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.

‘Where do sharks hang out?’: the race to find safe spaces for the Galápagos’ ocean-going predators

News Feed
Tuesday, June 4, 2024

It’s a three-person job to land a 2-metre shark: two to wrap ropes around its thrashing tail and midriff, a third to clamp shut its powerful jaws. Hanging over the side of the Sea Quest fishing skiff, the crew work quickly to minimise any distress to the animal, a female silky shark. Once onboard, a hose attached to a saltwater pump is placed in her mouth, to irrigate her gills.Catching and tagging sharks is contentious among some researchers, who say it is harmful. But for Alex Hearn, a professor of biology at Quito’s Universidad de San Francisco in Ecuador, who has studied sharks for two decades, it is critical to understanding behaviour that could better protect one of the most endangered group of vertebrates on the planet.“This looks a bit brutal,” says Hearn, as he picks up a power drill to make the four holes required in the silky’s dorsal fin to attach the tag. “But it’s the most efficient method. Sharks don’t have nerve endings on their fins; what stresses them more is being restrained.”Prof Alex Hearn, a shark scientist, on a tagging expedition in the Galápagos Islands. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/GreenpeaceThe shark does not flinch and is back in the waters of the Galápagos archipelago, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, within six-and-a-half minutes. They name her Isabela, after the largest of the islands, 620 miles from mainland Ecuador.“When we tag these animals to track their movements, we’re building up a picture of underwater highways,” says Hearn, during a two-week Greenpeace expedition to the region in March.“Are there particular areas they like to hang out? When they move between those areas, do they follow predictable pathways or migratory routes?”The tightly controlled waters of the Galápagos reserve, a Unesco world heritage site, rate among the world’s top dive spots due to an abundance of hammerheads, whale sharks, turtles and other megafauna. Some researchers believe it has the highest shark biomass in the world.But once these highly mobile species move outside the reserve, they are vulnerable to overfishing. Despite their endangered status, they are caught and killed in huge numbers by industrial fleets that surround the waters.For scientists such as Hearn, who want to find out how best to protect them, time is running out.The world’s shark and ray populations have crashed by 70% over the past 50 years, due to overfishing, a threat compounded by habitat loss and the climate crisis. A third of all shark species, targeted for their fins and meat, and a half of all 31 oceanic sharks, are now threatened with extinction.Shark fishing, along with the use of long lines, a tuna-fishing technique that results in a high shark “bycatch”, is banned inside the marine reserve. But migratory species that swim outside it and into international waters, can be caught legally.That is why Hearn and Greenpeace are pushing for additional protections, particularly in the high seas, an area outside national boundaries that is increasingly vulnerable to exploitation.The scientists try to establish the gender of a juvenile smooth hammerhead shark. The Galápagos reserve may have the world’s highest biomass of sharks. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace“The Galapágos marine reserve is not working for highly mobile species,” says Hearn, who co-founded MigraMar, a non-profit environmental organisation involving scientists from California to Chile that maps migratory routes of endangered marine species across the eastern Pacific.“That’s why we are looking at connecting MPAs [marine protected areas], hotspots and swimways,” he adds.Hearn’s tracking data from MigraMar shows how threatened marine species, including hammerheads, whale sharks, tiger sharks and turtles, migrate north-east from the Galápagos, towards Costa Rica.This information helped contribute to the expansion of the marine reserve, by an extra 22,000 sq miles, by Ecuadorian authorities in 2022.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Global DispatchGet a different world view with a roundup of the best news, features and pictures, curated by our global development teamPrivacy 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 promotionThe Galapágos marine reserve is not working for highly mobile speciesKnown as Hermandad (“brotherhood”), the extra protection makes up half of the vital “swimway” used by sharks between Galápagos and the Cocos Island national park off Costa Rica. In half of the protected area there is a complete ban on fishing, while no long-lining is allowed in the other half.On the bridge of a Greenpeace ship, the Arctic Sunrise, Sophie Cooke, lead investigator for the environmental organisation’s ocean campaign and expedition, points out a map on her laptop showing clusters of industrial fishing vessels around the archipelago.“You can see what a difference Hermandad has made,” says Cooke, who has collated data from Global Fishing Watch. “When you look at 2019-20 data, you can see there were long liners all around Hermandad. Now, when you look at 2020 to 2022, the long liners have disappeared.”A young smooth hammerhead shark near the Galápagos. The fish roam over vast distances – a tagged blue shark was found on a Spanish trawler about 1,200 miles away near Peru. Photograph: Sophie Cooke/GreenpeaceThe next step, says Hearn, is to increase protection for those species that are heavily fished, such as silkies, threshers and blue sharks. “We have a new tool, in the form of the UN global ocean treaty,” he says, referring to the convention governing exploitation of the high seas, agreed by 193 countries last year.A few weeks after the trip, Hearn tells me Isabela is safe, still swimming in the reserve around San Cristobal where she was found. But the second tagged silky shark, whom the crew named Wolf after another island, did not fare so well. His tag has not pinged a position for two weeks, so Hearn suspects he may have been caught by a long-liner fishing vessel.Cooke says Wolf’s disappearance follows a pattern seen in Hearn’s work in 2022, when tagged blue sharks were fished almost immediately. Out of eight blue sharks tagged that year, one was picked up by a Spanish trawler 1,200 miles away near Peru, another was found in an Ecuadorian port, believed to have also been caught, and two were last seen close to the high seas. Three were last seen in the protected area.A Galápagos park ranger inspects a fin sample taken from a hammerhead shark. Shark species are targeted for their fins. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace“We also saw the blue sharks disappearing after going out to the high seas,” Cooke says. “They are disappearing once they leave protected areas. It strengthens the case that we need high seas protected.”

Scientists are tagging sharks to map Pacific migration routes in a bid to expand marine reserves before more of these endangered species fall prey to illegal industrial fishingIt’s a three-person job to land a 2-metre shark: two to wrap ropes around its thrashing tail and midriff, a third to clamp shut its powerful jaws. Hanging over the side of the Sea Quest fishing skiff, the crew work quickly to minimise any distress to the animal, a female silky shark. Once onboard, a hose attached to a saltwater pump is placed in her mouth, to irrigate her gills.Catching and tagging sharks is contentious among some researchers, who say it is harmful. But for Alex Hearn, a professor of biology at Quito’s Universidad de San Francisco in Ecuador, who has studied sharks for two decades, it is critical to understanding behaviour that could better protect one of the most endangered group of vertebrates on the planet. Continue reading...

It’s a three-person job to land a 2-metre shark: two to wrap ropes around its thrashing tail and midriff, a third to clamp shut its powerful jaws. Hanging over the side of the Sea Quest fishing skiff, the crew work quickly to minimise any distress to the animal, a female silky shark. Once onboard, a hose attached to a saltwater pump is placed in her mouth, to irrigate her gills.

Catching and tagging sharks is contentious among some researchers, who say it is harmful. But for Alex Hearn, a professor of biology at Quito’s Universidad de San Francisco in Ecuador, who has studied sharks for two decades, it is critical to understanding behaviour that could better protect one of the most endangered group of vertebrates on the planet.

“This looks a bit brutal,” says Hearn, as he picks up a power drill to make the four holes required in the silky’s dorsal fin to attach the tag. “But it’s the most efficient method. Sharks don’t have nerve endings on their fins; what stresses them more is being restrained.”

Prof Alex Hearn, a shark scientist, on a tagging expedition in the Galápagos Islands. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace

The shark does not flinch and is back in the waters of the Galápagos archipelago, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, within six-and-a-half minutes. They name her Isabela, after the largest of the islands, 620 miles from mainland Ecuador.

“When we tag these animals to track their movements, we’re building up a picture of underwater highways,” says Hearn, during a two-week Greenpeace expedition to the region in March.

“Are there particular areas they like to hang out? When they move between those areas, do they follow predictable pathways or migratory routes?”

The tightly controlled waters of the Galápagos reserve, a Unesco world heritage site, rate among the world’s top dive spots due to an abundance of hammerheads, whale sharks, turtles and other megafauna. Some researchers believe it has the highest shark biomass in the world.

But once these highly mobile species move outside the reserve, they are vulnerable to overfishing. Despite their endangered status, they are caught and killed in huge numbers by industrial fleets that surround the waters.

For scientists such as Hearn, who want to find out how best to protect them, time is running out.

The world’s shark and ray populations have crashed by 70% over the past 50 years, due to overfishing, a threat compounded by habitat loss and the climate crisis. A third of all shark species, targeted for their fins and meat, and a half of all 31 oceanic sharks, are now threatened with extinction.

Shark fishing, along with the use of long lines, a tuna-fishing technique that results in a high shark “bycatch”, is banned inside the marine reserve. But migratory species that swim outside it and into international waters, can be caught legally.

That is why Hearn and Greenpeace are pushing for additional protections, particularly in the high seas, an area outside national boundaries that is increasingly vulnerable to exploitation.

The scientists try to establish the gender of a juvenile smooth hammerhead shark. The Galápagos reserve may have the world’s highest biomass of sharks. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace

“The Galapágos marine reserve is not working for highly mobile species,” says Hearn, who co-founded MigraMar, a non-profit environmental organisation involving scientists from California to Chile that maps migratory routes of endangered marine species across the eastern Pacific.

“That’s why we are looking at connecting MPAs [marine protected areas], hotspots and swimways,” he adds.

Hearn’s tracking data from MigraMar shows how threatened marine species, including hammerheads, whale sharks, tiger sharks and turtles, migrate north-east from the Galápagos, towards Costa Rica.

This information helped contribute to the expansion of the marine reserve, by an extra 22,000 sq miles, by Ecuadorian authorities in 2022.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Known as Hermandad (“brotherhood”), the extra protection makes up half of the vital “swimway” used by sharks between Galápagos and the Cocos Island national park off Costa Rica. In half of the protected area there is a complete ban on fishing, while no long-lining is allowed in the other half.

On the bridge of a Greenpeace ship, the Arctic Sunrise, Sophie Cooke, lead investigator for the environmental organisation’s ocean campaign and expedition, points out a map on her laptop showing clusters of industrial fishing vessels around the archipelago.

“You can see what a difference Hermandad has made,” says Cooke, who has collated data from Global Fishing Watch. “When you look at 2019-20 data, you can see there were long liners all around Hermandad. Now, when you look at 2020 to 2022, the long liners have disappeared.”

A young smooth hammerhead shark near the Galápagos. The fish roam over vast distances – a tagged blue shark was found on a Spanish trawler about 1,200 miles away near Peru. Photograph: Sophie Cooke/Greenpeace

The next step, says Hearn, is to increase protection for those species that are heavily fished, such as silkies, threshers and blue sharks. “We have a new tool, in the form of the UN global ocean treaty,” he says, referring to the convention governing exploitation of the high seas, agreed by 193 countries last year.

A few weeks after the trip, Hearn tells me Isabela is safe, still swimming in the reserve around San Cristobal where she was found. But the second tagged silky shark, whom the crew named Wolf after another island, did not fare so well. His tag has not pinged a position for two weeks, so Hearn suspects he may have been caught by a long-liner fishing vessel.

Cooke says Wolf’s disappearance follows a pattern seen in Hearn’s work in 2022, when tagged blue sharks were fished almost immediately. Out of eight blue sharks tagged that year, one was picked up by a Spanish trawler 1,200 miles away near Peru, another was found in an Ecuadorian port, believed to have also been caught, and two were last seen close to the high seas. Three were last seen in the protected area.

A Galápagos park ranger inspects a fin sample taken from a hammerhead shark. Shark species are targeted for their fins. Photograph: Tommy Trenchard/Greenpeace

“We also saw the blue sharks disappearing after going out to the high seas,” Cooke says. “They are disappearing once they leave protected areas. It strengthens the case that we need high seas protected.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

From the telegraph to AI, our communications systems have always had hidden environmental cost

The telegraph was hailed for its revolutionary ability to span distance. Now AI is being hailed as a great leap forward. But both came with environmental costs.

The first attempt to lay submarine telegraph cable between Britain and France. Universal History Archive/GettyWhen we post to a group chat or talk to an AI chatbot, we don’t think about how these technologies came to be. We take it for granted we can instantly communicate. We only notice the importance and reach of these systems when they’re not accessible. Companies describe these systems with metaphors such as the “cloud” or “artificial intelligence”, suggesting something intangible. But they are deeply material. The stories told about these systems centre on newness and progress. But these myths obscure the human and environmental cost of making them possible. AI and modern communication systems rely on huge data centres and submarine cables. These have large and growing environmental costs, from soaring energy use to powering data centres to water for cooling. There’s nothing new about this, as my research shows. The first world-spanning communication system was the telegraph, which made it possible to communicate between some continents in near-real time. But it came at substantial cost to the environment and humans. Submarine telegraph cables were wrapped in gutta-percha, the rubber-like latex extracted from tropical trees by colonial labourers. Forests were felled to grow plantations of these trees. Is it possible to design communications systems without such costs? Perhaps. But as the AI investment bubble shows, environmental and human costs are often ignored in the race for the next big thing. The telegraph had a sizeable environmental and social cost. Pictured: workers coiling the first transatlantic telegraph cable in the bilge tanks of the S.S. Great Eastern in 1865. Universal History Archives/Getty From the “Victorian internet” to AI Before the telegraph, long distance communication was painfully slow. Sending messages by ship could take months. In the 1850s, telegraph cables made it possible to rapidly communicate between countries and across oceans. By the late 1800s, the telegraph had become ubiquitous. Later dubbed the “Victorian internet”, the telegraph was the predecessor of today’s digital networks. Building telegraph networks was a huge undertaking. The first transatlantic cable was completed in 1858, spanning more than 4,000km between North America and Europe. The first transatlantic submarine cables made possible rapid communication between the United States and Europe. This 1857 map shows their paths. Korff Brothers, CC BY-NC-ND Australia followed closely behind. European colonists created the first telegraph lines in the 1850s between Melbourne and Williamstown. By 1872, the Overland Telegraph Line between Adelaide and Darwin had been completed. From Darwin, the message could reach the world. There are clear differences between the telegraph and today’s AI systems. But there are also clear parallels. In our time, fibre optic cables retrace many routes of the now obsolete submarine telegraph cables. Virtually all (99%) of the world’s internet traffic travels through deep sea cables. These cables carry everything from Google searches to ChatGPT interactions, transmitting data close to the speed of light from your device to faraway data centres and back. Historical accounts describe the telegraph variously as a divine gift, a human-made wonder, and a networked global intelligence, far from the material reality. These descriptions are not far off the way AI is talked about today. Grounded in extraction In the 19th century, the telegraph was commonly thought of as an emblem of progress and technological innovation. But these systems had other stories embedded, such as the logic of colonialism. One reason European powers set out to colonise the globe was to extract resources from colonies for their own use. The same extractive logic can be seen in the telegraph, a system whose self-evident technological progress won out over environmental and social costs. If you look closely at a slice of telegraph cable in a museum or at historic sites where submarine telegraph cables made landfall, you’ll see something interesting. The telegraph was a technological marvel – but it came at considerable cost. Pictured is an 1856 sample of the first submarine telegraph cable linking Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in Canada. Jemimah Widdicombe, CC BY-NC-ND Wrapped around the wires is a mixture of tarred yarn and gutta percha. Cable companies used this naturally occurring latex to insulate telegraph wires from the harsh conditions on the sea floor. To meet soaring demand, colonial powers such as Britain and the Netherlands accelerated harvesting in their colonies across Southeast Asia. Rainforests were felled for plantations and Indigenous peoples forced to harvest the latex. European colonial powers drove intensified production of gutta-percha despite the environmental and social cost. Pictured: Kayan people in Borneo harvesting the milky latex around 1910. Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-ND Australia’s telegraph came at real cost, as First Nations truth telling projects and interdisciplinary researchers have shown. The Overland Telegraph Line needed large amounts of water to power batteries and sustain human operators and their animals at repeater stations. The demand for water contributed to loss of life, forced dispossession and the pollution of waterways. The legacy of these effects are still experienced today. Echoes of this colonial logic can be seen in today’s AI systems. The focus today is on technological advancement, regardless of energy and environmental costs. Within five years, the International Energy Agency estimates the world’s data centres could require more electricity than all of Japan. AI is far more thirsty than the telegraph. Data centres produce a great deal of heat, and water has to be used to keep the servers cool. Researchers estimate that by 2027, AI usage will require between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic metres of water – about the same volume used by Denmark annually. With the rise of generative AI, both Microsoft and Google have significantly increased their water consumption. Manufacturing the specialised processors needed to train AI models has resulted in dirty mining, deforestation and toxic waste. As AI scholar Kate Crawford has argued, AI must be understood as a system that is: embodied and material, made from natural resources, fuel, human labour, infrastructures, logistics, histories and classifications. The same was true of the telegraph. Huge new data centres are being built to service the growth in AI and the wider internet. Pictured: a new Google data centre in the United Kingdom. Richard Newstead/Getty Planning for the future Telegraph companies and the imperial networks behind them accepted environmental extraction and social exploitation as the price of technological progress. Today’s tech giants are following a similar approach, racing to release ever more powerful models while obscuring the far reaching environmental consequences of their technologies. As governments work to improve regulation and accountability, they must go further to enforce ethical standards, mandate transparent disclosure of energy and environmental impacts and support low impact projects. Without decisive action, AI risks becoming another chapter in the long history of technologies trading human and environmental wellbeing for technological “progress”. The lesson from the telegraph is clear: we must refuse to accept exploitation as the cost of innovation. Jemimah Widdicombe works for the National Communication Museum (NCM) as Senior Curator.

Warnings of imports of caged hen eggs as Ukraine and Poland become UK’s biggest suppliers

Shift raises food safety and welfare concerns as imports can bypass standards for domestic producersUkraine and Poland have overtaken other EU countries to become the UK’s biggest egg suppliers, sparking warnings that imports of eggs from caged hens are slipping “through the back door” despite welfare pledges.Freedom of information data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that, while the Netherlands supplied a large proportion of UK eggs in 2022, its share has steadily fallen. By 2025, Ukraine and Poland together accounted for more than 15m kilograms, with Spain, Italy and other southern and eastern European countries also having increased their exports. Continue reading...

Ukraine and Poland have overtaken other EU countries to become the UK’s biggest egg suppliers, sparking warnings that imports of eggs from caged hens are slipping “through the back door” despite welfare pledges.Freedom of information data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency shows that, while the Netherlands supplied a large proportion of UK eggs in 2022, its share has steadily fallen. By 2025, Ukraine and Poland together accounted for more than 15m kilograms, with Spain, Italy and other southern and eastern European countries also having increased their exports.Ukraine has provided the most eggs so far this year by weight at 8m kilograms, followed by almost 7m kilograms from Poland and 5m from Spain, according to data provided up to July this year.Imports of eggs for consumption rose sharply from about 3,500 consignments in 2023 to more than 10,000 in 2024. Although overall tonnage declined, fewer big shipments have been replaced by many small ones from regions where caged-hen systems remain widespread.Mark Williams, the chair of the British Egg Industry Council, said UK farmers were being placed at an unfair disadvantage. “Our farmers are asked to invest in ever-higher standards of hen welfare while the government leaves the back door open to eggs produced in a system that is banned in the UK. This is morally wrong and unfair, and the government should not be doing this,” he said.Williams said battery cages outlawed in the UK since 2012 were still commonplace in Ukraine, and that eggs linked to food safety issues in mainland Europe continued to be traded.After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the country’s farms, factories and trade routes were badly hit. To help Ukraine’s economy survive, the UK and EU suspended tariffs on its goods, meaning products such as eggs could be exported without extra costs. Ministers argue this tariff suspension is a deliberate step to support Ukraine during wartime.Williams acknowledged the humanitarian case, but added: “Aid should not come at the expense of UK egg farmers – particularly when British retailers have already pledged to go cage-free by 2025. That promise is undermined if imports from countries with weaker welfare standards are allowed to fill the gap into the price-sensitive food service and processing sectors.”The UK currently produces about 88% of its own eggs, and imports the remaining 12%. Leading supermarkets only sell British Lion eggs in retail, following 2017 Food Standards Agency advice confirming they are safe to eat runny or raw. Imported eggs are more likely to be found in restaurants and food processing.“I am not worried about Ukrainian eggs entering retail,” Williams said. “But retail is only 65% of the market. The other two segments – food service (18%) and processing (17%) – are very price-competitive, which makes it attractive for Ukraine to sell eggs or egg products here.”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 information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHe added that UK regulations on food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection accounted for about 14% of the cost of producing a dozen eggs. “Ukraine doesn’t face those costs, giving them a huge commercial advantage. That’s why it’s so attractive right now to send eggs and egg products to the UK.”Ukraine has asked Britain to keep tariff suspensions in place until 2029. While the UK has agreed to extend tariff-free trade on most goods to that date, eggs and poultry are classed as “sensitive products” and have only been granted a shorter, two-year extension.A government spokesperson said: “We are backing our farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to get more British food on our plates and we will always protect our farmers in trade deals.“We are making the supply chain fairer and are engaging with the egg industry to draft new regulations to ensure a level playing field for producers.”

Renowned Primatologist Jane Goodall Dead At 91

The Jane Goodall Institute said Goodall passed away "due to natural causes."

English primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall speaks in the panel "Earth's Wisdom Keepers" on the last day of the forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in 2024.AP Photo/Markus SchreiberJane Goodall, the world’s most famous primatologist, died Wednesday at the age of 91, the Jane Goodall Institute announced on social media.According to the Institute, Goodall passed away “due to natural causes” while in California as part of a speaking tour of the United States.“Dr. Goodall’s discoveries as an ethologist revolutionized science, and she was a tireless advocate for the protection and restoration of our natural world,” the Institute said in a statement.Goodall, the world's foremost authority on chimpanzees, communicates with chimpanzee Nana in June 2004 at the zoo of Magdeburg in eastern Germany. The British primatologist has died.JENS SCHLUETER/DDP/AFP via Getty ImagesIn the spring of 1957, Goodall, then a 22-year-old secretary with only a high school education, boarded a ship from her native England to Kenya. Her work at a local natural history museum soon took her to the rainforest reserve at Gombe National Park (in present-day Tanzania), home to one of the largest chimpanzee populations in Africa.She felt an immediate connection to the chimpanzees. Over the decades that followed, she spent almost all her time in the reserve ― conducting research that reshaped our understanding of chimpanzees and even what it means to be human. Goodall was born on April 3, 1934, in London, to businessman Mortimer Herbert Morris-Goodall and novelist Margaret Myfanwe Joseph. She grew up in the middle-class resort town of Bournemouth, on the southern coast of England. In grade school, she started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan novels and Hugh Lofting’s “The Story of Doctor Dolittle” and became obsessed with the idea of traveling to Africa.Goodall’s parents couldn’t afford to send her to college, so after she graduated from high school, she worked as a secretary for two years to save money for the three-week passage to Africa. Two months after arriving, she met renowned paleontologist Louis Leakey, whose work had shown that hominids originated in Africa, rather than Asia. Leakey recognized Goodall’s intelligence and hired her at the natural history museum in Nairobi, where he worked, intending to send her to the rainforest to study chimpanzees. Goodall appears in Gombe National Park in the television special "Miss Goodall and the World of Chimpanzees," originally broadcast on CBS in December 1965.CBS Photo Archive via Getty ImagesFor the first few months of her stay in Gombe, the chimpanzees were cautious, refusing to come within several hundred feet of the young woman. But Goodall persisted, using bananas as a lure for the chimpanzees, and they eventually became comfortable enough to allow her to observe them at close range. Goodall began giving them individual names — highly unorthodox in a field where the standard practice was to assign animals identifying numbers. And as she got closer to the chimpanzees, she discovered that they behaved in a manner that resembled the rich, complicated social structure of humans far more than anyone had suspected. She came to the belief that they could be caring and violent, resourceful and playful — much like human beings.Goodall feeds rescued chimpanzees on July 14, 2016, at the Sweetwaters sanctuary, Kenya's only great-ape sanctuary.TONY KARUMBA/AFP/Getty ImagesGoodall made what is still regarded as her most significant discovery about chimpanzee behavior in October 1960. Looking through her binoculars, she saw a male chimpanzee she’d named David Greybeard sticking a twig into a termite colony and using it to retrieve termites that he then ate. Before this moment, scientists had always believed that humans were the only creatures on earth capable of making and using tools.It hadn’t, in fact, been known that chimpanzees ate meat. Goodall later observed chimpanzees hunting and eating mammals, including other monkeys and even, on rare occasions, other chimpanzees.In 1962, Goodall enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Cambridge University, becoming one of just a handful of people ever to do so without an undergraduate degree. While there, she published her breakthrough finding on the tool-using chimpanzee in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.After getting her degree in 1965, Goodall returned to Gombe to continue her work with chimpanzees. She published her first book, “My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees,” in 1967. She has since published more than a dozen other books for adults and several for children. One of these books, 2013’s “Seeds of Hope,” was criticized for including passages lifted from several other sources without attribution, a misstep Goodall attributed to sloppy note-taking. She later published a revised edition.Goodall poses for a photo at Taronga Zoo on Oct. 11, 2008, in Sydney. Robert Gray via Getty ImagesIn 1977, Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute to promote conservation and development programs in Africa. It now has projects across the world, including youth-focused programs in nearly 100 countries. As Goodall’s fame grew, she became an outspoken advocate for animal rights and conservation. She has been involved in numerous organizations working on behalf of better treatment of animals.“You cannot share your life with a dog, as I had done in Bournemouth, or a cat, and not know perfectly well that animals have personalities and minds and feelings,” she told The Guardian in 2010. “You know it and I think every single one of those scientists knew it too, but because they couldn’t prove it, they wouldn’t talk about it.”In a 2021 interview with HuffPost, she reflected on humanity’s stewardship of the world and expressed hope we might lean more on our intellect to work toward the mutually beneficial goal of environmental preservation.That intellect is ultimately what distinguishes us from chimpanzees, she said, and allows us to collaboratively plan for the future:20 Years OfFreeJournalismYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionFor two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can't do this without you.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.Chimpanzees have a very brutal, dark, war-like side. They also have a loving and altruistic side. Just like us. But the big difference is the explosive development of our intellect, which I personally think was at least partly triggered by the fact we developed this way of talking with words. So we can tell people about things that aren’t present. We can make plans for the distant future. We can bring people from different disciplines together to discuss a problem. That’s because of words. We now have developed a moral code with our words. And we know perfectly well what we should and shouldn’t do. But there is this kind of innate territorialism, which leads to nationalism. That’s in our genes. But we should be able to get out of it because of this intellect. We have the tools. We have the language. We have the scientific technology. We understand that if we make the right decisions every day and billions of us do it, we can move in the right direction. But will we do it in time? I don’t know.Goodall married Dutch nature photographer Baron Hugo van Lawick in 1964. The two had a son, Hugo, in 1967, and divorced in 1974. She married Derek Bryceson, head of Tanzania’s national parks, in 1975. He died of cancer in 1980. Sara Bondioli contributed reporting.

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.