« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »
June 30, 2005
Little Big Things: The Discovery of the Pygmy Elephant
I'll admit, I was first attracted to the story of the pygmy elephant primarily because of the irony of its name (little big-thing?). Funny enough, the pygmy elephant species was only “discovered” about two years ago, although the subtle differences from its Asian cousin had been long recognized. The pygmy elephant is smaller, baby-faced and docile compared to its Asian cousin, but these anomalies had been attributed to the theory that these elephants were descendents of the tame elephants gifted to the Sultan of Sulu by the British East India Company in the 1600’s. When a chance DNA study of some Asian elephants accidentally uncovered that the subspecies was genetically different from the well-known Asian variety, conservationalists pushed for the new subspecies - the Borneo Pygmy Elephant - to be considered separately for protection purposes. Since that discovery in 2003, efforts by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have been made to study this unique and already endangered animal that lives only in a small part of the Island of Borneo. A five year project is currently ramping up; this month they have already begun to tag a bunch of the pygmy elephants.
Tagging the elephants is a great step forward not just for studying the species but also for protecting them to some extent. Unfortunately, these elephants are already in conflict with local farmers and villagers. At least three pygmy elephants have been killed in the past year, often brutally slain with their heads thrown into the river. This doesn't appear to be a case of ivory poaching as it is a retaliation by farmers, and possibly hungry villagers.
What scientists don't know is the size of their turf, breeding cycles, eating habits, family size, their movement patterns or even their population, currently estimated to be 1,500 though Williams believes it could be under 1,000.
...
WWF says the project is aimed at protecting the species as its habitat comes under pressure from spreading palm oil plantations, which account for 40 percent of Sabah state's GDP.
Pygmy elephants love palm oil fruit and will often invade plantations. "Growing palm oil trees next to a forest is like dangling candy before a child. The elephants can't resist it," said Jan Vertefeuille of WWF-USA who was part of the collaring team.
More at: E-tagging of pygmy elephants helps study
How can the pygmy elephants be protected?
Well, several methods are currently being considered. A wildlife preserve is one possibility. Wildlife ranger Datuk Wilfred Lingham is working on a wildlife corridor in the elephants' territory that would be reserved as a park, safe from farming. With a country this small, the tourism revenue argument might be considerable and make up for the loss of farmland.
It's always good to have a Plan B, though, especially as there are so few pygmy elephants. Relocation and distribution of the elephants to other locales is another possibility under consideration, especially those elephants living in areas close to people, where problem situations are more likely to arise.
A great site tracking elephant-related news, including the continuing struggle of the pygmy elephant, is Elephant News.
Posted by sorsha at 12:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 29, 2005
Lovers' Secret Discourse and German U-Boats
When we were eleven years old, my best friend and I came up with a set of code words for important spy-like discussions (no, this was not related to my detective agency). For example, "orange peels" meant "my parents are listening, I cannot respond to you at this time". Little did we know, we had invented our own, albeit ultra-simple, form of cryptography.
Passing secret messages is a very old concept. The Rosetta Stone, with its hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek texts, is an excellent example from ancient times. The Kama Sutra (an ancient Indian text written somewhere between 100 and 600 AD) recommended using code in order for lovers to communicate without fear of discovery. Later the Catholic Church used coded messages to help ensure their religious and political power throughout Europe. Thomas Jefferson invented a cipher machine, which the founding fathers used during the American Revolution to secure their mail from being read. Napoleon also used fairly sophisticated ciphers. The list goes on and on, however most of these coded messages could be deciphered more like word puzzles than math problems. Most coded messages could be decrypted by individuals, given time and enough data. These early codes were "easy" to break because of a couple of reasons:
- Decoding wasn't all or nothing. Often, there was an opportunity to decode parts of the message, even if you couldn't deduce the whole thing
- Decoding was a reducing problem. The more you had decoded, the easier the rest of the decoding work became.
- Key-Value pairs did not mutate. If the letter 'A' (the key) stood for the letter 'X' (the value), then this would hold true for every instance of the letter 'A' as long as the crib-sheet was used.
- Information traveled slowly, and key-value crib-sheets did not change often.
It wasn't really until the World Wars that cryptography became more of a mathematical/machine problem and less of a word teaser puzzle. All the statements above suddenly could not be counted on. New encryption devices, especially those with rotors like the German Enigma machine, changed everything. The three rotor Enigma machine had an initial configuration which would dictate the final encoded message. There were 10^114 possible initial configurations, and the initial config used changed daily or more frequently. And guess what? If you determined that A->S for the first letter, that did not mean that the second A was also an S, it could just as easily have been a B. So for example, you could encode AAAAAA and the Enigma would make that LFDYNF. Lastly, the German U-Boats had a different Enigma decide with four rotors instead of three, making the codes significantly harder to decipher.
Besides seeing the several entertaining movies about the Enigma machine like Enigma
Shane was playing at work today with a Paper Enigma machine he found directions for on the web. He's got a nice little write-up on it on his blog here.
There's also a Flash Enigma Machine available online, which is a bit slow but wins out for any length of message.
WOKELCATF! (I-II-III, LED)
Posted by sorsha at 6:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2005
The Bear-Human Conflict: Part II
The more I think about the Bear-Human Conflict, the more I think that it's important to understand the frequency at which these events occur.
I remember before I went to Africa for the first time, a friend who had gone told me about the rest areas within the national parks. He said that there were always signs near the bathrooms of lionesses laying above the doors, waiting to eat you on your way in or out. I thought this funny at the time, but I certainly paid attention whenever I left the safety of the car and walked in the open - and I always appreciated any signs saying "Please make sure the door is closed and locked" when entering or leaving a hide or other gated area.
When I mentioned I was considering driving the Alaskan Highway as a roadtrip idea, another friend told me I'd have to bring a shotgun, and leave the car running at rest stops because of the grizzlies that like to eat the unsuspecting stoppers. So I am skeptical as to whether or not this is truly necessary, but I'm likely to lean towards safety - even if it makes me feel slightly stupid in a Parent Trap cougar-stick-whacking kind of way.
But I still want some perspective. How often do bear attacks really occur, and how often are they fatal (or near enough to really suck)? Conversely, how often do humans kill bears? Really, what's the score here?
Let's look at the past century, shall we? Well, it's the only info I could find... Under the USGS's Alaska Science Center - Biological Science Office, a Bear Project has been undertaken to construct a database of Alaska bear-human encounters spanning the 20th century.
By The Numbers
How many human fatalities can be attributed to bears in the past century or so?
The short answer: surprisingly few.
According to the National Park Service's The Museum Gazette, the Grizzly has been responsible for only 14 deaths in the past century - primarily due to being surprised, protecting cubs or a kill. I'm guessing this may be a number for the lower 48 states, given the USGS survey above for Alaska reports about 50 fatal brown bear attacks in the past century.
Let's assume you're going to have similar numbers in Canada, which is likely high, given the relative populations and protection policies.
How many brown bears have been killed in the past century or so?
The answer is unclear, but it's safe to say a lot.
According to the Alaska Fish & Game Department, the number of brown bears killed by hunters averages about 1,604 a year for at least the past five years. This number does not include poaching (which they have a footnote about likely being a larger number than the recorded number), nor do their harvest numbers include federal hunts not requiring licensing - like the death of the grizzly this past week.
In Canada, the grizzly is listed as vulnerable in the western provinces and extirpated in the Prairie provinces. Canada has the grizzly on a special hunting license lottery program, but I could not find any harvest stats on the bears. However, in British Columbia alone (only one of about 4 provinces with grizzlies), over the course of five years, they had to destroy an average of 20 grizzlies a year because they were problem bears - as well as 384 black bears a year for the same reason. Assume similar numbers for the other provinces and Alaskan parks (assuming the lower 48 must use other means like relocation due to Endangered Species Act laws).
Before the grizzly made the Endangered Species list in the lower 48 states, they were hunted to near extinction. According to the High Country News article quoted below, humans eradicated almost 100,000 grizzly bears in the Western U.S. between 1850 and 1920. Ironically, the state flag of California depicts the golden bear - the California grizzly, which has been extinct since 1924.
The history of how the brown bear finally made it onto the Endangered Species listing in the lower 48 states is actually a really good example of why not to feed wild animals. Allowing bears to become conditioned to humans and their garbage can have very drastic and long-reaching effects. As the Canadians say, "a garbage-conditioned bear is a doomed bear".
Most population demographers prescribe 500 bruins [bears] as the lowest starting point for assuring long-term survival.
...
A quarter century ago, bear numbers had plummeted to perhaps fewer than 200, after Yellowstone National Park initiated a bold strategy of closing trash dumps to wean grizzlies from unnatural foods. An estimated 140 bears conditioned to feed on garbage died soon after, prompting alarm within the scientific community that the Yellowstone grizzly population was crashing.
Emergency listing of the bear population under the then-nascent Endangered Species Act brought a heated end to trophy bear hunting on the public and private lands around the park; yet the grizzly was still in trouble in the early 1980s.
More at: High Country News: Grizzly War
Lastly, Wind River Bear Institute has some great info on how cars and trains effect bear populations, primarily in Canada, and how effective translocation and adversive conditioning (traumatizing the bear so it won't come near humans and such) policies can be.
Posted by sorsha at 1:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 27, 2005
The Bear-Human Conflict
Just like plane crashes, animal attacks always seem to make the news. Usually these are about underestimated guard dogs or exotic pets like lions and tigers. Only occasionally do you hear about an animal in the wild harming someone, usually a mountain lion or a grizzly bear - your common predators. Sometimes even a wild animal generally thought of as prey like deer, moose, buffalo. And, as usual, these cases are usually about encroachment on wildlife habitats and the dwindling wildernesses.
National Park System - Striving for Balance
According to the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, it's primary goals are to:
- Conserve the scenery and the natural elements and the park wild life
- Conserve the historic elements of the parks
- Provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations
This means that the National Park Service has to protect park contents, but also provide a safe place for as many people as possible. What's interesting though, if you're injured in a park, chances are it wasn't by an animal at all. Just check out the National Park Service's Postings of Recent Incidents and you'll notice that most are due to human-human conflict or accidents due to lightning, falls or drownings. NPS Rangers spend far more time dealing with crime in the parks and search and rescue missions than wildlife problems.
That said, the National Park Service does have a policy for dealing with predatory animals. Below are their broader terms on the subject, but it seems that the particulars may be left to the individual park management officials.
The National Park Service believes that predatory animals have a real place in nature, and that all animal life should be kept inviolate within the parks. As a consequence, the general policies relative to predatory animals are as follows:
1. Predatory animals are to be considered an integral part of the wild life protected within national parks and no widespread campaigns of destruction are to be countenanced. The only control practiced is that of shooting of coyotes or other predators when they are actually found making serious inroads upon herds of game or other mammals needing special protection.
2. No permits for trapping within the borders of a park are allowed.
3. Poison is believed to be a non-selective form of control and is banned from the national parks except where used by Park Service officials in warfare against rodents in settled portions of a park, or in case of emergency.
More at: The National Park Service's Policy on Predatory Mammals (1931)
Problem Animals Vs. Man-Killers
From what I've seen and heard, individual cases of problem animals seem to be dealt with in one of three ways: relocation to the remote wilderness, relocation to a zoo, or permanent removal. Some parks, like Yosemite, have developed a kind of three strikes rule, relocating problem bears, but if they persist they may be removed.
There seems to be a somewhat different policy if a person is severely hurt or killed by an animal. These animals are said to have commited "predatory acts" and the animal is generally put down immediately. This past weekend, two campers were killed by a grizzly bear while camping along the Hulahula River in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. The bear was shot and killed, its corpse taken to Fairbanks to confirm it killed the couple.
Now perhaps it's because I'm not a believer in the death penalty, but the way these kinds of situations are resolved doesn't feel right to me. Shoot first, ask questions later. Guilty until proven innocent? Now, I'm certainly not saying this is a conspiracy and the bear was framed or anything, but its a predator, so of course it would commit predatory acts. Do we have the right to then shoot the animal? Is it a problem animal? Has it learned to target humans? We'll never know now.
But here's what we do know. Brown bears, especially the grizzly, are listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act - but only in the lower 48 states. In Alaska, where most of them live, they are not protected - in fact, they are hunted. In some parts of Alaska, the moose populations are not what the hunters would desire, so they've blamed it on the grizzlies. Now hunters are allowed to bait traps for these moose-eating grizzlies (and wolves) and hunt them instead.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game began issuing permits last week [Apr 2005] for a predator-control program aimed at clearing out the majority of grizzlies in a 3,000-square-mile area of brushy terrain and tundra near the Canadian border.
...
An estimated 135 grizzly bears live in the targeted area, and the program seeks to have up to 81 of those killed, state officials said. The target area is included in a program that has allowed aircraft-assisted hunters to kill 266 wolves since November, according to Fish and Game figures.
More at: Alaska starts grizzly bear hunts using bait
This really begs to question: What can predators like brown bears eat, safely?
- They've upset the moose hunters.
- They've upset the elk & caribou hunters.
- They've upset the salmon fisherman.
- They've upset the farmers.
- They've upset the adventurous backcountry campers.
- They're meat-eaters biologically.
- They're predatorial by nature.
- They already eat plants and berries for 80-90% of the time (Canadian Wildlife Service)
Now let's look at encroachment, shall we?
Today, brown bears inhabit less than 2% of their original range. Furthermore, the current population is less than 2% of its original level. Today, there are between 40,000 and 50,000 brown bears left in the wild. This drop in numbers can be partially attributed to habitat loss and hunting. Fear and ignorance of bears has led to their extermination. An increase in the poaching of bears has also greatly affected bear populations. Poachers harvest bear body parts to provide ingredients for traditional Asian medicines. As a result of their low birth rate combined with a high death rate of cubs (up to 50% mortality), brown bear populations are not recovering from this dramatic decline.
More at: Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo.
Well, it's certainly not looking good for the bears.
Posted by sorsha at 11:29 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
June 25, 2005
National Catfish Day: Bottom-Dwellers At Risk
One would think that even a nuclear winter couldn't put a dent in the catfish population. After all, they're scum-sucking garbage-eating bottom dwellers, right? Unfortunately for catfish, they are also considered tasty when breaded and fried. One of Ronald Reagan's most important contributions in office was proclaiming the official designation of National Catfish Day on June 25th, back in 1987. The President called the catfish, which was the third most popular fish in the US, a "uniquely American food delicacy" and urged Americans to "observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities".
Okay, so I'm positive this is not the oddest national observance ever proclaimed by a president, although I'm tempted to come up with some form of pagan ceremonial catfish chant. However, while I (and I'm sure the fish-farming PACs) appreciate the sentiment (forcefully restraining myself from typing sediment here - haha), calling catfish "uniquely American" is just plain wrong.
According to John Lundberg, researcher with the All Catfish Species Inventory, 2,800 species of catfish have already been described and an additional 1,500 species may yet be discovered. "One out of every four freshwater fish, one out of ten fishes, and one out of twenty vertebrates…is a catfish." Catfish are found on every continent except Antarctica and in fresh, coastal, and marine waters. They are perhaps the most ecologically and economically important group of fish in the world.
More at: National Geographic: Mekong Giant Catfish
Bottom-dwelling fish that like brackish water are a primary food source in Africa and Asia. According to the United Nations, Asian-Pacific fisheries are the world’s largest producer of both farmed fish and captured fish – accounting for 91 per cent and 48 per cent of total world production but without judicious management of fisheries, the market's future is threatened. Overfishing is causing regional food shortages as well as having far-reaching economic effects for these already struggling countries. These countries have begun to "fish down the food-chain".
There is great difficulty nowadays in sustaining global fisheries production at around 82 million tons. In response to declines of commercially valuable stocks of bigger, slower growing species, commercial fishing fleets have turned to "fishing down the food chain", targeting increasingly large quantities of smaller species of fish with less commercial value.
More at: Greenpeace: Fishing Down The Food Chain
Catfish, especially the Mekong giant catfish, have been appearing in the news quite a lot lately. At the beginning of May, the largest freshwater fish ever recorded was caught in Northern Thailand. At a monstrous 650lbs and over nine feet long, the fish was approximately the size of a grizzly bear. This catfish was not some freak of nature, though, but just an extraordinarily large specimen of an already gigantic species that has long held the Guinness record as the largest freshwater fish ever caught.
The local fishermen have long fished for this dinosaur-like catch, which is called Pla Buek [Huge Fish] in Thai - a single fish can feed a whole village. Catfish make up a substantial portion of the fish market in countries like Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Today, though, the Mekong giant catfish is considered critically endangered. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) lists overfishing, fishing with explosives in spawning areas, and habitat destruction as the primary causes for the marked decline in fish populations. Only a handful of these fish are caught every year now, and most are re-released as part of the Mekong Fish Conservation Project.
This time of year, fishers along the banks of the Mekong River in the village of Chiang Khong in northern Thailand wait expectant, as they have for hundreds of years, for the arrival and harvest of giant catfish. But this year the catfish may never come.
More at: Big Trouble for Asia's Giant Catfish
Recent steps by the U.S. Congress to enforce proper and specific labeling of foreign fish at market has helped warn U.S. consumers that they might be buying from overfished stocks like the catfish. Researchers like Zeb Hogan of the Mekong Fish Conservation Project remain optimistic about the future of the Mekong.
What hope is there that the decline will be reversed or at least halted?
When considering the Mekong River as a whole, there is still reason to be optimistic. The Mekong River has not been dammed below China, remains relatively unpolluted, and produces more aquatic resources for human consumption than any other river on the planet.
The Mekong giant catfish can be saved, but it will take a level of commitment from all countries of the lower Mekong, as well as international organizations and donor agencies, that currently does not exist.
More at: Giant Catfish Critically Endangered
So there's some hope for the Mekong giant catfish. After all, it's one of the fastest growing freshwater fish species in the world, according to the Asian-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC). Let's hope that with heightened awareness, conservation techniques and incentives, they can bounce back from this decline. However, in order for this to happen, the fish need time to be able to reach maturity and make lots of baby fishes.
Posted by sorsha at 10:06 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 20, 2005
The History & Romance of Exploration
I've been reading History and Romance of Exploration, Told With Pictures
- Vasgo Da Gama & Portguese Trade in the Indian Ocean (1497-1500)
- Dr. David Livingstone & Henry M. Stanley's Journeys In Darkest Africa (1841-1877)
Da Gama was commissioned by the king of Portugal to complete the first maritime (as opposed to overland) route to India. Indian goods like gold, jewels, silks, ivory, and spices were very popular in Europe, but the overland routes were slow and expensive with lots of middle-men. De Gama and his men made it around the Cape and into the Indian Ocean, and stopped at Zanzibar. However, the Moslems were not happy to see Infidels breaking into their monopoly on sea trade in the Indian Ocean. But when Da Gama and his men offered olive oil, honey, cotton and such for trade, the Indians laughed at them and called them cheap tradesmen, for the Moslems traded in much more expensive goods (gold, jewels, etc.) Da Gama made it all the way to India, where he and his men received a somewhat less-than-stellar welcome. He returned to Portugal a hero, with plans to return to India with a lot more guns next time, in order to protect Portuguese interests there. Meanwhile, during the preparations for this mission, the Portuguese king sent Pedro Cabral ahead to prepare for the fleet's arrival in India, but he was swept off-course and ended up discovering Brazil instead! Whoops!
Dr. David Livingstone was one of those do-gooder missionary types. He tramped around Africa, looking for the source of the Nile, while he treated the sick and hurt out of the goodness of his heart. He named Victoria Falls, among other things, but eventually his funds were cut off from England and he disappeared into Africa. Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the New York Herald, sent the rugged American adventurer Henry Stanley on a search for Dr. Livingstone. Stanley enjoyed exploring, but he felt he'd gotten a bum project - he was convinced that Livingstone must be dead. Everywhere he went, he asked after the good doctor, only to be told that the people knew him of course, but hadn't seen him in a long time. Finally, in October of 1871, Stanley found the man, a bit worse for wear, living in a little grass hut near Lake Tanganyika. He was so amazed to see the doctor, he had to tamp down the urge to embrace the man, and said instead,
"Doctor Livingstone, I presume?"
"Yes," came the reply, and the doctor touched his cap in response.
Stanley's doctor and supplies helped Livingstone recover some of his health, but he refused to leave Africa. Instead, they divided their supplies. Livingstone later mounted a new expedition to discover the source of the Nile, which he would not complete. Livingstone was found in his hut, having passed away while praying beside his bed. A monument was erected on that spot, and his heart was buried there. This body was brought back to England, where he was buried in Westminster Abbey with pomp and glory. I like that - his country got his body, but Africa got his heart. Very romantic!
Stanley, saddened by the death of Livingstone, determined to continue with his old friend's work. Eventually he discovered the source of the Nile, among other Africa mysteries. He published numerous works on Africa and became a prominent scholar on all matters related to exploration.
The images above are from the Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Catalog (PPOC). The ship is a watercolor painting painted in 1880 by Ernesto Casanova, part of the Library of Congress Hispanic Reading Room. The explorer is actually part of a political cartoon of Henry Stanley from 1872.
Posted by sorsha at 10:50 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 19, 2005
No Mammals? PekaPeka!
I recently read an interesting fact about New Zealand. Supposedly, the island has no native mammals. No native mammals, I thought to myself. What about marsupials downunder and such?
So I decided to look into this claim, which, I believe, was made in a National Geographic article.
So the claim is actually false, there are very FEW mammals native to New Zealand.
Of course there are transient mammals - marine mammals like seals and whales.
But there is also a single mammal family native to New Zealand - and it's a group everyone always forgets - BATS!
Bats are New Zealand's only endemic land mammals. In proverb, the Maori refer to bats as pekapeka and associate them with the mythical, night-flying bird, hokioi, which foretells death or disaster.
More at: New Zealand Department of Conservation
Posted by sorsha at 8:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 12, 2005
The Buzz of Mosquitoes
I've been talking a bit about malaria lately, so I thought I'd share some new information I recently read about mosquitoes, the primary method of transmission of malaria. We've got a vote going on this month regarding mosquitoes and disease control in our county in California. The pamplet had some interesting facts about mosquitoes that I thought were rather interesting:
Why do they buzz?
Mosquitos have a wing speed of more than 1,000 beats per second, causing the buzzing sound.
How many baby mosquitoes do they have?
One female can lay up to 600 eggs in her lifetime.
How long do they live?
Female mosquitoes live about 14 days, but males only live about 7 days.
Where do mosquitoes breed?
Mosquitoes lay eggs in stagnant standing water. Eliminate the standing water sources, and you eliminate the mosquitoes.
How many mosquitoes are produced from a bucket of water?
A small household bucket of standing water can produce thousands of mosquitoes a day.
Do all mosquitoes suck blood?
Nope, just the females. Males feed on plants.
Why do mosquito bites itch?
Mosquitoes inject chemicals that prevent blood clotting so they can suck away. These chemicals irritate the skin, causing itching.
How is disease passed through mosquitoes?
Mosquitoes can infect animals and people when they bite and such blood.
Posted by sorsha at 12:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 9, 2005
DNA Of the Cave Bear
I hadn't really considered how DNA mapping could really help clear up some of the questions in the evolutionary family tree. The scientists used the well-documented complete map of a dog's DNA as a crib sheet for determining the appropriate mapping of an ancient species of cave bear (like there are bears that don't like caves?). They found that the cave bear was more closely related to the brown bears (like the grizzly and Kodiak bears) than to the black bears (Yosemite). Truthfully, I would have put money on the brown bears even without such scientific evidence. The black bears in California are more like pets than wildlife nowadays, and they just don't seem as smart - more like gigantic raccoons.
Scientists have sequenced the DNA of two cave bears that roamed the Austrian Alps some 40,000 years ago. It marks the first time researchers have been able to completely sequence the DNA of a species that has long been extinct.
The research opens the door to sequencing the DNA genome of other extinct species, including the Neandertals (often spelled "Neanderthals").
More at: Ancient Bear DNA Mapped -- A 1st for Extinct Species
Posted by sorsha at 2:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 8, 2005
Attacked By Monkeys!
We roadtripped around Japan a couple of years ago, and spent some time in the Nikko area, where the shrine with the three See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil monkeys live. We had stopped at Kegon Falls. It was a bitterly cold morning in late November, and after a quick trip to the base of the falls, we headed back to the car.
There was a sign in the parking lot. It had a picture of a monkey on it, and some japanese writing that was beyond my reading abilities at the time, but we conjectured that it meant "Don't Feed the Animals".
At this point, someone scoffed, "There are no monkeys in Japan!"
We piled back into the car and started driving down one of the most amazing switchback roads I've ever driven on in my life. As I rounded a corner not 15 minutes later, I saw a group of monkeys sitting along the side of the road near a scenic overlook pullout.
They looked so small and innocent as we gazed at them through the car windows. Their bright pink faces surrounded by the white-grey fur. There was even a tiny baby clinging to the fur of its mother. Somehow, we all ended up outside the car, taking pictures, and exclaiming over how cool they were.
Next thing we know, all hell breaks loose. There are monkeys in the car, tearing apart bags of carefully wrapped rice crackers and souvenirs. We're screaming at each other, trying to get one very large monkey out of the car without being bitten or attacked. He hisses menacingly and takes off up the road with a large portion of our souvenirs, including our postcards and a boxed teacup set. About 1/4 of a mile up the road, the monkey sits, opens everything, and eats anything remotely edible before discarding the rest. Shane has followed the monkey and retrieves all our not-so-tasty souvenirs.
Meanwhile, monkeys have surrounded our car. They're not so docile and sweet now. They hiss and make mock charges at the car. Some of us have safely gotten inside the car, but the rest are trying to figure out how to join them without adding extra passengers. The last thing we want is for a monkey to be stuck in the car with us - the nearest hospital has got to be quite far away and none of us speaks Japanese well.
Meanwhile, people are driving by us and slowing down to watch us in the struggle between man and ape. No one stopped, offered to help, or anything. They just stared at us as they drove by. I'm quite sure they were laughing themselves silly over the stupid American tourists. No monkeys in Japan!
After quite a bit more drama, including one of us accidently slamming the trunk door on one of the monkey's hands (he was fine, don't worry about him), we manage to get into the car. This took swinging a very large SLR camera at the monkeys while the other person tried for a door. By the time I was back in the driver's seat I was livid.
It took another 100km or so for me to calm down enough to see a bit of humor in the situation. Everyone kept looking out along the road for more monkeys, but I calmly stated that if I saw any, I had very little qualms with mowing them down with the car. At minimum, I wasn't planning to stop for further photo ops.
We discovered later that those monkeys were very problematic in the region. Residents could never open their windows, and monkeys attacked young school kids and such. There was actually a bounty for each monkey, and for a bit we dreamed of using ourselves as bait in order to fund future trips to Japan, which is quite expensive. I believe poisonous rice crackers were mentioned more than once, but you'll forgive us. We were feeling really foolish, and it reaffirmed a lesson so many people need to remember.
Respect the wildlife.
Keep your distance.
Be cautious.
Always have an exit plan.
Shane and I have been very careful and wary of animals ever since, but we see otherwise intelligent people disregard these concepts time and time again. Attacks, gorings, etc. They happen all the time. You also hear terrifying stories of people placing their children in danger for a good photo opportunity. They just don't take nature seriously.
Later I was playing a little game with the two year old in the car, asking him questions to keep him entertained as we drove towards Hakone and Mount Fuji.
What's your favorite food? Rice.
What's your favorite color? Orange.
What's your favorite animal? Anything but monkeys.
Some other interesting monkey news of late:
Learn More: Wikipedia: Japanese Macaque
Interesting Facts: BBC Facts About Japanese Macaques
The Japanese Macaques cause all sorts of trouble in Japan. Most recently there's been a monkey on the loose in Tokyo.
And then someone always figures out how to exploit things, eh? I've heard stories of thieves training monkeys to attack tourists and steal their jewelry and such. Now some guy in Japan has dressed up like a monkey to try to rob a convenience store.
A man dressed in a monkey costume threatened an employee at a convenience store in Yokkaichi, Mie, with a knife in an unsuccessful robbery attempt.
More at: Man, Dressed as Monkey, Tries to Rob Store
Posted by sorsha at 8:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 7, 2005
Global Warming Should Be A Global Warning
Coming hard on the heels of some good news about the U.S. commitment to providing $674 million for famine relief in Africa, I was greatly disappointed, but not shocked, to see that while famine is a marked, tangible and thus understandable problem for our dear President, the more subtle (yet just as dire) problems like global warming continue to elude him.
Bush rejects scientists’ view that manmade pollutants are causing temperatures to increase.
More at: MSNBC: Bush, Blair seek common ground on Africa, environment
I cannot see how someone can run one of the most powerful countries in the world properly without listening to his advisors in areas he has no expertise in - only a vested interest in ignoring the problem or assigning any blame or responsibility for. Is this a case of I-won't-believe-it-til-I-see-it-with-my-own-eyes, or are the facts just not scary enough to merit serious action? Is it the Bush administration that doesn't believe pollution has anything to do with global warming, or is it the man himself? This whole issue stinks of an Armageddon-themed B-film where the blank-faced President realizes he's botched up the planet only seconds before it implodes or something.
There seems little doubt to anyone that global temperatures are rising, it's the reasons behind it that are questioned. What's confusing is that the greenhouse effect seems to be well understood and readily accepted, but no one has been able to argue the causes succinctly enough given the climatic system (planet) is so complex and given to Ice Ages and heat waves throughout the course of time. But let's look at some of the facts, shall we? According to National Geographic:
Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million—and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s.
More at: National Geographic: Global Warming Fast Facts
Now, as a non-scientist, you might say 100 parts per million, that's nothing. But it really doesn't take much of something to cause a whole lot of trouble - that's a HUGE number. To give it some perspective... According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
Lead poisoning occurs in birds of blood levels greater than 0.2 parts per million (ppm) and birds usually die with levels greater than 1.2 ppm.
More at: Minnesota DNR: Get the lead out
Bush can't even seem to agree with the divisions of government which clearly know a whole lot more about the issue that GW does. The graphic above I got from the NASA website - they're watching the oceans rise from above, you know... and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) clearly states that in order to combat global warming, we must all reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases we produce and pollute the earth with:
The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. Because of how they warm our world, these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases.
...
Greenhouse Gases: Any gas that absorbs infra-red radiation in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (HCFCs) , ozone (O3), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
More at: EPA Global Warming Kids Site
Let's go with a few more statistics from the EPA:
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution:
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%
Methane concentrations have more than doubled
Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%
Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions.
Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions.
In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.
Estimating future emissions is difficult. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels.
More at: EPA: Climate: Global Warming
So we've got massive levels of pollutants in the air, effecting the greenhouse system. Someone's got to come up with a good and convincing argument instead of all this evidence that clearly shows something is wrong, but doesn't have the clout to convince people to try to minimize the controllable parts of the problem. It's clearly not enough that scientists generally agree that:
The world is warming
The climate of the world is moderated by the greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing
The combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases
Frankly, it's enough proof for me. Global warming is going to happen, but that doesn't mean we sit around waiting for it before we change our lifestyles. According to National Geographic, some some 100 million people worldwide live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level. A study conducted last year found that by 2050, global warming could lead to the extinction of more than a million species of plants and animals.
Posted by sorsha at 1:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 6, 2005
Redwoods Of The Santa Cruz Mountains
Little Redwood Creek
Mosty Morning
Posted by sorsha at 2:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 1, 2005
The Crocodile Comeback?
Its a bittersweet story when a near-extinct creature makes a tiny comeback in the eyes of the people. A couple of baby Siamese crocodiles have been discovered, implying that the animals are not completely extinct in the region, and are breeding successfully. It's great news that the species isn't as bad off as it was originally thought, but I worry that it also makes it more difficult to argue a species belongs on the Endangered and Threatened Species listings in the first place, for some. Then again, the positive PR of having a creature comeback may make it easier to push the listings in general as a vehicle to help species recovery. I guess that make's me a jaded cynic? *sigh* Regardless, this is good news!
The freshwater Siamese Crocodile is considered critically endangered with a population of less than 5,000 worldwide. The major threats to these relatively harmless crocs are habitat destruction due to farming and deforestation, hunting (meat and leather), and pollution of their habitat. It's interesting to note that while the wild population is critically endangered, the farming and breeding of these crocs is relatively well-understood.
BANGKOK, Thailand - A nest of baby Siamese crocodiles has been found in southern Laos, raising hopes that the nearly extinct species may yet survive, conservationists said Friday.
Lao and international wildlife specialists found seven hatchlings and an old crocodile nest in a small swamp in the southern Lao province of Savannakhet.
More at: Endangered Crocodiles Discovered in Laos
Posted by sorsha at 1:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
