so the costs are exponentially higher. Secondly, national parks rely on tourism for their income. It is generally believed that tourists want to see rhinos with big horns. The bigger the horn the better. Many think tourists would be disappointed to see rhinos with trimmed horns. 

Personally, I think people would understand. If the guides and rangers could explain clearly why the rhinos have been de-horned, that it does not harm them or their social interactions, and use rhino sightings as an educational moment to enlighten tourists in the severity of the rhino crisis, then I think they would understand. It very much may be that your choice is a rhino with a trimmed horn, or no rhino at all. What would you choose?
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments
The Amazon has been on fire for the last 3 weeks and it is suddenly breaking news. I have seen countless posts about this on social media and in the news. There has been a lot of finger-pointing as well as to who's fault it is that it took 3 weeks for this news to reach a global audience. 

I have seen people posting things like "because no one cares enough, I'm only hearing about this now" or "I'm sharing this because the news won't". Firstly, the news is. Secondly, this sort of stuff never makes headline news immediately, so I don't know why everyone is shocked. And thirdly, this is not the fault of individuals or news organisations not caring.

This is just a fundamental issue in today's society whereby the environment is not considered as important as other sectors and therefore not given as much press attention. It has nothing to do with the Amazon itself and it has nothing to do with the BBC or CNN or whoever you watch, not caring about the Amazon forest, indigenous people, or wildlife. And it certainly has nothing to do with members of the public not caring enough.

It is great that people are talking about these fires and the wider implications. But it is just talk. You can shout about it on social media all you want, and you can be angry that it took 3 weeks to reach you. That's a completely valid reaction, and definitely understandable. 

But this is a classic example of something that is today's news and forgotten tomorrow. Everyone is a conservationist when something bad happens. This isn't a criticism: I think it's wonderful how much people care, especially our generation. You do not have to dedicate your life/career to a cause to care about it.

But, your frustration is misdirected. The problem is not that no one knew about these fires from the offset: it's that these fires are happening in the first place at a record breaking rate and extent. 

There are loads of reasons the Amazon burns: deforestation, deliberate fires, wildlife, etc. When it comes to environmental problems, it's never straight forward. These issues are multifaceted and complex; and they're not going away. Not without top-down approaches (which is very relevant given the Brazilian presidents' relaxed attitude towards environmental policy), or normal people making sacrifices and compromises to their everyday life. 

We will have to drive less, fly less, and eat less meat. We might have to restrict our hours of electricity. We might have to restrict our water consumption. We might not be able to eat imported foods. These things aren't extreme: their likely realities if we want to prevent that 1.5 degree rise. 

Next time you share something to do with climate change/the environment, think: would I give up steak or avocado for this? Would I give up my car? Would I turn off my electric power?

Don't be angry you didn't know; be angry that the Amazon is on fire.

Because now the whole world knows, and our lungs are still on fire. 

Belizean rainforest
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

I have been thinking a lot recently about just how bloody hard conservation is. In the wake of the Notre Dame fire, Jonathan Kolby from National Geographic went viral for a statement he made comparing the fire to the battles faced on conservation. 

I hope it goes without saying but, the parallels to the fire in no way diminish my deep sadness for the people of Paris, and all who felt a connection to the cathedral. Everyone has their place that makes them feel happy and safe, and reminds them of wonderful memories. To see that place burn is a horrible thing, and I completely get that.

This is Jonathan's quote, if you haven't seen it:


His words really got to me because he is right. As people who care deeply for the environment, we are watching it burn slowly and torturously every day. I am a positive person, and I try hard to be because I do believe there is no point wasting energy on being negative or mad at the world. Obviously, we all have bad days and that's fine, but I try to find good in things and not worry about something until I have to. I think it's easier to be happier if you look at the world in a positive light. 

This is hard sometimes in conservation because there are so many wicked problems coming at you from every angle. We are heading into a sixth mass extinction. We are heading towards a climatic catastrophe. We are so close to causing irreparable damage to this planet, and often it feels like no one cares. 

Nature has always, and will always be, my greatest source of happiness. It is where I feel happy and safe, 'my Notre Dame'. When I think of the times I've felt happiest or most at peace, they are almost all outdoors or involving wildlife. I think this is true of most conservationists, and a lot of other people too. So in some ways, it's easy to remain positive in conservation because you just have to think about what you're fighting for. 

Conservation is a value-laden discipline. Some people probably think that's a bad thing. I can see why to a degree: if you're too emotionally invested in something it can be hard to step back and make rationale decisions. However, I think what makes conservation successful is that it is a value-laden discipline. If conservationists didn't care as much as they do, nothing would get done. 

I find it really hard when people don't care as much as I do. This really isn't great because I am extremely passionate and it's rather unreasonable of me to expect everyone to exude the same level of passion as I do. This is a fault on me, not everyone else. It's something I'm working on for myself, but I think Jonathan Kolby touched on this is a beautiful way that has stuck with me. 

You don't have to care as much as I do, but you should care. 

I think herein lies the frustration Jonathan was getting at. "We're surrounded by burning cathedrals built across millennia and no one seems to care." This line broke me a little. I honestly had goosebumps and I didn't know what to say/think. I completely feel what he is feeling. It was a painful truth I wasn't ready for. 

But then I thought about it some more. People do care. They really do. A lot. It was not just conservationists or employees of NatGeo that were making similar comparisons. I saw Jonathan's quote shared by tonnes of people who day-to-day have nothing to do with conservation. Our Planet (now streaming on Netflix) is having a similar impact. People are watching it and feeling passionate and driven.

This is so so important, and I really hope it is not lost. The problem is in translating that emotion into action.

The cynic in me finds it hard not to think that this is just "today's news" and tomorrow something else will come along, and all these people who read/shared his quote and felt something, or feel awakened by Our Planet, will go back to their lives and not really give it another thought. 

As someone who has decided to dedicate their life to conservation, this hurts me. I am only 22 so that might seem like a dramatic statement, or a little premature, but I am not studying this masters for a laugh: I fully intend to remain in this field for life. Plus, I actively try to live my day-to-day life as sustainably as possible. I am also fully aware that there are hundreds of issues worldwide that I may be ignorant of. Obviously I try my best to be clued in on what's going on in the world, and for me, yes climate change and conservation are the stand out issues. But that's not true of everyone, and of course that's okay. 

What is hard for conservationists, or at least for me, is when people speak empty words, and do nothing. 

Maybe I'm being unfair? Maybe sharing memes or quotes about the struggles of climate change and conservation is doing something? We all know public opinion can be a major force in driving change, and so merely supporting Jonathan's argument on instagram is a step in the right direction. 

But is it enough? I don't think it is. 

It would be unreasonable for me to ask you all to drop what you're doing and apply for a job in conservation, so I won't do that (but if you're feeling inspired you have my full support). However, what I do ask is, if you do care: do more. Don't just talk about it, and when you are talking about it, talk to people who don't care, or who don't know enough. 

It's so lovely and wholesome being surrounded by like-minded people, but these aren't the people we need to listen. We could all sit around the fire talking about what wonderful people we are and how we're saving the planet; and bond over how much we hate oil companies and rhino poachers and have a jolly good time. But that's achieving nothing. 

I think this stream of consciousness born from Jonathan's quote has forced me to realise all these things I was feeling. How lonely  and frustrating conservation can feel. How it can seem like a losing battle. How many of our goals may be unachievable, or at least rely on so many external factors that we can't rely on (*cough* politicians). 


I do honestly believe we can have a green future. I don't think all hope is lost. I don't accept global warming will increase more than 2 degrees. I don't accept that rhinos, polar bears, and tigers will go extinct in my lifetime. Call me naive, call me a dreamer, call me a snowflake if you really must (although please don't, I really cannot stand that term). There are ways to tackle climate change and there are ways to conserve biodiversity. They just need to be done. 

Admittedly a lot of this does rest on the shoulders of governments worldwide. Climate change protests have been gaining momentum, and news coverage. I know protests can be a controversial topic, but there is growing frustration towards the inaction of the government to do anything and protests help us start conversations. 

Pressure needs to be put on the government to do more in tackling environmental issues. It is plain truth that not enough is being done. 

As I've mentioned, there are hundreds of issues worldwide that also need more attention. It's not just extinction and climate change. For me, the reason these two stand out are because they will impact everyone. Climate change does not discriminate based on gender, age, religion, sexuality. We will all be impacted, albeit not equally. People in developing nations will be disproportionately worse of: the cruelest irony. 

The second reason they stand out for me is because they are largely man-made. We have manufactured ourselves a devastating, unsustainable, and almost irreversible disaster. Would the world be a better place without people in it? Yes.. no.. maybe.. I don't know! It's really not for me to say. We're here now. We have a chance to fix things. We can take it, but not solely with words: with action too. 
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

I just finished my 'Freshwater Conservation' module of my masters degree and I want to talk about it. 
I haven't written much about my masters course so here's a quick run-down of what I'm doing: I'm studying Conservation Biology at the University of Cape Town. It's a dream come true and I love it so much. 
It's very intense and challenging, as to be expected with a masters programme, but it really is great. It's not like conventional uni in the sense that the modules run back-to-back, rather than side-by-side. So each module is 1-3 weeks, and that's all you do in that time. Then it's over and on to the next. This is great because you can fully immerse yourself in it, but obviously it has it's pitfalls: namely that each module is over quick and every week is just as intense as the last. 

So last week was 'Freshwater Conservation'. Most of my experience is in terrestrial ecology/conservation and I knew very little about freshwater conservation. I had studied rivers in my geography degree (anyone who has studied geography in the UK knows how much the lecturers love rivers), but very little on the ecology. I was interested to learn more but wasn't expected to love the module as much as I did. 

The best thing about studying conservation in a global biodiversity hotpot (the fynbos) is the field trips. We have at least one per module which is awesome. This module however went above and beyond, with a two night stay studying the Witte River, in Bainskloof (about 1.5 hours from Cape Town). 
Whether you study an environmental science or not, I think we can all agree that getting out of the classroom is always preferable to staying in it. This is definitely true of conservation. People studying conservation are doing it because they love nature, but studying nature seems to involve a lot of time in front of a computer screen. It is so essential to go back to nature every now and then (or you know, as much as humanly possible) to remind yourself why you care, and to just give yourself a break. For me, fieldwork is the perfect middle ground. 
The trip to Bainskloof essentially gave us an introduction into some field work sampling techniques involved in freshwater conservation and research, some of the problems facing these systems. 

We set fyke nets in the river to see what's living there. My simple explanation of fyke nets is: they are big nets, cylinder or cone-shaped, that sit at the bottom of the river (when you attach them to something like a rock) with a wide opening. The have two 'wings' that fan out of the front and guide the fish in. 'The fish can get in but can't get out' is the basic principle. (The fish technically can get out but they don't know that. )


Fyke nets

The Witte River has a natural barrier (essentially some rocks at a slightly higher elevation to the river below tightly packed so fish can't just swim through), and so we set nets above and below it. There have been a number of invasions on the river: species that are not naturally found here have been brought here and introduced and are now damaging the ecosystem. The most notable ones are species of catfish, trout, and bass, as these predate on the indigenous fish. These fish are only found downstream of the barrier (for now) and so there is refuge upstream for indigenous fish. We set the nets above and below the barrier to compare. The nets don't harm the fish and are a standard sampling technique. 

Below the barrier we only caught invasive fish: sharp-toothed catfish and small-mouthed bass. This was disappointing and worrying. There is a possibility that some poor indigenous fish did swim into the net, and were then predated on by these invasives. However, when we were swimming around in these areas and laying the net, we did not see a single native fish. 

Above: Sharp-tooth catfish
Below: Left: Smallmouth bass. Right: Sharp-tooth catfish.

Above the barrier, it could be a completely different river. There are fish everywhere. It's amazing. They are much smaller but there are hundreds of them.
There is also a lot more algae. This is because the native fish - eg red-finned minnows and cape kurper - feed on the invertebrates (animals without a backbone - insects mostly) which feed on the algae. By having the indigenous fish there to control the herbivore populations, the algae has more opportunity to grow. Below the barrier, this isn't happening, and so there is a notable different in algae growth (and slippery-ness of the rocks). 
I don't think I've ever seen such a clear contrast with my own eyes before due to invasive species. There are so many fish above the barrier, and basically none below. It's shocking.

Above the barrier!

The fish were introduced for various reasons (mostly angling) and some were more recent than others. Some were about 100 years ago, but the catfish are a much more recent invasion. Furthermore the catfish are much better colonisers, and there is fear they will be able to cross the barrier. They can cope out of water for a fair amount of time and can essentially walk on slippery surfaces. 


Photo: Conor Eastment
The good news is, we only found indigenous fish above the barrier! This is hopeful, as it suggests the invasive predators have not managed to move upstream, and so this area is still acting as a refugium for the native species. Hopefully it'll stay this way. 
We did catch an eel (long-finned eel) which is native and a natural predator for the indigenous fish. This was quite exciting! The invasive predators could also be a problem for the eels if they do cross the barrier, as they would be in competition now for food.

Long-finned Eel.

We also did some invertebrate sampling. Invertebrates (insects and such) can indicate how healthy an ecosystem is. Some insects are more sensitive than others, to variables like water quality. Therefore, if you have sensitive insects in your stream, it suggests your water quality is high. Equally if you have insects with low sensitivity that can essentially survive anywhere, it might indicate that your stream is not very healthy. 
This kind of sample is really easy to do. We caught the invertebrates in a net by just moving it around the aquatic vegetation, or holding it downstream and allowing the river to do the work for us. Using an ID kit, we could ID the insects and calculate the score of river health. Anyone can do this using miniSASS: a citizen science toolkit for monitoring stream health. Read more: here. 

I made a video about the trip as well which you can find here: https://youtu.be/k9mVn5rCx1g. 

Bainskloof is really beautiful. It's worth a visit for sure. Great place to relax, swim, and just enjoy being in nature for a while. 


Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
1 comments
I get asked this question all the time. How did you get into conservation? Why conservation? How do I get into conservation??


A career in conservation is really hard to kick-start, or to land in general. There aren't a lot of jobs, and there are even less paid positions. I grew up in the UK and I was that kid who's obsessed with animals, and all things animal related. Growing up here, where, let's be honest, we have limited wildlife (due to previous generations chopping down all the forests and hunting down all the wildlife). I thought if I wanted to work with animals, I'd have to be a vet. 

This dream came crashing down like a headless pigeon when I first took 'separate sciences' at school (i.e. biology, chemistry and physics as separate subjects instead of under the very broad title of "science.") I wasn't particularly strong at any of them to be completely honest, but chemistry was definitely my weak spot. Turns out, in the UK (and I'm sure elsewhere) to study veterinary medicine at university, you have to have chemistry A-level (our highest academic assessment level in school). Coupled with the fact that there are only about 6 veterinary medical schools in the country, and so are highly competitive, 13 year old Kate's dreams of becoming a vet started to fade. 

This led to a bit of an identity crisis in my life. Nothing dramatic don't worry; I didn't buy a sports car, change my name, or tattoo my mum's initials onto my face. (Technically I wasn't legally old enough to do any of that, but that's not the point). I really did not know what I wanted to be when I grew up.

This shouldn't matter to a 13 year old, and it doesn't! Obviously at the time it seems like you have to have it all figured out but you don't. However, it does make things daunting and make small decisions (that seem like big ones) difficult. For example, I was the worst at deciding what subjects to take at school. I remember at the end of year 8 we were allowed to drop 2 subjects (not 'core' subjects - not my label - but you could ditch an arts subject or a language as long as you still had at least 1 of each.) I could not decide! 2 out of about 16 classes and I was scared I'd make the wrong choice. 

I think the reason I couldn't decide was because I didn't love any of them. I never hated school or anything, I actually quite liked school at this point. I just hadn't found my passion so I didn't know where I fit. 

It only got harder. Choosing my GCSEs (exams we take in the UK when we are 16 so year 11: you take around 10 subjects) was a huge challenge and I think I changed my options 4 times over the summer between year 9 and 10 (when you finalise your choices). I finally decided 3 days before year 10 started (I was so close to not taking Geography and that prospect haunts me to this day). 

I had the same problem again choosing my A-levels. Narrowing 10 to 4 seemed like such a huge decision that seemed all too easy to get wrong. Again, I really didn't feel strongly for or against any of my subjects, except maybe Geography. But because I didn't know what I wanted to study at university, or do for a job, I didn't know what to do. What if a few months down the line I decide on a degree I like but I don't have the right A-level options? 

Obviously, it was all fine in the end, but my point is I was quite lost at school because I didn't know what I wanted to do or what I liked. 

But everything changed in the summer of 2014, in between year 12 and 13, and so half way through my A-levels. 

I went to South Africa for the first time and it opened my eyes to the world of conservation, and I realised for the first time that I could have a career in conservation. Being a vet was not the only way to work with animals. Obviously, this sounds really stupid now and of course I did know there were other things to do, but they hadn't been put forward to me in a tangible way. Ever. I knew conservation existed obviously, and I was fascinated by it. I knew there were people all over the world doing incredible things to protect our wildlife. But this was the first time I ever thought I could be one of them. 

I came back from this trip and decided straight away to do Geography at university. The man who organised the trip helped me with where to apply, I got my application in super early, and had 5 university offers within 3 months of landing back in London. I ended up of course at the University of Southampton and it was the best; I absolutely loved it, I miss it every single day, and I could not have chosen a better degree than Geography. From there, I have increased my conservation experience, made incredible contacts, and even wrote my dissertation on critically endangered black rhino which included 2 months in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, collecting data and carrying out fieldwork. 

South African sunsets are breathtaking 

South Africa 2014: Why was I there?

So, I've explained that this trip was a turning point in me pursuing a career in conservation. For anyone who just read my life story and is patiently waiting for the bit where I actually help you.. here it comes. 

Earthwatch. 

This one word, changed my life. Earthwatch is a a non-profit organisation that essentially runs scientific research projects all over the world centred around the ideas of sustainability and conservation. This is their mission statement taken from their website:

"To engage people worldwide in scientific field research and education to promote the understanding and action necessary for a sustainable environment."
Website link: https://earthwatch.org

So, if you wanted to join one of their expeditions, you simply sign up to apply and if there's space, you can go! They run 'teen' expeditions for 16-19 year olds, and then separate ones for adults. The teen ones are slightly subsidised as a way to promote science among young people. 

I joined a teen expedition to South Africa to study scavengers. I just really wanted to go to South Africa to be honest. The words "South Africa" caught my attention in the email (just a chain email sent round from some mailing list I'd obviously been added to) so I inquired. I had never heard of Earthwatch, and no one in my school had ever done an expedition. But I thought f*ck it, I had some money saved, I asked my parents, they said yes, and I signed up. 


Photo taken by me during my Earthwatch expedition. It was on this trip that I learnt so much about the rhino crisis and became so passionate to help prevent us losing this iconic species. 
I could not recommend an Earthwatch expedition more to someone trying to get into conservation if I tried. They are highly regarded and well recognised and so really do stand out on your CV, and allow you to make some great contacts. The friends I made on that trip are still some of my best friends, and we see each other all the time (even though we are scattered around the country). 

I also made great contacts, both through the Earthwatch Institute (which have offices in Oxford) and in South Africa. The reserve we visited on the trip, I returned to the following year with some of my fellow Eartchwatch volunteers, and it is my favourite place on this Earth. It stole my heart and will keep it forever. It is the reason I am who I am today, and I am where I am today, and I owe everything to the people there. 

There are trips all over the place working with all kinds of wildlife: marine and terrestrial. If you're thinking of doing an expedition but don't have any specific in mind choosing a project could prove tricky because they do all look amazing, but I'm sure one is bound to jump out.

If you are someone 16-19 and you want to get some experience in conservation, look at the Earthwatch website and see if there's a project for you. I will warn you, it can be expensive. If this is an issue, talk to them about it - I don't know if they can/will do anything, but if you don't ask, you don't get. 

Earthwatch is not just for young people though, so anyone of any age; have a look. 

Even if you have some experience already, you can never have too much in this industry! 


Field Work with Earthwatch

Moving forward:

Volunteering:

Volunteering is unavoidable for getting into conservation. I loved every second of my volunteering experiences don't get me wrong, but it can cost an awful lot of money (especially abroad). It is just how it goes though; people start with gaining as much volunteer experience as they can. If you can do this along side a degree, i.e. in your summer holidays, or even while at school, then that's great! Otherwise, I would recommend taking a year out after school/uni (I would say uni) to gain as much experience as you can.

There are countless volunteer organisations offering projects around the world you can go on. Do your research (obviously) to check they are legit and ethical projects, but there are so many great ones to choose from! Ask advice from people: teachers, professors, people you know doing a similar thing, me (if I can help I will). 


Qualifications:
This is completely dependent on you! University (although I know I rave about it) is not for everyone. Depending on what type of conservation you want to get into, you don't have to have a degree. However, research is a massive part of conservation: there are obviously jobs in research, and this research shapes the policy and management of practical conservation. Having a degree in an environmental science is only ever going to work in your favour (e.g. biology, ecology, zoology, geography, oceanography, etc). You can study wildlife conservation as an undergrad as well at some universities in the UK, and worldwide. 

When it comes to post-graduate level, I do believe a masters is a good idea. I am about to start one (eeeek! so excited) at the University of Cape Town in Conservation Biology. I think having an Msc is beneficial as a lot of research placement paid jobs advertise for someone with these qualifications. However, I do not think masters are something anyone should do for the sake of a qualification. Same goes for a PhD - if you want to go into academia or be a top researcher, consider a PhD. Personally, I can't see myself doing one, never say never, but it's not the path I currently want to follow. 

There are of course, non-university qualifications: for example FGASA levels (Field Guide Association of Southern Africa) or the equivalent for your region, or such like. 

To be honest, I am not qualified to give you advice on what qualifications you should or should not get/look into. I can just reiterate that research plays a massive part in a lot of conservation related work, and so having an understanding of the research process is important. 


Hustle & Network
As with an industry: who you know is extremely important and having the right contacts can help you out. I have some incredible contacts that have made a huge difference to me. One important piece of advice: University is not the only place to build connections. It is a great place to, but knowing people from outside that circle is so important. 

Once you have a connection, use it. If you have nothing immediate to say, a friendly email every so often to update them on your life or ask about any projects they're involved in... basically just remind them you exist. Make sure they know what you are interested in, and so if somethings comes to them that might suit you, you are the first person they think of. 


Final thoughts:

In the end, I did 'dual award' science for GCSE. This meant I took the subjects as separate subjects, but ended up with 2 Science GCSEs rather than 3 GCSEs: one in biology, one in chemistry, one in physics. I didn't take any of them for A-level. 

I am about to start an MSc in Conservation Biology. 

The decisions you make do not always have the impact on your future than you think they will. If you'd told 13 year old me that I would be doing a biology-based masters I would have found it  hilarious and terrifying in almost equal measures. Now, I couldn't be more excited, and I am honoured and over the moon to be given this opportunity. 

I am so lucky to have found my passion aged 17. That is still so young! Do not worry if it takes you longer to find yours! 

And even though I know I want to work in conservation, particularly of endangered species, specifically what job I want... I have no idea! But that's part of the fun, and something I am hoping will become clearer with time and as my experience and expertise grows. 


Thanks for reading! If you have any more specific questions about Earthwatch or anything else I spoke about feel free to comment below (or email me if you'd rather using the Contact Me tab at the top!)

Ps. I am not affiliated with Earthwatch: I just think they're great!
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments
Older Posts

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2020 (12)
    • ▼  December (1)
      • Having a Sustainable Christmas: Some Tips
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2019 (9)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2018 (12)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (2)
  • ►  2017 (8)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2016 (45)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (2)

Follow Me

  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Popular Posts

  • CITES CoP17 Fails to Legalise the Rhino Horn Trade
  • China Bans Ivory Trade
  • Debate: Should the global trade of rhino horn be legalised?
  • How Legalising the Rhino Horn Trade helps People
  • You don't need to be a perfect environmentalist

Instagram

Follow

Pages

  • Home
  • Privacy Policy

Created with by ThemeXpose | Copy Blogger Themes