Are hunters the devil?

Today’s issue is one that I have been thinking about since this particular article was released. WARNING:EXTREME ANIMAL TORTURE PICTURES:(http://www.examiner.com/article/wolf-killers-admit-it-s-all-about-the-sadistic-sexual-thrill). This ladies and gentlemen is a disgrace. People posting pictures of their kills in social networks and being proud or provocative about it is a disgrace to nature and humanity. However as much as some advocates like to hate hunters, should be generalized? Are all hunters evil,sadistic beings?

The issue is unfortunately often one of two extremes. On one corner you have hunters who are well educated, know their ecology as well as their quarry. Some of them hunt for the meat and others for sport however this hunter class is one that often respects nature or at least their game. They are observant individuals whose idea of appreciating an animal is to track it down. There is something primitive about returning to your own roots and hunt game once more. In addition to that a lot of hunters tend to respect animals such as wolves because of the challenge they provide. In fact local hunters and fishermen are often used in scientific surveys and by conservation These individuals however are decreasing or rather overshadowed from the other side of the hunter coin.

The other side unfortunately is the dark side. People who show no respect to nature whatsoever. Hunters who will gas wolf pups, ride crippled elk,  set dogs on a trapped coyote and will shoot birds just for fun. These are the hunters who will provoke advocates , activists and general nature lovers. I have no kind word for these people.  Although not the general population these people tend to give hunters a bad name all together. In this case hunters find themselves in the same situation that so many other groups do. Christians and the Westboro Church, Muslims with extremists and so forth. It is clear that these particular disturbed individuals  have issues that they decide to take on nature and unfortunately there are worldwide.  Can something be done? I highly doubt it. By removing hunters all together then some wildlife management will be challenging. In addition to that it is unfair for some hunters to be prohibited from hunting because of these individuals. My solution would be for the isolation of these individuals. For genuine hunters who re nature loving hunters to show the world that they are not like them. To isolate such groups and deal with them accordingly through a police force dedicated to wildlife.

It is easy to blame hunters for messing up conservation efforts. It is easy for them to be targeted by advocates or vice versa. The important thing to remember is that there are individuals that are not abusing or just enjoy killing. My advice would be not to let them rattle you are up or upset you. These individuals will always exist and the more power you give them over you, the worse effect will have on you.

Pay to volunteer

As a Zoology student, I can tell you two things for sure. One, I am interested and intrigued by animals and two I would love to get some hands on experience with them. Today's discussion(although will probably be more of a rant), regards the recent situation some of my fellow students and myself found ourselves into. Most students tend to be really enthusiastic about their degree. They tend to be happy that they are doing something interesting and want to contribute. Some students want to volunteer spare time to help animals, participate in research or do something relevant to their degree. A search on the internet will reveal a lot of organizations willing to take you everywhere. The return is a commodity most students can't afford. Money.

Firstly, I want to say that I am not going to rant about these organizations. They need funding and money to keep things going and so they will ask for money. What I want to point out though is that the amounts asked are ridiculous. Let's take an example. John(random name) is in his first year Zoology. He loves animals and would really like to volunteer as this will teach him skills related to his degree and get him much needed experience for his CV. He doesn't have a lot of free time so decides to devote an entire month of summer holidays to do this. He does a brief internet search and finds a brilliant program in Africa to study lions. Now John, like many students doesn't have a lot of money. He gets by and can put some money aside to buy his tickets and food. However the organization asks for $4000 in order for John to join them for a month in Africa. John can start fund raising and working double shifts but in the end of the day some money are going to come out of his pocket. At least the cash deposit which most organizations ask for. This is my main problem and a problem I see other students having. They want to get out there and are willing to lose some money in the process but paying the organization to volunteer for them is a step too far for most. Some students will be lucky enough to fund raise enough. Others not so much.

When you ask such amounts out of students to volunteer for something they want to do, then you chop down their wings. If a student still wants to volunteer, then he will have to find something local which will probably limit them or won't give them experience. I would like to think that most students(especially the more enthusiastic ones) would jump at an opportunity to spend their entire summer working with animals if the only thing they had to pay for, was food, tickets and their own expenses. I know I would. With that in mind students have the potential to be an incredible work force that will do good where it's needed.

Of course it's not really the organizations fault is it? They require funds to keep them going and make up for the services they provide(housing, security etc). I don't know exactly where their funds go and I don't have a counter suggestion for this. Apart from perhaps a government trust, set up to “reward”students who actively volunteer, by paying the fees that volunteer organizations require. Or perhaps an addition to an organization's budget when volunteers are included.

Which leads us to my second point. Last year I volunteered at a wolf sanctuary(I will write about that experience soon enough) and the owner was kind enough not to ask for any money at all. All I paid for was my travel and food expenses. However one of the great advice the owner gave me was that working for a sanctuary or a zoo really doesn't reflect the fact that I am interested in field research. Although I gained some skills, it doesn't compare to field research. So since September, I have been emailing researchers, universities, government agencies and organizations trying to find some sort of field related position. A lot of the above don't have need for volunteers or interns. Why? Aside from insurances, dangerous work etc I can't see why governments can't encourage research institutes to take volunteers or trainees. Graduates are rejected from job applications because they lack experience.Trying to gain experience on your own initiative can be quite costly and hence that leads to lack of experience, hence no job. Fund raising could work but again you are relying to people around you being able to give you money and let's face it, the way things are going people will think twice before giving John here some money to go help animals in Africa. Naturally governments don't really have money to spare for students to pay for students volunteering abroad but why not? In the future, the governments of such countries will have more experienced individuals who will probably be better and more efficient at their jobs. It will allow for people to realize what some aspects of their degree really are about and whether they want to do it or not and will definitely aid conservation,research or welfare efforts.

Universities should be the main drivers of this in my opinion. Universities that include undergraduate students in their research will have more rounder graduates who know what they are doing, will be more experienced and more employable. They will also benefit because their academics or researchers will be available for other projects/conferences etc while the student can take some of the more”menial” tasks. Students will gain experience, get their hands dirty and will feel more involved in the University's activities.

Unfortunately I cannot see the other side of the coin and I must admit to that. I don't know the logistics or bureaucracy behind having volunteers working for you and neither do I know if the volunteer organizations actually make money by charging potential volunteers. I am just discussing the situation students like myself are in at this present moment where either very few positions can be found or they charge an amount a lot of students consider at least three months worth of money.

Video game animals

Video games are an ever increasing medium of entertainment and storytelling. With the variety of stories told it is no wonder that in some of them animals will feature either as part of the scenery or even part of the storyline. Today I want to discuss an issue with you. Are animals represented accurately in video games, should we even care and should animal violence be present in them.

Hunting games aside, I believe that animals are present in a variety of popular games. Pretty much all the games revolving around fantasy will have some sort of predatory animal as an adversary at some point and a lot of open world games will feature birds or even mammals for ambiance. Which leads to the first point. Animals as adversaries. Personally I don't mind it. Although it may pain some people to shoot or stab virtual wolves or bears it is fine by me. I have virtually shot wolves, fought bears and stalked deer. What I can see as a potential problem however is that predators often tend to be demonized and lead to misinformation. People complain that stories or shows give some animals a bad name and quite frankly I think that some video games have gone to extreme lengths in regards to predators. Beware though! Should we accuse the games? Shouldn't we educate our children on the fact these animals are just virtual and that the actual animals are nothing like this. In addition to that, isn't it likely that a bear or tiger attack could occur in the wild. Is it really that wrong for video games to include video game attacks by animals? I am not saying that most games are accurate but who wants to include wolves in their game when the actual animal is very elusive. What would be the point? In my opinion the demonization of predators shouldn't happen but as with many other things in video games, it is all fake and in the end it is either up to us or the educational system to teach to our children that these animals aren't real.

Which leads me to my second point. Should violence against video game animals be considered abusive? PETA and other groups believe that games such as Battlefield 3(which included one scene that you have to kill a rat or be discovered), the upcoming Assassin's creed 4(which involves pirates and whaling) or Red Dead Redemption(where you can shoot the entire American Frontier) encourage animal violence. My opinion is that it doesn't. Shooting a virtual whale, while although controversial, will not harm animals nor will it cause the consumers to be pro whaling. Video game violence in some cases may be obvious, in others not. Pokemon will not encourage children to battle animals with each other and neither will killing and skining animals in Red Dead Redemption. In the end of the day it comes down to proper education. Virtual animals are exactly that, virtual. Unless there is a video game that doesn't out right torture animals, it doesn't warrant any sort of trouble.In my opinion it is a waste of time and money to campaign and advocate against this sort of cause, where there are a variety of other causes that are well worth campaigning.

Kudos however to some games who have done some research in regards to nature and set up a proper ecosystem of sorts. In Red Dead Redemption, hunting is just part of the open world environment but it is a way to make money and animals are everywhere. However animals are distributed by habitats, they hunt, seek water and will take livestock. The ecosystem pretty much feels alive. Want to hunt bears? Try mountainous areas where they den. Saw a deer carcass? A predator is probably around. These sort of video games, although featuring hunting, create an appreciation for nature and the animals themselves.

In my opinion it comes down to education. Video game animals are fake, education will stick forever. If proper education occurs there is no reason to fear anything from video games. As I said there are other causes to advocate for which deserve your attention more. In my opinion let video games be. Advocating against them will do nothing more but label you as stupid or a fanatic both of which do not benefit the purpose of conservation advocates but rather hurts it. People should focus on the real matters at hand and ignore video games.

Science and advocacy

This is an issue that has been crossing my mind for a few days now. The result of this was an article that I read which debated whether scientists can actually advocate for animals or habitats they are studying. Some people say they shouldn't, while others say they should and both arguments have some validity to them.
If you define the purpose of a biology scientist, it is to discover how the field of biology works through observation and experimentation. For the results and the data to be of any significance then the science must be completely objective and not biased. Arguments for the validity of data collected by scientists who are advocating for conservation can come into discussion as well. People tend to believe that researchers fond of a particular animal will skew data their way to show how the animals they are studying require a lot more conservation efforts. Predators tend to get the spotlight as trophic cascades have allowed an inside view into how top predators affect the community of an ecosystem. However where does it stop? Naturally with trophic cascades you can go as far as you would like and still attribute certain effects to predators or herbivores. This is what worries scientists as some of them may end up attributing way to much into certain animals while that may not be the case.
However advocating scientists tend to the ones most passionate about the subject they study. They often advocate because no science or even false science is used in conservation efforts and to create management plans. An example of that is Jay Mallone who recently published a paper criticising the science behind the Montana wolf management plan. Although this sort of action can be viewed from both sides of the same coin(one being that he is right and the other being that he is being favourable of the animal thus refusing to see the reason of the management plan), I think that advocates tend to be in favour of good proper science that will give the animals/habitats they are trying to preserve a fighting chance.
I suppose it is up to each individual researcher and scientist to know when to distance themselves. It is a crucial skill to learn and accept that perhaps a portion of the animals you love and study will have to be shot down as part of a government’s management plan or for development. Of course there will be those scientists who fail to see when it is time to accept things due to their attachment to animals but then again what is right for habitats or animals may not be as objective as we think. People opinions differ and probably will, which is why science is constantly a debate and a challenging world.