Researchers land long-awaited victory after controversial policy gets reversed: 'It's galvanizing'
A full-court press by researchers is playing major dividends in stopping the online ornamental trade of the painted wooly bat.
Mongabay reported on recently instituted bans of the trade on both Etsy and eBay as well as promising developments for establishing further protections for the species. Researchers characterized the developments as a "major victory" in an article published by the Cambridge University Press.
"It's galvanizing," Joanna Coleman, conservation biologist from the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Bat Specialist Group, told Mongabay. "All of us in the bat-trade working group are really quite thrilled."
The timeline of the scientists' efforts stretches back years, but the actual implementation of measures to protect the bats has happened at lightning speed.
In 2015, a study indicated that painted wooly bats were threatened by ornamental trade. Five years later, a population assessment indicated a 25% decrease in the species' numbers. That rapid decline prompted the painted wooly bat to be designated by the IUCN as "near threatened."
Concerns around bat populations globally are mounting because of an array of factors. Bats are critical to the ecosystem as pollinators and one of nature's most effective means of pest control.
For painted wooly bats, native to South and Southeast Asia, their adorable face and bright-colored body make them a target for room decor. Much of the trade flowed to buyers in the United States and on sites like Etsy and eBay.
The IUCN Bat Specialist Group began studying the online trade of bats and released a revealing study last year. Hundreds of these bats were getting sold through what the scientists framed as "deceptive sales tactics" by sellers claiming they were sustainably sourced.
A public campaign bolstered by coverage in the media and social media activism led to Etsy's and eBay's bans on the species' sales.
Moreover, the scientists have a petition to add painted woolly bats to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. They are also leading a push to get the species on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Should the government ban gas stoves?
Yes
Only in new buildings
Only in restaurants
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
While happy with the current trajectory, Coleman's long-term goal is to fully eradicate the practice.
"We want to see an end to all ornamental bat trade," Coleman told Mongabay. "It's not a traditional livelihood anywhere to taxidermy a bat and put it in a frame."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Experts raise red flags over alarming new threat that could devastate the Amazon: 'The ecosystem as a whole loses resilience'
Amazonian fish are facing an alarming new threat. A series of extreme droughts is drying up the region's rivers and wetlands — and scientists say the consequences could be devastating for both wildlife and local communities. According to a recent report from Mongabay, the Amazon is experiencing some of the lowest water levels in recorded history. In Brazil's Lake Tefé, water temperatures soared above 102 degrees Fahrenheit in late 2023, killing thousands of fish. In the same area, over 150 Amazon river dolphins also died, likely due to the same extreme conditions. Fish species like tambaqui, aracu, and piramutaba — many of which are vital to local fisheries — are especially vulnerable to warming waters, low oxygen, and disrupted migration patterns. "However, if many species are lost, the remaining populations become more vulnerable and the ecosystem as a whole loses resilience," researcher Priit Zingel told Mongabay. Experts link this crisis to a combination of rising global temperatures, prolonged drought, and widespread deforestation — all of which are disrupting the water cycle across the Amazon Basin. More than 30 million people live in the Amazon region, many of whom depend on rivers for food and income. When fish populations crash, so do local economies and food security. This isn't just about one region. Similar challenges are unfolding globally. Italy's Adriatic Sea shows how warming waters are harming coastal communities, and scientists in Florida are sounding alarms about ancient sturgeon species in decline due to shifting river conditions. If extreme droughts in the Amazon continue, both biodiversity and human livelihoods could face long-term harm — setting back progress toward a safer, more sustainable future. Local leaders and researchers are advocating for better water and forest management, stronger environmental protections, and coordinated global efforts to reduce the pollution fueling these extremes. Tools like NASA's sea-level tracking platform and expanded conservation funding are helping scientists better understand and respond to these challenges. Individuals can support change by staying informed, talking with family and friends, and taking local action. Understanding how this crisis connects to global trends — including threats to fish in the Mekong River and the broader Amazon drought — is key to building the momentum needed for real solutions. Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home? Yes — always Yes — often Yes — sometimes No — never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
