Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Europe saved its predators from the brink of extinction. So why is it killing thousands of bears, wolves and lynx?

News Feed
Thursday, September 12, 2024

The forest was unnaturally still when Soňa Chovanová Supeková first picked up the bear’s scent. It was roe deer rutting season in southern Slovakia, and the hills below the Carpathian mountains were busy with tourists biking and foraging for mushrooms. Fellow hunters who had come face to face with bears had told Supeková the fear had been so great they could not lift their rifles. Sitting with her father, a hunter in his 80s who had killed a few bears, she found herself in a similar state of dread – she was out on that trip expecting to kill deer, and did not want to come on a bear unexpectedly.“Fear permeated me … the smell penetrated to the tip of my bones,” says Supeková, the founder of the Club of Slovak Lady Hunters. But the bear never appeared. The next morning, the daughter-and-father hunting duo saw its droppings. “We breathed a sigh of relief only in the car.”A 124kg male bear was one of 19 shot during the first day of hunting in Ljusdal, central Sweden, on 21 August 2020. Photograph: Adam Ihse/TT News Agency/AlamyEurope’s brown bears are a protected species. But they – alongside wolves and lynxes – are increasingly crossing paths with farmers, forestry officials and hunters such as Supeková. The appetite for killing big carnivores has shot up as wolf and bear populations have grown, several bear attacks have made headlines, and politicians have taken aim at laws that brought back them back from the brink of extinction.Sweden has issued permits to kill 486 of its brown bears, about 20%, this hunting season, which runs until mid-October. In 2023, the country conducted record-breaking culls of lynxes and wolves. Romania’s MPs voted in July to double its hunting quota from 220 brown bears to 481. In Slovakia, where a bear was recently filmed rampaging through a village, lawmakers voted in June to allow hunting near villages under certain conditions. In July, the European court of justice ruled that recent wolf culls in Austria and Spain were unlawful. Earlier in the year, Switzerland also faced legal challenges for its proposal to kill 70% of its wolf population.The wolf is no longer an animal with two ears, four legs and one tail; it is a political subjectThe debate around shooting protected species has provoked such fury among farmers, hunters and conservationists that it has bubbled up to the highest levels of bureaucrats in Brussels. The European Commission, whose president, Ursula von der Leyen, had a pony killed by a wolf two years ago, is seeking to downgrade the animal’s protection status.“The wolf is no longer an animal with two ears, four legs and one tail; it is a political subject,” says Luigi Boitani, a zoologist at the Sapienza University of Rome and chairman of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, a conservation group. “There’s a lot of polarisation. When you speak about wolves and bears, the world is not a variety of greys, it’s black or white.”Wolves were killed off across much of Europe in the 19th and 20th century, but began to bounce back in the 1970s as people moved from villages to cities, and governments later protected the animals and their habitats. A similar shift happened with brown bears and lynxes, with conservationists resettling them in regions from which they had been wiped out.Wolves shot in a hunt on 1 January 2020, as filmed in the Guardian documentary The Wolf Dividing Norway. Photograph: Kyrre Lien/The GuardianThe continent is now home to six species of large carnivore, and the EU bans killing them, with some exceptions – for example if they pose a danger to the public. Perched at the top of their food chain, the animals help ecosystems thrive by regulating prey populations. There is also some evidence they can limit the spread of disease.But the scale and speed of their return – there are thought to be more than 20,000 wolves and 17,000 bears in Europe – has increasingly led to conflicts with humans. Farmer and hunting lobbies have pushed to reduce the number of hurdles needed to kill them as the animals have expanded their territory and attacked people and livestock.A week after Supeková found the bear’s tracks in the forest, she says: “A farmer’s son met a bear on a forest road when he was mushroom picking in a place only about 2km away. Luckily, the bear ran away.”Footage of a bear barrelling down the streets of a small Slovakian town captured international attention in March, with five injured in the attack. So too did the death of a Belarusian hiker who died when fleeing from a bear the day before. The attacks prompted a change in law to let Slovak security services shoot brown bears that come within half a kilometre of a human settlement. A few months later in Romania, the death of a 19-year-old hiker at the hands of a bear led to the prime minister calling lawmakers back from their summer break for an emergency session in which they voted to cull more bears.A bear ran amok in the Slovakian town of Liptovský Mikuláš in March this year, leading to a change in the law on shooting bears. Photograph: undefined/Courtesy of Trnkova BizubovaPeople from villages and the countryside want to reduce the numbers of bears because attacks are increasing, says Supeková. “What’s very tragic is that one bear in the town of Liptovský Mikuláš injured five people, running across the town where children were outside playing games.”The issue has become fodder for populist parties courting rural votes, with politicians blasting Brussels for putting their children at risk and abandoning villages out of elitist environmental concerns.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionCritics say the deaths are tragic but have been blown out of proportion. In Romania, which is home to the most brown bears in Europe, the animals killed 26 people and injured 276 over 20 years, according to the environment ministry. Data from Eurostat shows that motorised vehicles killed 45,000 people in the country in that time.Cultural associations are a problem for the wolf, which has long been portrayed as the villain of fairytales. Helmut Dammann-Tamke, president of the German hunting association and politician with the centre-right Christian Democrats, says the threat of wolf attacks on sheep is “like something on a serving platter” for the far right because it reaches people on an emotional level. “This issue is an incendiary force in the hands of populists.”A 2022 study of German municipalities found that wolf attacks on livestock predict far-right support. After controlling for factors such as immigration and jobs, the researchers found wolf attacks were associated with far-right gains in municipal elections of between one and two percentage points. “The evidence points to wolf attacks as one potential driver of electoral radicalisation,” the authors wrote.Environmental activists question whether blanket policies to cull animals will do much to avoid conflicts with humans and have called for measures to promote peaceful coexistence that range from fences and guard dogs to awareness campaigns for visitors.Scientists are not yet troubled by the wolf’s population across the continent, but have warned that killing wolves in countries with small populations could prove catastrophic. Large-scale culls could put populations of these predators below local survival levels, they warn. Culls can even increase predation of livestock, as packs are disrupted, sending lone, vulnerable wolves venturing on to farms to hunt. The same “backfire” effect has also been documented with cougars and coyotes.Spanish farmers protest against the protection of wolves and bears in Madrid in 2021, ahead of the country’s ban on wolf hunting later that year. Photograph: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty ImagesCiprian Gal from the Romanian branch of Greenpeace said the Europe-wide trend of weakening protection for big carnivores was “a step backwards” that echoed times when humans felt a strong sense of competition with wildlife.“European governments, influenced by dominant populist rhetoric and powerful hunting and agricultural lobbies, seem to be choosing solutions based on fear and rapid economic return,” he says. “In a way, this is a backlash against the ambitious green policies of recent years and a valve for those still struggling to cope with the climate reality we’re facing.”

With Sweden issuing permits to kill a fifth of its bears, and Romanian MPs voting to double its quota, and the debate over hunting season has become a political issueThe forest was unnaturally still when Soňa Chovanová Supeková first picked up the bear’s scent. It was roe deer rutting season in southern Slovakia, and the hills below the Carpathian mountains were busy with tourists biking and foraging for mushrooms. Fellow hunters who had come face to face with bears had told Supeková the fear had been so great they could not lift their rifles. Sitting with her father, a hunter in his 80s who had killed a few bears, she found herself in a similar state of dread – she was out on that trip expecting to kill deer, and did not want to come on a bear unexpectedly.“Fear permeated me … the smell penetrated to the tip of my bones,” says Supeková, the founder of the Club of Slovak Lady Hunters. But the bear never appeared. The next morning, the daughter-and-father hunting duo saw its droppings. “We breathed a sigh of relief only in the car.” Continue reading...

The forest was unnaturally still when Soňa Chovanová Supeková first picked up the bear’s scent. It was roe deer rutting season in southern Slovakia, and the hills below the Carpathian mountains were busy with tourists biking and foraging for mushrooms. Fellow hunters who had come face to face with bears had told Supeková the fear had been so great they could not lift their rifles. Sitting with her father, a hunter in his 80s who had killed a few bears, she found herself in a similar state of dread – she was out on that trip expecting to kill deer, and did not want to come on a bear unexpectedly.

“Fear permeated me … the smell penetrated to the tip of my bones,” says Supeková, the founder of the Club of Slovak Lady Hunters. But the bear never appeared. The next morning, the daughter-and-father hunting duo saw its droppings. “We breathed a sigh of relief only in the car.”

A 124kg male bear was one of 19 shot during the first day of hunting in Ljusdal, central Sweden, on 21 August 2020. Photograph: Adam Ihse/TT News Agency/Alamy

Europe’s brown bears are a protected species. But they – alongside wolves and lynxes – are increasingly crossing paths with farmers, forestry officials and hunters such as Supeková. The appetite for killing big carnivores has shot up as wolf and bear populations have grown, several bear attacks have made headlines, and politicians have taken aim at laws that brought back them back from the brink of extinction.

Sweden has issued permits to kill 486 of its brown bears, about 20%, this hunting season, which runs until mid-October. In 2023, the country conducted record-breaking culls of lynxes and wolves. Romania’s MPs voted in July to double its hunting quota from 220 brown bears to 481. In Slovakia, where a bear was recently filmed rampaging through a village, lawmakers voted in June to allow hunting near villages under certain conditions. In July, the European court of justice ruled that recent wolf culls in Austria and Spain were unlawful. Earlier in the year, Switzerland also faced legal challenges for its proposal to kill 70% of its wolf population.

The debate around shooting protected species has provoked such fury among farmers, hunters and conservationists that it has bubbled up to the highest levels of bureaucrats in Brussels. The European Commission, whose president, Ursula von der Leyen, had a pony killed by a wolf two years ago, is seeking to downgrade the animal’s protection status.

“The wolf is no longer an animal with two ears, four legs and one tail; it is a political subject,” says Luigi Boitani, a zoologist at the Sapienza University of Rome and chairman of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, a conservation group. “There’s a lot of polarisation. When you speak about wolves and bears, the world is not a variety of greys, it’s black or white.”

Wolves were killed off across much of Europe in the 19th and 20th century, but began to bounce back in the 1970s as people moved from villages to cities, and governments later protected the animals and their habitats. A similar shift happened with brown bears and lynxes, with conservationists resettling them in regions from which they had been wiped out.

Wolves shot in a hunt on 1 January 2020, as filmed in the Guardian documentary The Wolf Dividing Norway. Photograph: Kyrre Lien/The Guardian

The continent is now home to six species of large carnivore, and the EU bans killing them, with some exceptions – for example if they pose a danger to the public. Perched at the top of their food chain, the animals help ecosystems thrive by regulating prey populations. There is also some evidence they can limit the spread of disease.

But the scale and speed of their return – there are thought to be more than 20,000 wolves and 17,000 bears in Europe – has increasingly led to conflicts with humans. Farmer and hunting lobbies have pushed to reduce the number of hurdles needed to kill them as the animals have expanded their territory and attacked people and livestock.

A week after Supeková found the bear’s tracks in the forest, she says: “A farmer’s son met a bear on a forest road when he was mushroom picking in a place only about 2km away. Luckily, the bear ran away.”

Footage of a bear barrelling down the streets of a small Slovakian town captured international attention in March, with five injured in the attack. So too did the death of a Belarusian hiker who died when fleeing from a bear the day before. The attacks prompted a change in law to let Slovak security services shoot brown bears that come within half a kilometre of a human settlement. A few months later in Romania, the death of a 19-year-old hiker at the hands of a bear led to the prime minister calling lawmakers back from their summer break for an emergency session in which they voted to cull more bears.

A bear ran amok in the Slovakian town of Liptovský Mikuláš in March this year, leading to a change in the law on shooting bears. Photograph: undefined/Courtesy of Trnkova Bizubova

People from villages and the countryside want to reduce the numbers of bears because attacks are increasing, says Supeková. “What’s very tragic is that one bear in the town of Liptovský Mikuláš injured five people, running across the town where children were outside playing games.”

The issue has become fodder for populist parties courting rural votes, with politicians blasting Brussels for putting their children at risk and abandoning villages out of elitist environmental concerns.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Critics say the deaths are tragic but have been blown out of proportion. In Romania, which is home to the most brown bears in Europe, the animals killed 26 people and injured 276 over 20 years, according to the environment ministry. Data from Eurostat shows that motorised vehicles killed 45,000 people in the country in that time.

Cultural associations are a problem for the wolf, which has long been portrayed as the villain of fairytales. Helmut Dammann-Tamke, president of the German hunting association and politician with the centre-right Christian Democrats, says the threat of wolf attacks on sheep is “like something on a serving platter” for the far right because it reaches people on an emotional level. “This issue is an incendiary force in the hands of populists.”

A 2022 study of German municipalities found that wolf attacks on livestock predict far-right support. After controlling for factors such as immigration and jobs, the researchers found wolf attacks were associated with far-right gains in municipal elections of between one and two percentage points. “The evidence points to wolf attacks as one potential driver of electoral radicalisation,” the authors wrote.

Environmental activists question whether blanket policies to cull animals will do much to avoid conflicts with humans and have called for measures to promote peaceful coexistence that range from fences and guard dogs to awareness campaigns for visitors.

Scientists are not yet troubled by the wolf’s population across the continent, but have warned that killing wolves in countries with small populations could prove catastrophic. Large-scale culls could put populations of these predators below local survival levels, they warn. Culls can even increase predation of livestock, as packs are disrupted, sending lone, vulnerable wolves venturing on to farms to hunt. The same “backfire” effect has also been documented with cougars and coyotes.

Spanish farmers protest against the protection of wolves and bears in Madrid in 2021, ahead of the country’s ban on wolf hunting later that year. Photograph: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty Images

Ciprian Gal from the Romanian branch of Greenpeace said the Europe-wide trend of weakening protection for big carnivores was “a step backwards” that echoed times when humans felt a strong sense of competition with wildlife.

“European governments, influenced by dominant populist rhetoric and powerful hunting and agricultural lobbies, seem to be choosing solutions based on fear and rapid economic return,” he says. “In a way, this is a backlash against the ambitious green policies of recent years and a valve for those still struggling to cope with the climate reality we’re facing.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Giant prehistoric kangaroos preferred to ‘chill at home’ and didn’t like to go out much, scientists say

Fossil teeth show species of protemnodon that roamed Australia between 5m and 40,000 years ago lived and died near Queensland cavesGet our afternoon election email, free app or daily news podcastDespite their immense size, species of prehistoric giant kangaroos from a site in Queensland were probably homebodies with a surprisingly small range compared to other kangaroos, according to new Australian research.Protemnodon, which roamed the Australian continent between 5m and 40,000 years ago and is now extinct, was significantly larger than its modern relatives. Some species weighed up to 170kg, making them more than twice as heavy as the largest red kangaroo. Continue reading...

Despite their immense size, species of prehistoric giant kangaroos from a site in Queensland were probably homebodies with a surprisingly small range compared to other kangaroos, according to new Australian research.Protemnodon, which roamed the Australian continent between 5m and 40,000 years ago and is now extinct, was significantly larger than its modern relatives. Some species weighed up to 170kg, making them more than twice as heavy as the largest red kangaroo.Given their size, researchers expected they might have an expansive territory, said University of Wollongong palaeo-ecologist Chris Laurikainen Gaete, the co-author of the study published in PLOS One.That’s because in most modern plant-eating mammals, including kangaroos and other macropods, larger body size correlated with geographic range, he said. A small marsupial such as the pademelon, for example, occupies an area smaller than a kilometre squared, whereas the red kangaroo – the largest of all kinds – in outback Australia can hop long distances, sometimes further than 20km.But analysis of fossil teeth found near Mt Etna, 30km north of Rockhampton in Queensland, revealed something quite different. These protemnodon kept to close quarters, living and dying near the caves where their remains were found.The Mt Etna fossil site in Queensland. Protemnodon’s restricted range increased its risk of extinction amid a changing climate, an expert says. Photograph: Scott HocknullCo-author Dr Scott Hocknull, a vertebrate palaeontologist and senior curator at the Queensland Museum, said the individuals from Mt Etna seemed to be “real homebodies” that stayed within “a tiny pocket” in and around the limestone caves.“These gigantic kangaroos were just chilling at home, eating the rainforest leaves, because there were heaps of them around. That also means that the environment was quite stable. It meant that over hundreds of thousands of years, these animals decided that staying put was a good bet.”The population at Mt Etna was “probably quite happy” for some time, Hocknull said. The rainforest probably provided a reliable source of food, while the caves offered protection from prehistoric predators, such as marsupial lions.But their restricted range was a “bad bet” in the end, Hocknull said, because it pre-disposed them to a risk of extinction when a changing climate and increasing aridity disrupted the rainforest environment about 280,000 years ago.Dr Scott Hocknull of the Queensland Museum with a protemnodon skull fossil. The prehistoric kangaroos were ‘real homebodies’, he saysDr Isaac Kerr, who specialises in kangaroo palaeontology at Flinders University and was not involved with the study, said protemnodon fossils – found mainly in the south and east of the country – indicated there were several species adapted to different environments.“Probably they were all over the whole continent, including New Guinea,” he said. A site in Tasmania had one of the latest surviving species, dated to 41,000 years ago.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionKerr said these megafauna kangaroos ranged in size but were generally stockier than their modern counterparts, with shorter feet.Protemnodon probably looked something like a wallaroo, he said, “squat and muscular but still quite large compared to a modern kangaroo”.Mt Etna is one of Australia’s richest fossil sites, containing evidence of ancient Pleistocene rainforests and records covering periods of past environmental change when rainforests gave way to open, arid environments.The researchers’ next step was to apply similar techniques to fossils of smaller kangaroos such as tree kangaroos, pademelons and rock wallabies from Mt Etna, which still have living descendants, to understand how they survived the environmental changes while protemnodon died out.Palaeo-ecologist Chris Laurikainen Gaete says that with most modern plant-eating mammals, larger body size correlates with larger geographic range – but not for the protemnodon found at Mt EtnaThe study compared the unique chemical signatures found in the local geology with those found in the fossilised teeth to establish the range of each animal, Gaete said.“Strontium is an element that varies in the environment, specifically in underlying bedrocks – so a limestone will have a significantly different strontium signature compared to something like volcanic rock or basalt,” he said. These unique signatures made their way into soil and plants, and were reflected in the fossilised teeth of herbivores that ate those plants.Laurikainen Gaete said the technique could be used to understand, on a site-by-site basis, why certain species of megafauna disappeared from particular places.Hocknull said: “It fundamentally shifts how palaeontologists and ecologists look at the fossil record.”

Sunscreen, Clothing and Caves May Have Given Modern Humans an Edge Over Neanderthals When Earth's Magnetic Field Wandered

A new study suggests the extinction of Neanderthals nearly coincided with a shift in Earth's magnetic field that let more radiation reach the ground. Our species might have adapted more easily

Sunscreen, Clothing and Caves May Have Given Modern Humans an Edge Over Neanderthals When Earth’s Magnetic Field Wandered A new study suggests the extinction of Neanderthals nearly coincided with a shift in Earth’s magnetic field that let more radiation reach the ground. Our species might have adapted more easily A reconstruction of a Neanderthal man in the Natural History Museum, Vienna. A new study suggests Neanderthals could not adapt to a period of increased radiation as well as early modern humans did. Jakub Hałun via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 One of the most enduring questions in anthropology is why Neanderthals, our closest extinct human relatives, completely disappeared around 40,000 years ago. Possible theories include climate change, resource competition and the dilution of Neanderthals’ genes through interbreeding with modern humans’ ancestors. Now, new research suggests early Homo sapiens may have had an edge on their cousins thanks to their use of sun protection—namely, natural sunscreen, tailored clothes and caves—during a period of unusually strong solar and cosmic radiation. The research is detailed in a study published last week in the journal Science Advances. Earth’s moving interior generates our planet’s magnetic field, an invisible shield that helps protect us and our atmosphere from harmful energy coming from space. This magnetic field has a north and south orientation, which currently roughly aligns with Earth’s North and South poles. Those are the sites where the field is the strongest, which is why auroras are usually visible at more extreme latitudes. Sometimes, however, the magnetic field’s poles wander from the planet’s geographic poles in what scientists call geomagnetic excursions, according to a statement. Occasionally, the magnetic field’s north and south poles swap completely—a natural phenomenon that has taken place about 180 times in Earth’s history. The most recent geomagnetic excursion, called the Laschamps excursion, occurred around 41,000 years ago—just before Neanderthals went extinct. To investigate this event for the new study, an international team of researchers reconstructed Earth’s upper atmosphere and nearby space during the Laschamps excursion using a 3D computer model. By combining this with models of the space plasma around Earth and our planet’s auroras, the team suggests that during the Laschamps excursion, Earth’s magnetic field overall was only 10 percent as strong as its current level. This allowed the north magnetic pole to wander over Europe, making aurora visible across the continent. It also let more cosmic radiation reach the ground. A diagram of the Laschamps excursion. At this time, auroras—depicted here by gradients of green and yellow—could be seen from most of the globe. Agnit Mukhopadhyay, University of Michigan “During the Laschamps event, the magnetic poles shifted away from true north,” lead author Agnit Mukhopadhyay, a climate and space scientist at the University of Michigan, tells BBC Science Focus’ Hatty Willmoth. “This movement, coupled with a notable weakening of the magnetic field, resulted in an expanded auroral zone and increased atmospheric penetration by energetic particles, such as solar energetic particles and cosmic radiation.” Both of those particles represent ionizing radiation, which can be harmful to human health. Interestingly, the Laschamps excursion coincided with notable developments for our ancestors and early relatives. According to the statement, some evidence suggests Homo sapiens started producing custom clothing, spending more time in caves and increasing their use of a mineral called ochre at that time. “There have been some experimental tests that show it [ochre] has sunscreen-like properties. It’s a pretty effective sunscreen, and there are also ethnographic populations that have used it primarily for that purpose,” Raven Garvey, a co-author of the study and an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, says in the statement. “So, while archaeologists cannot directly observe the behaviors of peoples who lived over 40,000 years ago, we can hypothesize that the increased use of ochre may have been, in part, for its sun-protective properties,” Garvey adds to BBC Science Focus. Environmental changes caused by the weaker magnetic field “may have driven adaptive behaviors in human populations, such as the increased use of protective clothing and ochre for UV shielding,” as Mukhopadhyay tells New Scientist’s James Woodford. But as early modern humans made these lifestyle changes, Neanderthals ultimately disappeared. The team speculates these differences may have contributed to Homo sapiens outliving Neanderthals, who don’t seem to be associated with the same developments. Not everyone agrees, however. “There’s definitely a rough overlap in terms of timing between the incursion of ancient modern humans into Europe and the Laschamps event,” says Amy Mosig Way, an archaeologist from the Australian Museum who was not involved in the study, to New Scientist. “But it’s probably a stretch to say modern humans had better sun protection in the form of tailored clothing than Neanderthals, and that this contributed to their ability to travel farther than Neanderthals and their subsequent dominance of Eurasia.” More broadly, the researchers suggest that our ancestors’ survival of a severely weakened magnetic sphere could hold implications for how we continue our search for extraterrestrial beings. “Many people say that a planet cannot sustain life without a strong magnetic field,” Mukhopadhyay says in the statement. “Looking at prehistoric Earth, and especially at events like this, helps us study exoplanetary physics from a very different vantage point. Life did exist back then. But it was a little bit different than it is today.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Environmentalists sue Trump administration to save ‘unique amphibian’ at Crater Lake

Warming waters, an invasive fish and federal budget cuts are threatening the cute little creature.

A “cute little newt” has found itself in the middle of a fight between a leading environmental organization and the Trump administration.The Center for Biological Diversity on Thursday announced its intention to file a lawsuit over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure to protect the Crater Lake newt, also known as the Mazama newt, which the environmental organization said is “critically imperiled.”In October, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it was considering listing the newt as a threatened or endangered species, following a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity. The federal agency said the listing would be fully considered in a 12-month evaluation, but since then the agency has faced a series of firings and budget cuts as part of the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to the federal government. Those cuts will make it harder to protect the newt, which is currently threatened by invasive crayfish that prey on the little amphibian, the Center for Biological Diversity said.“Crater Lake newts are unique little amphibians on the brink of extinction and urgent action is needed for them to have any chance of survival,” Chelsea Stewart-Fusek, an endangered species attorney with the organization, said in a news release. “We’re at the point where newts may need to be bred in captivity until the explosion of crayfish can be addressed. The longer the government waits, the harder it’ll be for these irreplaceable amphibians to recover.”If listed as an endangered species, the newt may benefit from federal funds that could help with crayfish removal and a captive breeding program, Stewart-Frisk said. The demise of the Crater Lake newt, which is a subspecies of the rough-skinned newt, has accelerated in the last 15 years as warming temperatures favor its predator, the signal crayfish, which was introduced to the park in the late 1800s as a way to attract visitors and gain federal protection as a national park – a plan that ultimately worked. Crayfish now occupy more than 95% of the lake’s shoreline, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, and scientists project they could occupy 100% in less than two years. That could threaten not only the newts, but the crystal blue clarity of Crater Lake itself, as the crayfish also prey on native plankton-consuming invertebrates, increasing the growth of algae in the lake, the organization said. “Amphibians act as canaries in the coal mine, and right now more than 40% of the world’s amphibians are at risk of extinction,” Stewart-Fusek said. “This is a grave warning that should be taken seriously. What harms wildlife and their habitat endangers us, too.”--Jamie Hale covers travel and the outdoors and co-hosts the Peak Northwest podcast. Reach him at 503-294-4077, jhale@oregonian.com or @HaleJamesB.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Scientists say they 'de-extincted' dire wolves. Experts at La Brea Tar Pits are skeptical

Colossal Biosciences, the company that made headlines years back for claims they wanted to revive the woolly mammoth, say they successfully "de-extincted" the dire wolf. Local experts are not so sure.

When news that scientists in Texas had succesfully reintroduced the long-extinct dire wolf to the modern world, more people than just “Game of Thrones” fans took notice.Researchers at the Natural History Museum’s La Brea Tar Pits, where a wall is decorated with hundreds of dire wolf skulls, had questions.Namely, are they really dire wolves? Turns out, it depends on how you define it.“What they have created is basically a genetically engineered gray wolf that has been given genetic traits so they can express morphological or physical traits that more resemble dire wolves,” said Kayce Bell, a terrestrial mammal curator at the Natural History Museum. “The technology and the tools that they are developing with this work are incredible and very powerful, but the terms that are being used to discuss it, I think, are misleading.”Earlier this week, biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences in Dallas announced they had “de-extincted” the dire wolf, sharing the news of the births of three healthy pups. Over 18 months, experts there extracted and sequenced ancient DNA from two dire wolf fossils — a 13,000-year-old tooth from Sheridan Pit, Ohio, and a 72,000-year-old inner ear bone from American Falls, Idaho. With that ancient DNA, scientists identified gene variants specific to dire wolves and then performed multiplex gene editing with a genome from the gray wolf, dire wolves’ closest living relatives. They used domestic dogs as surrogate mothers to birth the three pups. This undated photo provided by Colossal Biosciences shows two pups that were genetically engineered with similarities to the extinct dire wolf. (Colossal Biosciences via Associated Press) Colossal’s chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, said she understands the scientific skepticism that came with the announcement. “I get it,” she said. “It’s frustrating when you work in paleontology and you feel like it’s not effective science communication, and I wish I’d done a bit better.”Though Southern California has a jackpot of dire wolf fossils relative to other sites, extracting DNA from the local samples is difficult. Shapiro said she’s been trying and unable to collect DNA from local samples for 20 years. Among the reasons it’s challenging to collect, experts say, is that L.A.’s urban landscape bakes in the sun, heating up the asphalt, which could degrade ancient DNA buried underneath.La Brea Tar Pits has the highest concentration of dire wolf fossils in the world, with remains from over 4,000 dire wolves found at the site. They lived in the region for at least 50,000 years, disappearing about 13,000 years ago.“There’s no other site on Earth that even comes close to that,” said Emily Lindsey, the associate curator and excavation site director at La Brea Tar Pits.Dire wolves, native to Southern California but not limited to the region, were highly adaptable and had a very wide range of environmental tolerances before the species went extinct about 10,000 years ago, Lindsey said. The three pups — Romulus and Remus, who were born in October, and Khaleesi, born in January — now live on an ecological preserve at an undisclosed location that spans over 2,000 acres and hosts 10 full-time staff members who care for and observe them. The preserve is certified by the American Humane Society and registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Depending on how you look at it, that could be dire wolf territory now.In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature published a report that focused on de-extinction and defined it as “bringing back a proxy of an extinct species that resembles it in some way, phenotypically, physiologically, ecologically,” Shapiro said.But in the end, she said she’s not really hung up on what the animals are called beyond their names, inspired by founders of Rome and the “Game of Thrones” show.“Call it a de-extinct dire wolf that abides by the definition that the scientific community agreed on 10 years ago. Call it Colossal’s dire wolf. Call it a gray wolf with 20 edits that looks and acts like a dire wolf and is a functional replacement for a dire wolf,” Shapiro said.Part of Colossal’s announcement this week included news that they had also successfully created four clones of the endangered red wolf using a new noninvasive cloning technology. Both Lindsey and Bell said they appreciated Colossal’s work on conserving endangered species, but think that focusing on conservation is a more productive use of resources. “There are potentially useful applications of some of these technologies, particularly for preventing highly endangered species from going extinct. I think that would be a far more efficient application of these technologies than trying to bring something resembling an extinct species back to life,” Lindsey said. “I’d hate to have to be trying to de-extinct wolves once they go extinct, right?”Colossal’s Chief Executive Ben Lamm said the company wants to pair their “de-extinction events” with work they’re doing to protect critically endangered species. The company’s other de-extinction hopes include reviving the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. To Lamm and Shapiro, de-extinction and conservation can work in tandem.“Conservation and de-extinction are not at odds with each other. The de-extinction toolkit should be part of the increasing number of ways that we have at our fingertips to be able to help endangered species survive,” Shapiro said.Lamm, who held up drawings of dodos and other extinct animals children had sent to the Colossal team during a Zoom interview with The Times, said he thinks the milestone could also inspire more people to pursue careers in related fields.“The world needs a little hope right now, and I think the world needs more science. Hopefully, we’re providing a little bit of both,” he said.And yes, of course “Jurassic Park” quotes and references are tossed Lamm and Shapiro’s way with stunning frequency.“People actually say to us, ‘Don’t you know what happened in Jurassic Park?,’ equating it to, like, Chernobyl,” Lamm said. “ ‘Didn’t you see what happened there?’ Not, ‘Didn’t you watch the movie and learn anything about human hubris from the movie?’ They don’t say that.”Shapiro added: “People are yelling at us that these aren’t real dire wolves. But no one has ever questioned whether the dinosaurs in ‘Jurassic Park’ are real dinosaurs.”While the debate is still open, Lindsey said she invites anyone curious about the creatures to visit La Brea Tar Pits to see some of the “real dire wolves” that they have excavated at the site. “It’s a really cool opportunity — one that you don’t get in almost any other city in the world — to come and really see the incredible diversity of large animals that lived here until very recently,” Lindsey said.

You Might Think of Shrimp as Bugs of the Sea. But a Remarkable Discovery Shows the Opposite: Bugs Are Actually Shrimp of the Land

A recent study suggests that insects branched out from crustaceans on the tree of life

You Might Think of Shrimp as Bugs of the Sea. But a Remarkable Discovery Shows the Opposite: Bugs Are Actually Shrimp of the Land A recent study suggests that insects branched out from crustaceans on the tree of life Riley Black - Science Correspondent April 9, 2025 8:00 a.m. A species of remipede known from the Caicos Islands. The photograph was taken by a member of a multinational team looking for rare species. Remipedes are crustaceans that are close relatives to insects. Jørgen Olesen / Natural History Museum of Denmark, Brett Gonzalez, Karen Osborn, GGI Shrimp look an awful lot like bugs. The exoskeletons, jointed legs and compound eyes of both groups of living things give them more than a passing resemblance to each other, so no wonder some people call shrimp-like crawfish “mudbugs,” and a tattoo reading “shrimps is bugs” became a viral meme for underscoring the resemblance. But the tattoo got the reality backwards. Shrimp are not bugs. Bugs—or, more properly, insects—are technically a form of crustacean. Biologists of many different subdisciplines categorize life in a field called systematics. Living things of all sorts, both extant and extinct, are constantly being compared and evaluated to build what we so commonly think of as the tree of life. The addition of new species and novel analyses are constantly reshaping that evolutionary tree, and sometimes the category changes shift more than just a few twigs but entire evolutionary branches. Birds are now known to be dinosaurs, for example, whales are technically hoofed mammals called artiodactyls, and, thanks to a 2023 study in Molecular Biology and Evolution, insects have been shifted into the same group as shrimp and crabs called pancrustacea. The realization that bugs were close relatives of crustaceans took almost a century of curiosity to uncover. Paleontologist Joanna Wolfe of Harvard University, one of the authors of the 2023 study, notes that researchers noticed some insects and crustaceans had the same structures in their eyes and nervous systems. The resemblance could have been the result of convergent evolution, when two groups independently evolve in the same way, and so the idea that insects are modified crustaceans didn’t catch. But the hypothesis didn’t fully go away, either. In 2013, Wolfe and colleagues found that insects were the sister group, or next closest evolutionary relatives, to crustaceans called remipedes—which live in undersea caves and are the only venomous crustaceans. Remipedes were supposed to be oddballs that were shaped in strange ways due to their lives in caves. Now they were coming out as the closest relatives to the flies, mantises, bees and other insects we see around us on land. “At that time, I was shocked and thought there was something wrong with our results,” Wolfe recalls, only to have additional evidence make the connection between insects and crustaceans stronger. The 2023 analysis, based on genetic data, found insects next to remipedes in the middle of the various crustacean subgroups. Specifically, insects fit within a wide group of crustaceans called allotriocarida that not only includes remipedes, but also other unusual groups such as shrimp-like branchiopods and worm-like cephalopods sometimes called “horseshoe shrimp.” To put it another way, insects are to crustaceans as bats are to mammals—a subset that belongs to a broader group despite seeming so different from their closest relatives. Systematic shifts do far more than simply rearrange who’s related to whom. “Systematics allow us to make sense of the complexity of life,” says Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History paleontologist Advait Jukar. “When we recategorize species into new groups we can look at patterns of how that group might be diversifying and the various environmental and ecological factors.” Insects, like those above, fit right in the middle of the broader crustacean family tree. Richard Ross, The Image Bank via Getty Images When birds were recognized as dinosaurs, the change did more than reshuffle their place on the evolutionary tree. “The change showed us how characteristics that we typically associate with birds today, such as feathers, hollow bones and air sacs, were widely found within Dinosauria,” Jukar says. Paleontologists began finding more feathered dinosaurs and dinosaurs with traits previously associated with birds, such as complex systems of air sacs as part of their respiratory systems, once the connection was made. The newly understood relationship between birds and other dinosaurs has allowed experts to better understand why only birds survived the mass extinction of 66 million years ago. Comparisons between birds and bird-like dinosaurs revealed that adaptations for eating seeds and nuts that some birds developed during the Cretaceous allowed them to survive while bird-like raptors perished. The recognition that whales are hoofed mammals occurred around the same time as birds were found to be dinosaurs. The shift had a deep effect on how paleontologists carried out their research as well as the identity of the blubbery mammals. Prior to the 1990s, the earliest whales were thought to have evolved from carnivorous mammals called mesonychids. The beasts, sometimes called “wolves with hooves” because they looked like canids with hoof-like toes, were some of Earth’s most prominent carnivores around 55 million years ago, the time when amphibious whales such as Pakicetus began swimming in the shallows. But genetic evidence kept grouping whales close to hippos and other mammals with hoofed toes, called artiodactyls. Experts debated the connection, but by 2001 paleontologists uncovered early whale ankle bones that possessed traits only seen among artiodactyls. The recognition shifted where whales fit in the mammalian evolutionary tree and recalibrated what sort of ancestral creatures paleontologists should be looking for, yielding the 2007 discovery that whales most likely evolved from small, deer-like creatures in ancient India. Without the recognition that whales are artiodactyls, the relevance of those ancient, hoofed creatures to the origin of whales would have been entirely missed and paleontologists would still be wondering where orcas and minke whales came from. In the case of the bugs, Wolfe notes, the recognition that insects shared a close common ancestor with remipedes helps narrow down where and how insects originated. “For me, the exciting part for insects is the recognition that they do not come from a terrestrial ancestor,” Wolfe says. Until recently, the ancestors of insects were thought to be more millipede-like and evolved once invertebrates began to live on land. Now, Wolfe notes, the closest relatives of insects are wiggly crustaceans that live in marine caves. The connection doesn’t mean that remipedes embody the exact ancestral form of the first insects, but rather that their close relationship will cause experts to rethink where insects came from and how they evolved. The effort will require tracing the ancestry of remipedes and other crustaceans, as well as searching for insects in the fossil record—both from new fossil sites and perhaps miscategorized fossils already in collections. “There’s a complicated history and still missing pieces,” she notes, but now biologists have a better sense of what to search for. Bugs are crustaceans, and now experts can begin to wonder how that came to be. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.