Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Worrying About the Baiji

By

I was a little confused by a recent article at ABC Online about the Baiji, the rare river dolphins in the Yangtze River in China.

I was confused because the news article titled ‘Plan hatched to save Yangtze dolphins’ suggested the dolphin would be saved because they could be relocated to a nearby lake. But this is not a new plan, I understood from the IUCN that a reserve was created for the dolphins back in 1992, but conservationists had been unsuccessful at moving individual animals.

Is this a new initiative? Since about 2004 the baiji.org Foundation has been working for the conservation of the river dolphins.

chinese_dolphin.jpg
[picture from CITES]

The banji (Lipotes vexillifer) is considered the most endangered of all the worlds dophins, porpoises and whales and it is thought to only occur in China’s heavily polluted Yangtze River. There are two other closely related river dolphins one in the Indus (Platanista gangetica minor) and one in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna and Karnaphuli-Sangu (Platanista gangetica gangetica), and also freshwater populations of Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris) in the Mekong, Mahakam, and Irrawaddy Rivers, and populations in the brackish waters of Sonkhla (Thailand) and Chilka (India) lakes.

Update 4.30 pm

It seems the story at ABC Online was a summary of a story at the BBC Online which ends with comment that:

“The plan is to set up a reserve in an oxbow lake 21km long which was part of the Yangtze until the 1970s.”

Tian-e-Zhou lake already houses another freshwater cetacean, the Yangtze finless porpoise, so conditions are likely to suit the baiji.

There are fish in the lake to provide food for the dolphins; and although there may be some human fishing, it is likely to be on a much smaller scale than in the Yangtze itself.

…Costs could amount to between £200,000 and £300,000 ($365,000 and $545,000) for the first year’s operations.

Boats are needed to catch the dolphins, helicopters to transfer them to Tian-e-Zhou. Holding pens need to be constructed, veterinary staff provided, and an inventory made of fish stocks.

The rescue plan speaks of conducting five dolphin capture operations in the Yangtze within the next three years “…in order to establish a viable ex-situ breeding population of baiji at Tian-e-Zhou before the Yangtze population undergoes a further decline or becomes extinct”.

The long-term plan would be to re-introduce them to the Yangtze, but only when the prospects of them thriving there have risen.”

And I’ve just been emailed an article from Nature Vol 44 0/27 (April 2006) which states that during a nine day pilot search for the dolphins in March not a single dolphin was found. The same article talks about catching and releasing the dolphins into the Shishou reserve. There will be another ‘survey’ along the river in November.

So we have a species right on the verge of extinction and the IUCN came out just a month or two ago banging on about polar bears and global warming. Where are our priorities?

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Pinxi says

    I doubt you could make a valid argument that the IUCN has neglected or overlooked the status of the baiji dolphin. The prospects for China to cease polluting its waterways aren’t very promising. Aren’t the pink dolphins in Hong Kong also up poo creek without a paddle?

    I think the IUCN has been “banging on about polar bears and global warming” because polar bears seem at risk of heading in the same direction as these dolphins – and their fat stores show how pervasive toxins (was it dioxins?) are, reaching the poles.

    Jennifer:
    Do you object to the IUCN giving attention to the apparent risks facing polar bear populations?
    Do you protest against the idea that polar bears may indicate global warming (human caused or not)?
    What else do you suggest that the IUCN does about the dolphins within Chinese territory?

  2. Jennifer says

    Polar bears are not threatened with extinction. There are lots of them, and numbers are increasing.
    Check the available evidence.
    In contrast the baniji are on the verge of extinction and the IUCN can’t find 300,000 pounds to relocate some individuals? Or did they try a few years back and were unsuccessful and so now they have given up and joined the AGW bandwagon?

  3. Peter Corkeron says

    Jennifer, there are three short papers in the latest (June 2006) issue of Conservation Biology that go into some detail on the “latest” plan re the baiji, and the history of attempts to conserve these animals. Worth a quick read for a bit more background than available from news releases.

    Baiji are in their own family within the cetaceans (not species or genus – family), and endemic to the Yangtze. As Reeves & Gales state in their paper “Its disappearance would be like snapping off a complete branch from the tree of mammalian radiation”.

    The polar bear Red Listing was by the IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist group. The IUCN group that deals with cetaceans is the Cetacean Specialst Group. The two groups don’t have much in common, so I think your (presumably rhetorical) question “Or did they try a few years back and were unsuccessful and so now they have given up and joined the AGW bandwagon?” can be answered in the negative.

    (Disclaimer here – I’m a member of the CSG, but have had nothing to do with the baiji issue).

    As you allude to, one of the big problems re baiji conservation is funding. Doesn’t your employer, the IPA, have close links with some of the big Australian companies that are making good money out of the resources boom associated with China’s growth? You’re the IPA environment person. Perhaps you, personally, would like to use the IPA connection to get some decent funding for baiji conservation up and running? It’d be a huge feather in the cap the of Oz resources sector if they could pull it off, wouldn’t it?

    Ever the optimist
    Peter

  4. Libby says

    Re whether this is a new initiative…Wang et al (2000) recommended “1) a breeding group should be established in the Shishou Baiji semi-natural reserve, 2) natural reserves should be established in areas most frequented by the animals, and 3) research on captive breeding should be intensified.”

  5. Ann Novek says

    Libby and Peter,
    What’s your thoughts on captive breeding programmes?

    Isn’t the mortality rate very high?

    Personally I’m not a big fan of captive cetaceans..but unfortunately, maybe this is the only way to save endangered species?

  6. Libby says

    Hi Ann,

    The baiji captive program was not successful, unfortunately. Some species do well in captivity and some do not. Personally, I think they should be used in conjunction with in-situ conservation, and not as a lame excuse to make money through admission fees.

  7. Ann Novek says

    Libby,
    Thanks for commenting!

    Jennifer,
    Why we are losing the river dolphins is thanks to a policy that is similar to climate sceptic’s, we are ignoring human impact on the ecosystem. With this policy we will soon lose both the river dolphins and the polar bears.

    I’m thankful that the IUCN is concerned about the polar bears.

    I don’t want to rant Jennifer , but do you really realise that temperatures in the Arctic are rising at almost twice the rate of the world , and it is threatening to place the Arctic ecosystem in jeopardy.

  9. Hannah says

    Hey!Guess what!? An ameutuar potographer shot a video of a banji! Two weeks after it was declared extinct, they found one! There’s still a chance!