kermit-the-fox

[kermit-the-fox]

Purple Sea Snails - Janthina janthina

Janthina janthina (Caenogastropoda - Janthinidae) is a species of sea snail, stunning by its beautiful purple shell. These snails are holopelagic, which means they spend their entire life drifting on the ocean surface in warm seas, floating on a bubbles raft of its own making, bound by mucus secreted from the foot.

The shells of this snails can occasionally be found on the strandline, particularly after prolonged winds or storms.

References: [1] - [2] - [3]

Photo credit: ©Verena and Georg Popp-Hackner | Locality: not indicated (2009)

[kermit-the-fox]

« Animals might see crisp detail at a distance, or nothing more than blurry blotches of light and shade. They might see perfectly well in what we’d call darkness, or go instantly blind in what we’d call brightness. They might see in what we’d deem slow motion or time-lapse. They might see in two directions at once, or in every direction at once. Their vision might get more or less sensitive over the span of a single day. Their Umwelt might change as they get older. Jakob’s colleague Nate Morehouse has shown that jumping spiders are born with their lifetime’s supply of light-detecting cells, which get bigger and more sensitive with age. “Things would get brighter and brighter,” Morehouse tells me. For a jumping spider, getting older “is like watching the sun rising." »

— Ed Yong, An Immense World

[kermit-the-fox]

Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in my local park. He just found something to eat when me and my dog approached, so he took shelter in the bush where he could eat in peace.

I'm growing fond of these guys even if they are invasive in my area.

[kermit-the-fox]

Камчатка. Курильское озеро.

Денис Будьков

[kermit-the-fox]

Catching Some Rays

[kermit-the-fox]

I was talking to a client and they were expressing frustration with having to move or change routes because of their dogs reactivity. It's something they are working on and part of it involves creating distance right now.

They wanted to know if they'd ever get to a point where they can walk by any dog and not have to worry. And I told them, honestly no. You will always need to assess other dogs and sometimes make the call to go a different way.

Because even if your dog can walk by a dog losing its shit without doing the same in turn, it's still not always the best move.

I relayed a recent experience I had walking Forte. Now Forte does really well ignoring other dogs and I am confident in his ability to remain neutral. But I maintain that neutrality by not putting him in sketchy situations. So when we rounded a corner onto a street I immediately noticed a person sitting in their front lawn with their large dog. I paused to see if I could spot a leash or invisible fence markers. While I was looking the dog noticed us, stood up with a wide stance, and started flicking it's tongue quickly. I also noticed that it had nothing on, not even a flat collar.

I turned around and went back the other way. Not because I thought Forte would react, but because that dog gave a pretty clear indication it was uncomfortable with us approaching. And if it had decided to charge us, the person had no way of restraining it.

Could Forte remain neutral if the dog charged and barked at us? Maybe. But there was no reason to put him in that situation. Also, could he remain neutral if it attacked us? I'm guessing no. So for the safety of my dog and the health of his trust that I will not put him in a risky situation, I turned around.

The client thought about that for a minute and then told me they'd not considered that. That part of them giving space or changing course wasn't just about keeping their dog under threshold, but also about showing their dog that they, the person, won't put them in a stressful/risky situation.

So I'm sharing this story in case anyone else finds it helpful.

[kermit-the-fox]

Income and tree canopies: In US cities, access to clean air, cooler air, shade, and greenery segregated by income.

[kermit-the-fox]

[kermit-the-fox]

Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)

Observed by mourad-harzallah, CC BY-NC

[kermit-the-fox]

I recently hit my 200th observation on iNaturalist! It was this guy, invasive in the area.

They are slowly replacing the native Red Squirrels, and my dog is obsessed with them (she never saw a squirrel before). I also had never seen them in urban areas. Observing them this close, I learned that they have a sort of “alert/threat display”; they move their tail very fast and do a creepy screech that sounds like a dying bird to me.

Very funny critters indeed.

[kermit-the-fox]

Rangers ride elephants in Garamba National Park, Congo, 1972, photo by Eliot Elisofon. (Smithsonian)

[kermit-the-fox]

the high you get when you realize the insect you posted to inaturalist has less than 100 current observations🤤

[kermit-the-fox]

it was beautifully sunny and foggy this morning & i stopped to take a photo of this white egret

[kermit-the-fox]

weevil 682

by @explorewithdara on instagram

[kermit-the-fox]

Speaking of roe deer antlers I once saw this rare pair with eight tines rather than six which is common for western roe deer. Very cool

[kermit-the-fox]

On the dogs removed from the study:

Eight dogs were assigned to Group A, five to Group B, and six to Group C. Two dogs were removed from Group A as they received e-collar stimulation in excess of the 20 shocks approved by the IACUC, leaving six dogs in this group.

Literally 25% of your abysmal sample had to be removed. So not only your method didn't work, but it also hurt them for nothing. I feel generally that they realized in the discussion that they fucked up, but for some reason they didn't want to say that, even if this paper could have become an analysis about the correct application of reinforcement. The fact that they consider gentler methods ineffective because it requires time and a trainer, and then end the discussion saying that you have to do ecollar training with a trainer... lol.

Very wonky data.

This is an embarassingly bad paper based on the use of two aversive based dog trainers who are clearly incompetant in the use of +R - yet the e collar training community is taking a victory lap.

The fact that this got past an animal ethics review is honestly appalling and the university should be ashamed.

Let's go over the main huge flaws with this study:

The positive reinforcement protocol they are using to compare to e collars is laughably incompetant - with no management or use of distance, desensitisation. Just use a leash? Maybe?

Use of aversives to stop chasing is, unsurprisingly, effective. Because, yes, painful consequences tend to work to suppress behaviour. That isn't the problem that people have with e collars.

The author seems to think that use of e collars is justified because it "gets results" in a short amount of time to stop dogs chasing - again, apparently we haven't heard of a leash.

"Aside from presumably pain-induced yelps in the dogs with e-collars when they received shocks, none of the dogs in any groups showed any signs of stress or distress." So we're saying a pain vocalisation isn't a sign of distress? That's your welfare parameter? Jfc.

Love how they didn't even try to get fecal cortisol baselines and just collected samples from a few dogs but not all of them. You tried, I guess?

The fact that the trainers for the study is "Ivan and Ivan's Student" is ridiculously biased. Acting as if both these trainers know how to apply +R effectively as opposed to their heavy aversive tool use is laughable.

"We designed our study’s methods around current trainer practices as well as the recommendations of our senior trainer while attempting to keep continencies as simple as possible." - yeeeah that's a conflict of interest. Especially when your "senior trainer" has an axe to grind with R+ people using scientific papers to support their training methods.

You're chucking treats in a bowl after a few sessions and you think that's going to stop a dog chasing a lure? Oh yeah, you got us. We just throw kibble in a bowl to stop dogs running into traffic. I am genuinely floored that that's how they think a +R protocol for chasing works. They have no business comparing the two when they can't even do one properly.

"We also did not test whether the food rewards we deployed were highly valued." Okay so the majority of my client dogs will go nuts for my meaty high value treats because they've only had store bought dry treats and the client is shocked at how food motivated their dog suddenly is..... So this study was relying on whatever the guardian of the dog brought with them lmao rookie mistake.

"Dogs that chase livestock may be shot or otherwise euthanized, and dogs that chase cars may be killed in traffic." Put. Them. On. A. Leash.

"The practical applicability of either the LIMA or LIFE models is likely limited, at least in the United States where dog trainers are not required to be licensed or certified. In a sample of highly rated dog trainers, more than half did not document any relevant education." Does that include your "senior trainer"? It does. Because he doesn't have any formal education in canine behaviour, welfare and science. You know this. You chose him to be your trainer for your study.

"The speed and effectiveness with which the e-collar inhibited the dogs in this study from chasing may justify the limited number of painful stimulations the dogs experienced if the object the dogs were chasing had been something that could directly or indirectly cause them serious injury or death." Or..... OR.... you could not use electric shocks on your dog and potential cause long term damage, fear responses ect.... And use a leash.

Just baffled by this whole study. My high prey drive whippet will go feral for a lure but only when she knows the context for when she's being allowed to chase. She can be at a lure coursing trial for the whole day not worrying about the lure because 1) I keep her at a distance where the stimulus isn't saliant enough and 2) she gets reinforcement for calmly watching from a distance.

I'm honestly getting second hand embarassment reading this study. It's just such bad science should never have gotten past an ethics board.

[kermit-the-fox]

This is especially frustrating because the only reason we know the wind speed is because NOAA's Hurricane Hunters literally fly into the hurricane and collect vital data. They fly in and out of the storm over and over in 8 hour shifts.

This brave team flies two identical Lockheed P3s called Kermit and Miss Piggy.

You can see the dangling ornaments in the videos to determine which plane they are in.

And when I say they fly into the hurricane, I mean they fly *into* the hurricane.

Here they are in the eye of Milton.

And here they are in the eye of Irma.

As you may notice, this flight was in Kermit.

So the next time you see live data about a hurricane's windspeed and pressure, just remember how that was collected and don't be a giant turd about it.

And please vote because conservatives want to kill NOAA.