Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
better. In an earlier paper, Wheatley
et al
., (
2002
) noted the association between
colonial powers, especially the Germans and macaques that some local residents
mentioned. Why don't the Germans come back and take the monkeys away?
They brought them here said one resident. It seems possible that the macaques
are a symbol of past colonial resentment and the extensive environmental damage
done during colonial times from which the people of Ngeaur still must contend
with on a daily basis. The negative economic and health effects of European con-
tact were noted by Kramer (1919). One conservation officer in Koror is reported
to have said that “the monkeys were brought in by foreigners and are now being
protected by foreigners such as Farslow” (Whaley,
1992
). “He got his Ph.D. from
the monkeys, but what about the people of Angaur? They get nothing.”
Eradication is often feasible only when colonization is at an early phase
(Clout and Lowe,
1996
). This early colonization appears to be the case for
the macaques on some of the smaller islands of Palau. Another priority might
be to better protect Babeldaob since it is the largest island in the archipel-
ago accounting for about 80 percent of Palau's total land mass. Therefore,
the emphasis against the illegal transport of macaques from Ngeaur to other
islands in Palau in the Invasive Mammal pamphlet (Anon,
2008
) appears to
be a good idea. The steep penalty of $500 for illegally exporting a monkey
appeared to be an effective deterrent according to informants in 1999. Such
fines and the close vigilance of residents on other islands in Palau, so far, have
dampened the spread of these macaques to other Islands. Control and contain-
ment on Ngeaur may thus be the only realistic possibility. Some interviewees
did accept the idea of a co-existence between them and macaques if the latter
population could be controlled (Marsh-Kautz and Wheatley,
2004
). Younger
adults especially considered macaques to be part of the island's heritage in the
survey by Marsh-Kautz and Singeo (1999).
There is one study on the extent of damage to subsistence gardening by the
macaques despite Kemp and Burnett's (
2003
) statement that “No ecological
studies on the impact of
M. fascicularis
in Ngeaur have apparently been con-
ducted. That study was conducted by Farslow (
1987
) in 1980 and 1981. He
and other primate researchers such as Poirier and Farslow (
1984
), Poirier and
Smith (
1974
) state that reports of extensive crop damage are unsubstantiated.
Farslow (
1987
) says that the macaques are not your “typical crop raiders” as
there are no commercial farms, but this does not make the damage that they do
to the gardens as any less serious from the people's point of view, especially as
most still live a largely subsistence lifestyle.
Most of the taro gardens were undamaged during Farslow's study period
and damage was mostly on the periphery of the gardens. Only 2 percent of
the macaque damage to taro involves damage to the root system; the rest of
the damage consists of breaking off leaves and stalks (Farslow,
1987
). As
