#implying that you can only get affection from mammal pets

[impweasel]

“But your ball python can’t love you back like a dog can” maybe I don’t want the very humanized version of love for a dog. Maybe the gratification I get from giving my baby all he could ever need and more and watching how happy HE is, is enough for me. I love my Winnie for what he is, my Bagel Boy ❤️

[drferox]

Fantasy Biology: Eevee

Eevee is the far superior Pokemon to Pikachu but it is something of a biological enigma and unique in that it has eight different mature, adult forms (currently, hanging out for a steel-type Eevee in sword/shield) all of which are possible for any single, individual Eevee.

Eevee is superficially mammalian, though like all Pokemon hatches from eggs, so it's not the anatomy that I'm going to consider today (mammals that lay eggs are not that weird in Australia). It's not even the fact that such superficially different adult phenotypes can interbreed successfully, as the different eeveelutions don't look any more different to each other than a pug would to a borzoi.

No, it's the fact that we start out with identical Eevees at birth that all move on to become such phenotypically different adults in response to their environment.

How do they do that?

There are, at the time of writing, eight known Eevee evolutions that evolve via the following:

Vaporeon, Jolteon and Flareon by contact with a small, very special rock

Glaceon and Leafeon by proximity to a large, very special rock

Espeon, Umbreon and Sylveon by by being friendly/affectionate enough with one other qualifier, either time of day or ability known.

Which is super weird, but let's try to explain these anyway.

It's perfectly normal for animals to adapt to suit their environment. Muscles get bigger the more they are used, skin toughens, skills are learned, and over many generations evolution takes place. But with Eevees, these adaptations happen rapidly within a single lifetime.

It's also not unheard of for animals to undergo a dramatic physical change as they mature. Compare the caterpillar to the butterfly. Or perhaps more interestingly, consider the axolotl.

Axolotls are a type of salamander that live their entire life cycle in an aquatic phase, rather than a terrestrial one. They're commonly seen as pets. However, if you throw a bunch of thyroxine (a naturally occurring thyroid hormone) at them, they will metamorphose into the terrestrial salamander form. They transform in response to a hormone from an external source.

Now, real world animals take days, weeks, months or years to transform. In the world of Pokemon you may choose to ignore that, or consider these transformations to be happening over a couple of days instead. But the mechanism for a dramatic physical change in response to external stimuli already exists.

So let's build up some details.

If we start with the classics, Flareon, Jolteon, & Vaporeon, then what actually are the fire stone, thunder stone and water stone respectively that are needed to induce this transformation, and also induce transformation and maturity in other Pokemon species. The Pokedex would tell you them emit some sort of radiation, but there's only so many sorts of radiation that could be, and things in the universe are exposed to radiation all the time, so what's an alternative explanation.

Actual biological molecules. Whether these are hormones or cytokines (another sort of chemical signal used by living things), either of these existing in high concentrations in the stone could plausibly induce the appropriate evolution. So how do they get there?

My preferred theory is that these 'stones' are not all mineral, but a matrix colonized by bacteria or single celled organisms from extreme environments that just happen to be secreting the chemical signals Eevee use to determine what sort of environment they are in. The higher the concentration of 'fire stone bacteria' they're exposed to, the more likely it is for the Flareon form to offer the best chance or survival, and the same for the other types of stones.

This could work with a positive feedback loop. The more hormone the Eevee is exposed to, the more sensitive it becomes to that hormone (or insensitive to the others it becomes) until it reaches a critical threshold and the 'evolution' commences.

As a result, exposure to a fire, water or thunder stone would not be the only way to get a Flareon, Vaporeon or Jolteon, it would just be the fastest way. Eevee living their lives in extreme environments could gradually accumulate enough exposure to these secreted hormones over time before evolving naturally. Even Eevee living in non-extreme environments could spontaneously evolve into one of these forms, purely by chance and random exposure, but at a slower rate.

Moss rocks for Leafeon and Ice rocks for Glaceon could function by a nearly identical mechanism, only instead of touching the stone, their chemical signals may instead be pheromones on the air produced by microorganisms living on/in that rock. This also implies that those microorganisms are elsewhere in similar environments, just at lower concentrations.

Espeon, Umbreon and Sylveon evolve differently, because their evolution is triggered by affection plus one other condition.

Now, the obvious choice for the evolution trigger in these cases is oxytocin, the so-called 'love hormone', but there's a few concerning implications of that, since oxytocin surges happen with a couple of other biological events which don't strictly require friendship or affection to occur. It's still a plausible choice though, but perhaps alongside something like serotonin, gradually binding to the appropriate receptors until the positive feedback loop is triggered. In this way, friendship, hugs and chocolate can push an Eevee towards one of these evolutions, but which one?

Espeon and Umbreon are determined by the time of day, with Espeon evolving during the day and Umbreon evolving during the night. So the level of melatonin in the brain may determine which evolution occurs. Now in a game that's easy, but in this hypothetical natural world, it may mean that Umbreon and Espeon are more common at higher latitudes where the day lengths are more extreme with the season, with more Umbreon developing in winter, and more Espeons developing in Summer.

Sylveon also evolves with some type of affection, but it must know a fairy-type move to do so. This is a little harder to hypothesize, as how can just knowing a fairy-type move induce a different evolution? Does it induce an accumulation of a different hormone in the Eevee every time it's used? I'm not totally satisfied with that idea, as these evolutions seem to happen in response to extreme environments.

My preferred hypothesis is that Sylveon evolves in response to the presence of dragon-type molecules in the environment. The more dragon-types there are around, the more use that Eevee would have from a fairy-type move, and the more advantage it has in evolving to Sylveon.

In addition to these different means of evolution in the wild, it's quite possible that groups of Eevees will evolve into different types, even in the same environment, as once an individual starts to become sensitized to a couple of signalling molecules, those molecules are bound to it, so can't be used by the next Eevee to come along. So you could plausibly have mixed groups co-existing in the wild.

This is, of course, a lot of speculation given what we know, and assuming the Pokedex is written by a ten year old. But I could potentially think of enough tests to occupy a full time job as an Eevee raiser and researcher.

Eevee was selected as a topic by my Patreon supporters. You can nominate a species for the same treatment from $1 a month.

[2whatcom-blog]

The Nice Starvation and the Randomness of the World

That is the fifth excerpt from a work-in-progress tentatively titled Science & Subjectivity. It is a quasi-fictional account of a day within the lifetime of a science author who teaches at an engineering faculty in Hoboken, New Jersey. I name it "faction," anthropologist Clifford Geertz's time period for imaginative writing about actual folks, locations and occasions. The earlier 4 excerpts describe a morning commute, a freshman humanities class, an argument over lunch concerning the nature of fact and a journey from Hoboken to New York Metropolis. The excerpt under describes what occurs after the science author leaves the World Monetary Heart ferry terminal in decrease Manhattan. -John Horgan I go away the ferry terminal and enter Battery Park, headed for Emily's condo, vowing to not see my route as merely a method to an finish. I am going to concentrate, admire the route for its personal sake. However to what ought to I listen? Timber? Flowers? Pedestrians? Pets? The duck pond deserves consideration. The geese inhabit two worlds, heads and backs above water, bellies and webbed ft under, with the ghostly orange goldfish. I watch a black lady watching a white toddler watching a duck till the lady eyes me. This breach within the fourth wall unnerves me. I head inland towards a hulking fortress of slate and glass slabs, the Irish Starvation Memorial. Ringing the memorial is a courtyard of black stones with pale crescent-shaped markings, cross sections of historical shells. Are these fossil-laden stones supposed to evoke deep time? Present a soothing reminder of the transience of human tribulations? No matter occurs, irrespective of how unhealthy, don't be concerned about it, this too shall go, we'll all be lifeless some day, like these primordial fossilized creatures? That is not soothing, that is nihilistic. No, this memorial desires us to remember--to care about--the Nice Starvation, the famine that ravaged the land of my ancestors within the 19th century. Inscriptions etched into glass slabs file the inhabitants's collapse: 4,040,000 folks in 1790, 8,175,124 in 1841, down to five,174,836 in 1881. The Brits let the Irish starve however saved darn good information. The famine drove my nice grandpa from Eire to America when he was only a boy. He sailed from Dublin to New York Metropolis, funneled via Ellis Island, grew to become a builder of slaughterhouses and hearth stations, drank himself to demise on the daybreak of the Nice Despair, abandoning my grandpa, father of my father. If the British had not been so callous towards the Irish, if the Nice Irish Famine had not occurred, I might not be standing right here Starvation Memorial. I might not exist. Rerun the experiment of life on Earth 1,000,000 occasions over, mentioned Gould, guru of contingency, and nothing would ever be the identical, as a result of evolution depends upon randomness, rolls of the cube. You'd by no means once more get mammals, not to mention mammals that invent writing and math and science. Not to mention science journalism. How seemingly is that? Physics, because it was quantized, is much more random than biology. Our world is the end result of infinite rolls of the cube, beginning with the Large Bang, the roll that acquired all the things rolling. If there's a God, He is simply the Large Curler, who has no extra thought the place we're headed than we do. Quotes from large human rollers cowl a wall of the Memorial. This is one from Dwight Eisenhower. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Good speech, Ike, however why did you let that maniac Joe McCarthy run amok? Drag us into the mess of Vietnam? Make that murderous Quaker Nixon your vp? Log out on an enormous H-bomb buildup? We had been one roll of the cube away from the top. And this is Jimmy Carter: "We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist one third rich and two thirds hungry." Good sentiment, however warfare begets starvation greater than vice versa. Churchill throughout World Warfare II confiscated a lot Indian grain for British troops and civilians that tens of millions of Indians starved. The Brits cared even much less about Indians than they did concerning the Irish. As I stare on the Memorial, brooding over humanity's inhumanity, a lithe, tanned lady jogs previous me in a halter-top and silky shorts. She's burning energy to remain match. Lust curdles into resentment towards her and the suited women and men strolling previous me, or sitting at a sidewalk cafe, sipping cocktails and nibbling hors d'oeuvres, throughout the road from the Starvation Memorial. They're most likely bankers, making tens of millions whereas others have awful jobs, well being care, colleges, properties. Bankers assume they're higher than the remainder of us, however they're worse. They're unhealthy folks. Wait. Analyze the difficulty calmly, rationally, with out emotion, the way in which Peter Singer would. Give capitalism credit score for rising international prosperity, the decline of poverty. That is an enormous step ahead for humanity, together with longer life, extra democracy, much less warfare. Issues are getting higher! And bankers aren't all unhealthy. Bankers with Irish blood most likely put up the bucks for this beautiful Starvation Memorial. Singer would most likely say, As a substitute of losing cash remembering the lifeless, assist residing ravenous folks. Singer is so good at laying guilt journeys on us. Think about you are strolling via a park and also you see a child drowning in a pond. You are sporting a brand-new go well with. Do you let the child drown? After all not. You bounce in, save the child, damage your go well with. Solely a monster would hold strolling. Then Singer springs his "Gotcha": In case you spend cash on fancy garments, vehicles, TVs, computer systems, eating places, holidays, stuff you do not really want, you are a monster, since you may spend that cash saving ravenous third-world youngsters. Singer's argument made me really feel so responsible that I grasped for counter-arguments to justify my $150 trainers. I do not eat out a lot, I often put on denims and t-shirts, I drive a Prius. And I ought to get ethical credit score, as a result of I write about how unhealthy warfare is... Okay, that is bullshit. This is one other argument. You may't let humanity's struggling hold you from having fun with your individual life. Pity can develop into pathology. Have a look at Simone Weil, who starved herself to demise to protest remedy of the victims of World Warfare II. What good did that do? Individuals endure and die, however life and the pursuit of happiness should go on. It is like Bruegel's portray of Icarus. He is tumbling into the ocean, drowning, and nobody notices, and that is correctly, life should go on. What good do do-gooders do, actually? Like these antiwar activists I met at a rally who did severe jail time, a yr or extra, for breaking into drone crops and missile websites. They organized upfront for mates to deal with their youngsters. I love your braveness and dedication, I informed them. However I believed, I might by no means abandon my youngsters for a trigger, and what did your protests accomplish? Do-gooders are simply rolling the cube. Even the noblest memes, as soon as they begin propagating, can mutate into one thing ugly. Christ's message of affection evokes the Crusades and Inquisition. Marx's imaginative and prescient of equality and justice results in the gulag. Who will save us from our saviors? Higher have a tendency your individual backyard than attempt to terra-form the planet. I am rationalizing, as a result of I am too lazy, egocentric, cowardly to surrender my creature comforts, not to mention my life, for an thought. Sufficient guilt! I bolt from the Starvation Memorial and head east on Warren Avenue, the place I confront an infinite, Seurat-like tableau. Scores of ladies and boys in multi-colored shorts and shirts chase balls on an infinite emerald subject punctuated by blue and white stripes, yellow cones and nets. Males in enterprise fits yell, "Run! Run! Pass! Shoot! Good!" A girl in a slinky silver cocktail sheath kicks a ball forwards and backwards with a purple-uniformed teen. The lady claps her palms and shouts, "Yeah, yeah!" Busy, profitable women and men taking the time to teach their youngsters, assist them excel, in order that they'll develop as much as be busy, profitable women and men. However you could be a nice guardian and your child finally ends up dumb, disabled, depressed. Or imply. What's worse, your child turning into a mild, unhappy failure or joyful psychopath? A troublesome alternative, however I would most likely go together with psychopath. You need your child to be completely satisfied, proper? Even when he hurts others? I hate scientists who say genes are future, however there is a kernel of fact in bio-determinism. Some youngsters appear born unhealthy. Mike and Mindy are great folks and oldsters. They doted on their daughter, Kendra, and she or he nonetheless grew to become a junkie by 15. Mike and Mindy blew their financial savings on swank rehab facilities all throughout the nation, in useless. After they introduced Kendra residence to dwell with them, she stole from them, introduced unusual males into the home, overdosed in her bed room when she was 20. What would Peter Singer do if his daughter acquired hooked on heroin? Spend $50,000 on rehab when she'll most likely relapse anyway? Or ship the cash to Oxfam to avoid wasting numerous sick, hungry youngsters? Plug that riddle into your utilitarian calculator. The lady within the slinky silver gown is now not kicking the ball along with her son. She's observing me. She digs me. No, she thinks I am a creep testing youngsters in shorts. Time to maneuver. There's an upside to genetic determinism: In case your child messes up, it is not your fault. The cube simply did not roll your method. Additional Studying: What a science author thinks about on his morning commute Stream of Thought Description of Instructing James's "Stream of Thought": A Work of Faction Science, Historical past and Reality on the School Membership What a Science Author Thinks on a Ferry to Manhattan The Thoughts-Physique Drawback, Scientific Regress and "Woo" Dispatch from the Desert of Consciousness Analysis, Half 1 Dispatch from the Desert of Consciousness Analysis, Half 2 Dispatch from the Desert of Consciousness Analysis, Half 3 Dispatch from the Desert of Consciousness Analysis, Half 4 A Bloomsday Appreciation of Ulysses by James Joyce, Best Thoughts-Scientist Ever. Credit score for Bruegel's "The Fall of Icarus": Royal Museums of Nice Arts of Belgium, through Wikipedia Commons. Read the full article

[divetraining]

At the Intersection of People and Wildlife: Drawing the Line Between Interaction and Harassment

As a diver, I’m often asked what has been my most memorable dive. Of course, like many experienced divers who’ve been at it for years, it’s impossible for me to cite a single experience. But I do have a short list. They all share one common denominator — some special interaction with marine wildlife. Whether it involved a whale or a pygmy seahorse, my most fulfilling experiences were those that allowed me to get up close and personal with the creatures of the sea. If you’ve been fortunate enough to have similar experiences, like me, you probably consider them magical or even life-altering.

But what about these experiences from the non-human perspective? What are the consequences for the wildlife in question? Some contend that, when done appropriately, such encounters pose no problem, and in some cases, may be a pleasurable or at least an engaging experience for the nonhuman participant. Yet, these claims are merely inferences made by those who can hardly be called objective.

Of course, there’s another side of the story. At the extreme end are those who believe that all but the most benign human contact with wildlife is at best encroachment and at worst — a form of harassment. And as in all matters where people disagree, the continuum runs all the way to those who look at wildlife as mere instruments for human amusement. Most take a position somewhere between these two extremes.

Understanding issues where there are such divergent opinions requires first having a clear agreement on the terminology used to frame the discussion; and at the heart of this controversy is the question of what, exactly, constitutes “harassment.” For example, imagine that you’re on a boat and spot a whale, dolphin or manatee. As you change course to get a better look, the animal changes course as well, but in a direction distinctly away from your new path. Would the decision to change course yet again toward the animal constitute “following” or “chasing” it? Regardless of your perspective, there’s no easy or certain way to answer.

Even with the best of intentions not to “interfere,” the mere disturbance of wildlife, some contend, can result in changes in physiology, behavior, reproduction, population levels and even species composition within a community. This is why, in the U.S., marine mammals are protected from harassment under the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, while endangered species are further afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Both formally define harassment, but in very general terms so that all affected species — from whales to bald eagles — are covered. But such broad definitions make enforcing actual policies on harassment very difficult.

Perhaps the best case of just how difficult defining harassment can be is exemplified by a situation known to almost every diver in America. In Crystal River, Florida, between 600 and 800 endangered West Indian manatees now migrate to the river’s source, Kings Bay, each winter to find protection from the cold in the constant 72 degree Fahrenheit (22 degrees Celsius) water of the main and surrounding springs. Close on their heels each year more than 100,000 tourists show up, many looking not only to observe the docile giants but eager for an in-water “encounter.”

Ask many of those who have had an opportunity to swim with manatees and you’ll likely hear the encounter described as a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Participants often touch, pet and interact in ways that are tough to call anything other than “play” (which is currently legal provided the animal approaches the diver and is not pursued). The question, of course, to those responsible for managing the manatees is: When does what we deem play become harmful? In other words, when does interaction become harassment? The answer continues to be a subject of strong disagreement.

Opportunities to view and interact with marine animals aren’t restricted to manatees. In 2017 alone, approximately 20.35 million Americans participated in some form of wildlife viewing or interaction. It’s estimated that about one in five U.S. households take at least one trip a year to view wildlife (15 percent to engage specifically in marine mammal viewing). While the trend increases, scientific research into the effect of human encounters with wildlife lags behind. The issue is a complex one because of the difficulty in controlling factors like participant behavior, frequency, magnitude, timing and location of the activity in question. Studies are complicated further by characteristics of the wildlife, time of year, age, habitat type, and an animal’s level of tolerance to human activity. Studies have also shown that wildlife behavior, including preference for human interaction, can change over time.

Under Florida law, touching a manatee is legal — provided the animal initiates the encounter. Pursuing, chasing or harassing a manatee is against the law.

Issues in Defining Harassment

Those who study human-wildlife interaction classify it in two ways. First, there are direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are viewed as “primary disturbances” from (direct) interactions with humans, while indirect impacts are disturbances to a species’ habitat. Impacts are also classified as selective and nonselective, meaning that the impacts result from activities that focus on the animal (selective) or result from recreational activities in which interactions occur incidentally (non-selective).

Direct impacts are the focus of this discussion — and researchers further define these as either harvest or harassment. Harvest includes hunting, fishing or other activities that actually remove the animal from the environment. While this is easy to understand, the concept of harassment is not so easily defined. And it’s this ambiguity that creates the conflicting viewpoint over wildlife interactions. For example, let’s consider a few formal definitions. Some view harassment as “any activity of man which increases the physiological costs of survival or decreases the probability of successful reproduction of wild animals.” Others contend that harassment is any human disturbance that “produces stressful situations for wildlife resulting in negative outcomes for an individual or species including excitement and/or stress, disturbance of essential activities, severe exertion, displacement and sometimes death.” (See the sidebar on legal definitions of harassment.)

What also makes the harassment issue problematic is the difficulty in determining when harm is done. Few animals exhibit behavior that can be unequivocally interpreted as a response to harassment — and some of the actions that may indicate disturbance can also be part of normal social behavior. So, while limited, what has the scientific research exploring harassment determined? Basically, it has shown that human interaction can affect individuals, populations and even entire communities of wildlife.

Clearly, we now know that direct harassment of wildlife can affect a behavior, reproductive success and the overall fitness of animals. This has been well-documented in the terrestrial environment with chimpanzees, elephants, rhinos, bears, jaguars and countless species of birds. Often the simple presence of people — either in vehicles or on foot — has been shown to affect the behavior of many animals.

Although not as well studied, similar concerns arise in viewing marine wildlife. There’s particular concern over the growing worldwide industry for observing, and sometime interacting with, marine wildlife such as whales and dolphins. In fact, more than 35 years of research has shown that human activities have caused whale species to change behavior. Hawaii is the epicenter of such research. There, studies have shown that vessel traffic is causing female humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae) and their calves to abandon certain areas. And the Hawaiian spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), too, has been negatively affected by irresponsible tourism operators and customers. Learning that the spinners use protected bays in Hawaii to rest and socialize, or remain out of reach of larger predators, tourism operators now regularly provide swim-with-dolphin tours. This appears to have permanently displaced some dolphins and may repeatedly disrupt the resting behavior of those that use these areas, causing reduced energy levels. As a result, both the state of Hawaii and the federal government are currently framing regulation to better control the situation. Along the east coast, off Panama City, Florida, interactions with Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have habituated many of them to human presence. One study showed the dolphins spending 77 percent of their time interacting with humans, which substantially decreased their time spent foraging. From the other side of the equation, there have also been several cases of severe injuries to humans in swim-with-dolphin experiences.

What the Law Says About “Harassment”

Both the ESA of 1973 and the MMPA of 1972 prohibit the “take” of animals under their jurisdiction. Unlike what it may imply colloquially, “take” from a legal perspective doesn’t just mean “remove.” Its definition is much broader and includes harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or collecting protected animals.” But the two Acts also differ in their definitions of harassment. The ESA focuses on the potential for injury to an animal, while the MMPA divides harassment into two types: “Level A” harassment is defined as having the “potential to injure a marine mammal . . .in the wild.” “Level B” harassment is defined as having the “potential to disturb a marine mammal . . . in the wild.” On a state level, harassment is defined by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (FMSA) of 1978 similarly to the way it’s defined under the ESA, except that it is specific to manatees and explicitly lists feeding as a harassing behavior.

A responsible approach to wildlife interaction begins with adopting a responsible environmental ethic. This shift requires a new mindset where we no longer see ourselves as “customers” but as “guests.”

Is Consensus Possible?

One of the difficulties in understanding or coming to any common ground on the issue of harassment is that its definition is not only ambiguous, but fraught with value judgments. Various interest groups — tourism operators, conservation organizations and government regulators — impose their own values in interpreting and applying the definitions. This is complicated by the fact that clear evidence of negative impact is hard to detect. Add to this the difficulty in effective enforcement, and it’s easy to understand why there’s a high level of both concern and emotion over the harassment issue in all sectors of wildlife tourism, both marine and terrestrial.

As shown in the sidebar, the definitions of harassment found in the ESA and the MMPA are ambiguous, and thus open to a variety of interpretations when applied in the field. While no reasonable person disputes the need to control human-wildlife interactions and all agree that animals must be protected, each interest group interprets “harassment” based on their own values. Again, the situation in Crystal River is a classic example. There, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the primary management agency responsible for interpreting and applying the concept of harassment to manatee encounters. In doing so, they have interpreted the harassment definition in a way that permits participants to physically interact with manatees as long as the participants allow the manatee to dictate the encounter. And the USWFS interpretation is not restricted to Crystal River or to manatees, but is applied by them everywhere they have jurisdiction.

By contrast, as their mission is strictly the protection of wildlife, conservation groups often take a much stricter view. These values are reflected in how harassment is interpreted by the Save the Manatee Club (SMC), the primary manatee advocacy group in the United States. Their position is that the potential negative effects from manatee encounters exceed any benefit it provides the animals. So, they maintain that any physical contact component should be prohibited. In essence, any human interaction is harassment, even instances where someone is doing nothing more than making the manatee take an evasive maneuver. However, even SMC recognizes that there is a level of harassment that’s unavoidable (such as swimming over an animal one didn’t realize was present) and is, therefore, permissible.

Resolving Conflicts

Resource management problems like human-wildlife interaction are highly contentious and difficult to resolve largely because, as seen, the variables are so complex and scientific information is often incomplete. The situation virtually precludes any authority from saying, with any certainty, that one decision is right while another is wrong. This has led one researcher, Michael Sorice, to comment, “the issue of harassment is not a technical one but largely an issue of social value.…The specific meanings of …harassment must be articulated in a manner that provides clear consensus-based indicators of when harassment is occurring. At the same time, stakeholders must agree on what acceptable encounter practices are given current use patterns.”

Sorice and others who have studied the issue of human-wildlife interaction suggest that the first step in coming to common agreement on what exactly constitutes harassment is developing “best practices” for tour operators. These practices include prescribing guidance on factors such as vessel distance/maneuvering and, where appropriate, in-water participant behavior. In addition, best practice strategies can include agreements by tour operators for self-imposed limits, like restricting the number of boats and people at particular sites. This idea of self-imposed limits has, in fact, been used successfully in various wildlife encounter operations around the world. Furthermore, many researchers believe that, because baseline definitions for harassment in laws such as the ESA are so vague and applies to so many animals, what’s needed are refined definitions for specific species based on biological, ecological and social variables.

A New Perspective

In examining all the controversy and disparate views on the subject, it seems that what’s needed most to address harassment in wildlife interaction is a change in attitude and perspective. A common claim by many wildlife encounter advocates is that “we do nothing that hurts the animal.” That may well be the case and certainly no reasonable person wants to do harm. But the reality is, because we’re in the water with the animals for only a very limited time, participants are actually in no position to make such an assessment. Perhaps there is no obvious harm done during the short time spent in the water or when observing the creature from the surface. But what about later?

As someone who works in the field of sustainable tourism, much of my time is spent with marine tourism professionals where the discussion often turns to responsible wildlife interaction. One strategy I use to better explain the potential of long-term negative effects on wildlife is, what I call, the “energy theft” concept. It goes like this: What fuels the activity of all living organisms is, of course, food. The energy derived from food drives all life processes such as growth, reproduction, finding food or escaping from predators. Whether it’s a fish, a squirrel or a human, we all share these common realities of life. However, humans differ from wildlife in many important ways. Specifically, we don’t have to worry too much about escaping predators and finding food — in most cases — means nothing more than a trip to the supermarket. When humans need more fuel, we simply buy it. Of course, this isn’t an option for non-humans.

To see how this applies to the harassment discussion, let’s pose a scenario: Suppose you’re swimming along a reef and encounter a large turtle. It shows no signs of fear, so it doesn’t try to escape. It’s an enormous beast, so you decide to grab on and let the turtle take you for a ride. Several minutes later, the two of you part company and the turtle swims off, seemingly unaffected by the encounter. Putting aside any ethical issues, and looking only at the practical consequences, what’s the harm? The turtle was uninjured, and, in fact, you see it a few days later obviously no worse for wear. Your conclusion: Riding turtles is harmless.

The problem is that our scenario is really an exercise in human self-deception or, less kindly, arrogance. Although the turtle wasn’t injured in any way, the experience did steal from it what could be argued as its most precious resource — energy. That energy stolen may have been inconsequential. But it just as easily may have been the tiny bit more energy needed to ward off a sickness, produce enough eggs for one of her hatchlings to survive or just the bit more speed to escape the jaws of a tiger shark. Viewed from this vantage point it could have been a costly ride, after all.

The example is, I hope, an extreme one, as no responsible diver today should even consider riding sea turtles. But how much different is that than grabbing hold of a manatee, just for a second, or continually pursuing a pod of whales or dolphins? Energy is energy, and whether it’s expended by a fearful flight response or a needless swim to escape unceasing curiosity, the end result is the same — in the end, energy stolen from an animal that could make a good deal of the difference. The point is, you’ll never know because by the time it might become important, you’re long gone.

A Framework for Responsible Interaction

A responsible approach to wildlife interaction begins with adopting a responsible environmental ethic. This shift requires a completely new mindset where we no longer see ourselves as “customers” but as “guests.” And the difference is more than semantics. For example, unlike customers, guests behave in ways that accommodate their host. Furthermore, guests respect and defer to their host and respect the local “culture,” whereas customers demand service and accommodation.

Once you adopt the “guest” attitude, the next step is how to put this new mind-set into action. First, there’s the simple stuff: Avoid touching or feeding wildlife. Next, always remember the “energy thief” concept. Continually ask yourself, is my interaction robbing significant energy stores from the animal that might have unintended consequences when I’m not around? In addition, learn enough about the behavior of the wildlife in question so you can recognize if the animal shows any signs of stress or avoidance. Obviously, stop what you’re doing or back off if you notice any such behavior. If you’re a photographer, don’t encourage inappropriate or stressful behaviors just to get “that shot.” And don’t be afraid to share your perspective with other divers and encourage thoughtful conversations about the issue.

In my years of working the sustainable tourism field I’ve come to accept human-wildlife interactions, provided one adheres to three vital criteria. First, the interaction must be a free choice of the animal. Like people, animals differ in their “personalities.” Some enjoy, and even seek out, interaction — while others want no part of it. Respect that choice. Secondly, the interaction shouldn’t alter the animal’s natural behavior. It should go without saying, the ocean’s creatures aren’t there for our entertainment and encouraging or forcing them to behave in ways that aren’t part of their normal repertoire can never be justified. Which brings me to the third criterion. I believe interaction is never warranted if entertainment is the sole objective. Today, in more than 40 countries worldwide and seven states of the U.S., circus acts involving animals are now prohibited. So, too, the ocean is not a circus, nor does it exist primarily for your pleasure. All of earth’s creatures deserve respect — the Golden Rule shouldn’t just apply to humans.

As responsible divers, we must understand that harassment doesn’t just mean abusive treatment. We should never forget that, when interacting with wildlife, the consequences of our actions can play out long after we’re out of the picture and in ways we may have never imagined. When we decide to interact with marine life, we must find ways to do so responsibly and with concern for the animals’ wellbeing. Otherwise, we could, literally, be loving the animal to death.

Read More: NOAA Fisheries Marine Life Viewing Guidelines

Story by Alex Brylske

The post At the Intersection of People and Wildlife: Drawing the Line Between Interaction and Harassment appeared first on Scuba Diving News, Gear, Education | Dive Training Magazine.

from WordPress http://bit.ly/39iDxXg via IFTTT

[bunniwithmonocle]

Ramblings From An Alpaca Farm In South Wiltshire: August 2017

Yeah thats what I thought, they closed it only for me. They have been simply placing the indicators up as I approached, how suspicious is that? I bet you a pound to a pinch of brown stuff that as quickly as I used to be out of sight they loaded them again into the lorry with a smile and buggered off for a cuppa. Anyway a 15 minute journey took 30 minutes as a result of every tractor in south Wiltshire was coming the alternative means and the lanes have been slim. I stared at each tractor driver by slitty eyes as they waved at me as they passed. They knew what was happening, sure they did. I let you know it's a conspiracy. Anyway we got there and Clump performed his spitting off duties very well, an orgling masterclass, oozing testosterone, leaping on every thing that moved, good lad. It was then home for some spitting off with the ladies of the mighty Patou. For individuals who need to spend money on alpacas now but who don’t personal a farm or don’t have the time to handle their own herd, we provide a full vary of agistment companies. For shoppers who buy from Funny Farm Alpacas in Lecanto,Florida, we'll gladly board your alpacas and supply them with the same standard of every day care, feeding, and veterinarian services that we offer our own alpacas. This can afford you the chance to reap the investment progress benefit and pleasure of alpaca ownership without the non-public time loss. Contact us and we are going to gladly work out an ownership program that most closely fits your private life fashion and time profile. Come see for your self what superior genetics, reliable support and a full-service Florida Alpaca farm can imply for you. Whenever you go to us, you’ll perceive how trust and quality can make all the distinction in a lifestyle change you possibly can keep.

Backyard chicken farming is becoming increasingly widespread all over the world, and is taking off in main cities around North America. You now not need a ranch to boost your own chickens and reap the advantages of the fresh, delicious eggs they produce. Listed below are three suggestions to help you get started elevating your own chickens. Publisher: John O Toole Raising chickens and building chicken coops have change into extremely popular actions these days. And there are sound monetary, environmental and health reasons for this enhance in reputation. Publisher: Sparrow Darling Since most of us do not reside on a farm today, but we need to reconnect with the land, we can begin by elevating chickens in our backyards. There are a few considerations when acquiring chickens, as we want proper housing for them. Writer: Clem Johnston If you have made the decision to boost chickens, you can find your expertise much more satisfying by choosing the fitting breed of hen for you. Your choice of rooster will largely rely in your dwelling conditions, yard space and the type of egg you prefer. Writer: Stan Simmons While you raise older chickens, they do not want you to take care of them as much as you do with youthful chickens. That's when you really have to be concerned. Read this article on some tips about how to take care of younger chickens. Writer: Kathy Barnhardt Now that you've determined to start elevating chickens, there are a number of easy things you will want to know. Raising chickens generally is a rewarding expertise, however at times, it's going to seem a daunting task. You will know you might have achieved success when the total grown chickens are snuggled contently of their nesting boxes.

The unique technique for emus was to create another marketplace for meat, like chickens and turkeys. However an emu meat market never materialized within the U.S. You by no means noticed emu roasts in your supermarket, packages of emu drumsticks, smoked emu within the deli, or emu on a restaurant menu. That is because the emu trade created the infrastructure to harvest the meat and byproducts, course of the meat for consumption or get it properly packaged for supermarkets. The emu industry never bought promoting to bring the meat to the general public consciousness and create a demand. Emus additionally produce a valuable oil on their rump pad, though they must be slaughtered to get this oil. Nevertheless the emu trade by no means developed an infrastructure to course of and market the oil. So there was no real profit from emu oil. Alpacas produce fiber, not meat. So you do not need to slaughter the animals to acquire end product. However, to an experienced eye, the twin-goal breeds are both stunning and useful. A typical breed of dual-function hen in North America is the Rhode Island Red. It comes with rust coloured plumage. Typically the red goes to deep maroon close to black. The comb and waddles are rose purple. The toes are yellow and the beaks are reddish-brown. Hens provide up to 300 massive brown eggs annually. Alpaca Farm New Forest When egg and meat manufacturing hit fashionable levels, breeds specializing in a single or the other emerged. Egg laying is one specialization. The most typical breed for large egg laying production amenities is the Leghorn. This smaller breed of rooster produces 6 to 7 good-sized eggs each week. The White Leghorn is the breed most most popular within the United States. The males don't get above four lbs, whereas females are normally much less. Their small sizes will not be good for meat production. In terms of totally different breeds, chickens specializing in egg laying are fashionable innovations. Meat production is the opposite main specialization amongst chickens. Amongst different breeds, chickens focusing on meat production are much more modern than egg laying breeds. Within the nineteen thirties, breeding between the double-breasted Cornish and the large boned Plymouth Rocks developed the start of the trendy Rock-Cornish strain. These birds present a considerable amount of flavorful meat. They develop full body weight by eight weeks which makes them very environment friendly sources of poultry. Phil J has over 20 years expertise in numerous rooster breeds. To be taught extra visit http://www.TheChickenCoopPlan.com right this moment! Log in or Create Account to post a remark.

When most individuals consider pursing an occupation revolving round animals they suppose about being a veterinarian or veterinarian assistant. Nevertheless, there are different occupations in this business that you would be able to discover to satisfy your needs. These careers may need much less schooling or certifications then the careers in veterinarian medicine. Here are some of the opposite careers to discover. As an animal coach you will assist prepare animals for riding, obedience, performance, safety and to assist individuals with disabilities. Depending on the actual job you acquire, your educational requirements for the place might differ. Many sorts of animals could require extra specialized schooling resembling training marine mammals like whales. Some organizations offer certifications for animal training; nevertheless, it's not required for all positions. As an animal coach it's best to have a love of animals and have a sensitive and affected person nature. Animal trainers might find positions in zoos, aquariums, television and associations for the disabled. Animal trainers often work with canine and cats in the varied different competitions and exhibits. Oftentimes animal trainers are liable for holding educational applications for visitors to the centers, reminiscent of educating kids about different animals. The proper Pet Alpaca -- or -- Know When to Run! I've declared myself an skilled on male alpacas, having had eleven of them out of my last 12 crias (and over a 5-12 months interval!). As arduous as that has been on my financial image, I should say that I like MY BOYS! Younger male alpacas are extra curious and more adventurous than the young females, speaking usually, after all. They are quicker to method humans, and simpler to handle when young. And therein lies the problem. These guys are SO cute when small, that we all have hassle resisting their friendly overtures. Some folks even discover that they can not resist making actual �pets� out of them---cute little �kissy-face� boys. Yeah. Proper. They are forgetting that these adorable little crias do develop up, and like kids, what may be unbearably cute at a really young age doesn't translate properly into maturity.