Troubling times

I was going to try my best to fill this blog with optimistic news. I was going to mention how excited I was with my new project and the fact that I am closer to finishing my masters but today I learned about the EPA being frozen. People say it's not really a big deal but I am here to tell you why it is.

Unfortunately a large amount of grant money that funds environmental research comes from the EPA and other federal foundations. The lack of funding means that a lot of research has been halted and alternative funding sources are going to get a lot more competitive in the future. This means that research that was vital may be sidetracked for something deemed to be more important by the funding agencies that still work. All of us in the research departments already know how competitive grants are and with a freeze this big it means a lot less research is going to be carried out.

The hiring freeze will also have a lasting impact. The  sector is highly competitive when it comes to jobs and this freezing means that people trying to work for the environment will have to take any job they get which means that less and less people will be hired and therefore will be proved to go into the private sector. While that's not necessarily bad, a lot of people that hoped to work in Government agencies(myself included) will have to compete twice as much.

It's hard to say exactly what's going to happen. However the record shows that the current administration will probably work more for money rather than the protection of the environment.  This isn't particularly encouraging when you consider that some of the chair positions don't believe in climate change which is deemed to be the most worrying subject in the research community. It isn't always gloom but these are the times we live in.  All we can really hope for is to fight for the environment and what it stands for.

To the extreme

Today I want to talk about extremes. About the extreme activism that is going on and about how adopting an extreme viewpoint may not benefit wildlife what so ever. Once again this is my opinion so feel free to disagree with me if you wish but keep it civil please.

People tend to dislike extreme reactions. It throws people off, it antagonizes them and sometimes it will probably yield worse results than a casual conversation.  An example of this is P.E.T.A . Ahh the great protectors of animals are always there to save the day. Now as I have touched on before, P.E.T.A often does a good job at making sure that animals are treated right and so forth. Why are they hated though? Well because most of their times their ways are radical and extreme enough to push people off the edge. Not to mention the fact that they often channel their energy on the wrong stuff. Lab animals are one of them. I understand that lab animals do not live in the best of conditions. They are often miserable and mistreated and will live a short life. But those animals are needed. Cosmetics aside, lab animals are needed to test new treatments, create a better understanding of the animal and it’s physiology, used for genetic experiments and onwards. A lot of the benefits people enjoy medically wise are a result of lab animals. Do I think that this warrants a poor treatment of animals? No. Can I tolerate it? Yes. This is up to each individual but in my mind there needs to be a set of priorities in what you would like to fix in the world. Advocating for no wildlife trade, animal welfare and being against captivity is all fine but you need to sort out which one should be your highest priority and focus on that. The world will not just wake up one day, abolish all the practices you deem as cruel and unnatural and continue going as it did.  If all animals are treated fairly then you will have a harder time buying beef as it will be scarcer and a lot more expensive. If lab animals are abolished then a cure for many diseases could be set back years and years. So tolerate what you can and channel your energy towards your priority goals.

 To continue with that you have to understand this: Extremists are not liked. Whether you are an activist for animal rights, animal abuse, conservation or the protection of wildlife, there are very few circumstances that being on the extreme actually helped.  There are like-minded people out there who try and reason with the “enemy” instead of going extreme. People who would rather talk and try and convince the Japanese out of whaling, reduce quotas and use science to determining whaling instead of going out and blocking  the Japanese fleet.  These people are often part of an NGO and will often try and fight the good fight to help conservation or animal rights along. Guess who is giving them a bad name? Extreme/radical organizations. People like to pigeon hole and stereotype and while it is not good practice most groups are usually placed in the same category as the more extreme groups.  It’s sad to see conservation organizations have their work undermined because no one takes them seriously due to the actions of another organization which acts much more extremely. 

And this is unfortunately another point which frustrates me. Extremist organizations are almost never satisfied unless the measures they see fit are implemented.  For examples many conservation organizations are willing to give out some ground in a dispute. They would prefer that a small portion of animals are hunted or harvested but the overall protection and survival of the species remain the same or similar. They would prefer that small areas of forests are cut down if it means that the remain forest is secured.  A compromise for them is often a victory enough. It’s a stepping stone to which greater things can be achieved and let’s face it, humanity as a whole will never have the same viewpoints. So for the conservation organizations, every victory counts.  Now imagine that a treaty has been signed protecting a large area of prime habitat with a lot of endangered species. In return an x amount of animas deemed appropriate by science, can be harvest throughout the year and an y amount of trees can be felled. This has been scientifically proven to have little effect to the habitat and hence the habitat will survive and thrive. Then along come extremists which protest and want the whole area protected and so on. This automatically gives the conservationists a bad name as greedy, puts the logging/hunting party on the defensive and achieves nothing more than create tension where it was just relieved. Hence more damage done that good.

If you want to be part of extremist groups then it is your own right to do so. I am simply underlining the damage that can be done by such groups. If you feel strong about a subject then the best thing to do is study more about it, support people working on the subject and try and educate more people through calm and peaceful means. Understand when someone just wants to kill animals and rest your case. Not all of humanity can be swayed towards your way.

Let's meet halfway

Today’s article is because of some recent events that I observed.  As I already said, I have been accepted into a center to study wolf behavior over the summer as part of my dissertation. Naturally worried family and friends are all anxious about my health. What if the wolves turn on me? Won’t they rip me to shreds? Will the insurance policy cover it?

Joking aside I was still shocked by the misinformation and lack of proper scientific knowledge the general public has. I am not expecting a person to know the latin names of each wolf subspecies or all of their behavior. I do however expect at least a common understanding. Wolves won’t attack humans. This isn’t about wolves though. It’s about science and communication.  Science and the general public rarely mix.

It is only recently that scientists acknowledged that the general public should understand the weight that some papers and experiments have on the way the world is shaped. Will the general public ever know though? Highly doubt it. For this scientists are to blame. By publishing papers that are too specialized, by underestimating the general public and not believing them able to grasp the concepts of science, we are alienating the public.

Now I am in no means a proper scientist yet. Even if I was I am more versed in Biology and mostly Zoological matters. This means that although I can read a scientific paper, it doesn’t always mean I can understand it.  This is particularly annoying when the subject is one that I am familiar with. If it was a physics paper then I understand why I failed to grasp it. But I am third year into my Zoology degree and there are papers that are still hard for me to read.

Imagine then a person interesting in animals. Let’s say they are interesting in physiology. Let’s say that they got a textbook and got a general grasp of the subject but they are rather inquisitive and want to know more. Now someone recommends a more advanced textbook or an academic paper. The frustration of not understanding what you are reading may be enough to make this person abandon their curiosity because they can’t understand the subject.  Wouldn’t that be frustrating for the scientist? It’s not a lie that research grants are hard to come by. If however the general public knew exactly what your research was about then maybe scientists would have an easier time trying to sort out grants, approvals etc.  Also if the public were slightly more aware about certain scientific issues then some policies can be removed or prevented. Policies that are not supported by scientific evidence but are instead pushed forward by mass public hysteria.

Now it’s not just the scientists fault though. Dear general public. Sometimes you can be so gullible or so pre-occupied that you refuse to question what you read or hear.  In one of the social media I am part of, a picture of a small pink elephant appeared under the caption “Newborn baby elephant”. The comments were regarding how cute it is, and how they have never seen elephants so tiny before. It didn’t take more than a few second to realize that what people were commenting on was in fact a dead elephant fetus. I mean come on guys. A lot of the general public may have never been around elephants before but most of you must have watched at least one documentary with them. Since when are elephants born that way? It’s not the picture that angers me. It’s the fact that people refuse to so much as double check the facts.  Search engines and encyclopedias are right in our fingertips and yet I still hear that a shark cull is a good thing.

By believing in pretty much everything they read sometimes the general public can bring scientists to a point where decide that they won’t actually bother anymore because no matter what they try and do, they feel the general opinion won’t change.

And this is what I propose. Let’s meet half way huh? What if scientists decided to try and make their publications easier to read but also the general public decided to try and keep up with science news and question everything that they are being told. If that were to happen then perhaps science wouldn’t be under a public media barrage and perhaps scientists wouldn’t be angry when legislations are passed that defy scientific work. It’s a simple solution that is really hard to implement and perhaps that is one of the sad things. But slowly we are getting there. The more educated the public and the less specialists the scientists become then the more science can be embraced as a tool to discovering the world.

An open letter regarding the University of Aberdeen accused for whaling

This is an article that I have been dying to write for a while now. My university has been accused of using whaling data in a project recently http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/aberdeen-university-under-fire-over-whale-slaughter-1-3200216. This caused quite a stir, especially in the Biological Sciences students who were shocked. After poking about and asking people, a few of us found that the data that were used, were from already harvested whales. Some students were still shocked while others, much like myself relaxed. In the end of the day data are data and so long as they were done ethically or in the past then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be used. Now I don’t know exactly what the data were used for. Talking to some people around university it seems to be for a PhD project that dealt with the effect of whaling as well as whale watching on whale species but then others say it had to do with whale physiology.  I hardly think it is relevant at this stage.

Allow me to elaborate. Science that deals with wild animals in their natural habitat is tricky. Some animals can be elusive, migrate, budget cuts can prevent you from doing exactly what you want, extreme weather conditions or extreme environments are few of the reasons why science is hard to conduct with wild animals. Scientists in general try their best to obtain their own data but will not shy away from using data from other sources. Whether these sources are volunteers conducting surveys on their own time ( as per the case of Shorewatch  done by  WDC which is an excellent use of volunteer time and locations), hunters reporting kills, trappers reporting catches, roadkill sites, sightings and so forth. The internet alone is filled with sites where everyday people can log in and report sightings of animals.  These data are used by scientists, NGOs, of even government organizations and find themselves in academic journals as well.  It is a matter that needs to be understood by the general public. Scientists are not always able to collect fresh data and hence may use older data which might have been gathered in less ethical ways or with questionable means.

Now this is where it falls to the individual. Some scientists may have no quarrel using data from any source so long as the data can help them gain an understanding of what is going on. Others may take  a more ethical route and prefer to make sure that animals have been treated fairly. Others simply try not to disturb the animals. There are myriad ways of thinking and whether they are right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, using the whaling data was fine. I understand the fact that in a way, the whaling industry is still supported if you use the data but the animals are dead and the data is already collected. Sure, this may be used to justify further whaling and I am not for that.  I do not agree with whaling due to the damage it does to the general population and the fact that whales  cannot recover from such harvesting easily. But in this particularly case the data are already present so why not use them. It is a moral conundrum surely but it won’t change the fact that these animals are dead already. In a way it is best that they at least be used for something.

My main issue is the way journalism has handled the particular subject.  Flaring articles accusing the university for whaling while very little was actually given in terms of what had happened.   Like most press these days, some articles were unbiased and provided information and some didn’t. This led to a confusing state both amongst students, staff and the rest of the world.  Maybe if it was handled better by both the University and the press then no confusion would have happened and people would be able to reach a conclusion on the own on whether they support what happened or not.

In the end of the day what appeared to be a shocking story ended up being a matter of personal views and opinions as the fog cleared out, but some damage may have already been done  that may be irreversible. Once again don’t trust what you read and question everything at least once before you believe it.

Conservation misconceptions

Today I want to talk to you about some popular misconceptions people have in regards to conservation. Like any sort of topic, conservation has also fallen victim to some popular misunderstanding by the general public and I here I am trying to analyse why some of these are wrong or how they have been misinterpreted.

IUCN Red List: The International Union for Conservation of Nature is the international body that judges a species status and gives it a rating from “Least Concern”all the way to “Extinct”. However as said the Red List is international and judges a species' distribution, ecology and population. This can lead to a misconception that an animal that is listed “Least Concern”is not actually endangered in a particular area. A vivid example is the wolf in the United States. The population there was deemed as endangered exactly because there were not a lot of there around in the United States. Internationally the wolf is not actually endangered, with populations of the tens of thousands in Russia and Canada. This is one of the most classic cases of misconception regarding different bodies and organizations of conservation.

Conservationists don't kill animals: This is unfortunately not true. As much as conservation organizations would love not to hurt animals, a lot of animals are killed every years in the name of conservation. Whether it is grey squirrels trapped and killed in order to help the red squirrels recover or whether it is invasive species killed or predators culled,killing does occur in conservation. It is however done humanely and with the greater good in mind. Invasive species are removed because they damage the environments, predators are killed to give endangered prey animals a temporary relief of pressure and so forth. The decision to kill animals is not one that comes easy and often there is a lot of debate and scientific investigation before a decree is issued. If you have any doubt on whether particular animals are shot in the name of conservation, then I urge you to research the subject as certain organization use the “greater good”excuse to push their own agendas.

Reintroduction are done in secret, with different animals than the ones that used to be here: Another common misconception is that conservationists go around reintroducing species in secret of the public. Although reintroduction sites and other records may remain secret to protect the best interest of the animals, there will never be the case of animals being reintroduced in a habitat without the people being aware of it. This will put animals and humans in danger especially if the animals are predators. There should be several legal issues on the reintroduced animals so as the money and time of the organizations involved won't go to waste if the animals are killed. In addition to that conservationists do not reinforce a current population without approval for the government etc. It costs money, time and a lot of lobbying and you have to remember that conservation organization not only do they have the greater good of nature in their mind but also care about humans. Animals that are different that the native ones are also a misconception as different animals may affect the environment differently. Animals are being reintroduced to maintain or restore a particular balance of an ecosystem. By reintroducing the wrong type of animals may mean that particular niches are not filled, other animals may be harmed and the balance may be skewed completely.

These and other misconceptions that I will try and analyse on another article are what is hampering particular conservation efforts or making others worse. I recommend keeping in mind that conservationists not only do they want the good of the environment but also the people so think twice before believing everything you have been told.

A wrong cause

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about why you should research the organisations you support and why it is crucial to apply critical thinking and investigating your organisation before you start supporting them. In this article I plan to expand a little bit on causes. People tend to take up causes that although seem to be well intended might end up screwing up with others plans other organisations have in place for the benefit of others. I am talking about wildlife of course and in particular animals.

Conservation has it's dark moments. Not only does it seem like it's a war that seems to be lost with so many defeats and very few victories(depending on where you stand) but working for conservation you might have to be involved with a task that few are happy about. Culling. Culling is basically the act of killing animals in order to thin out their numbers. It is often done to make sure that some animals don't overpopulate, to remove invasive species, to stop a disease from spreading, to prevent inbreeding(this is quite questionable) and to relieve other species from the pressure the culled species might be inflicting on them. For example it is common practice to cull predators in a habitat where a particular prey is considered endangered. As is natural, an animal loving public will protest to the “unjust” killing of these animals and it is true that although it is highly unlikely that an individual animal has done anything to blame, for conservationists they have to go. A recent example of this is the attempt to protect whatever Scottish wildcats(felis silvestris grampia)are left in the wild. One of the methods that this is done with is with the culling of feral cats(with which the wildcats hybridise and also the feral cats spread diseases to the wildcats). The public however was not happy to hear that game keepers will be going around trapping feral cats and killing them. Protests from certain people and specific groups occurred and now plans have changed to neuter and vaccinate the feral cats. Although unknown to me as to whether these plans were already in motion or if they changed from culling to neutering which it is to my opinion a more costly and harmful approach. Another example is the removal of grey squirrels(Sciurus carolinesis) from Scotland and ultimately from the U.K in general in order to allow red squirrels(Sciurus vulgaris) to thrive. Public outcries about the grey squirrel have died out as people realize the necessity of removing them.

If you are going to advocate for certain animals or certain animal rights then make sure you read up on all the facts. The animal may be cute, may be majestic but in the end it might be that it's harming the ecosystem a lot more. However make sure you do your research well. Groups with agendas will often misinform the public by being selective on what they quote and publish(see my previous article). It is often a good practise to contact both sides and then deciding. If you decide for example that grey squirrels shouldn't be killed because of the mistakes humans made then that's fine. Human morals vary after all. Just make sure you are not misled and used for other agendas.

Supporting the right people

Advocating for conservation is not an easy job. Everyone can tell you that. In fact studying any conservation biology modules or degrees can be downright depressing. Sometimes it feels like for every good thing that happens, three more bad things occur. It feels bleak, grim and sometimes soul crushing. But these people give their everything for every inch of ground gained against those who don't care about the environment. Is it always the case though? Be careful which organizations you support, where you work or volunteer and where your funding goes. Today I will tell you why you should be careful.

Firstly conservation organizations have goals in mind. Without goals there is no point in having them around, and although it might seem that they are working for the greater good of the environment some of these organizations have secret agendas that they pursue. For example, apart from some extreme organizations, an organizations won't call itself “the organization for killing wolves and slaughtering cougars and bears”. Instead it will choose to call it itself “the balanced nature organization”and advocate for predator culls and eradication claiming that the predator population is harming the rest of the ecosystem. Most organization like that often are under disguise and their motives should be questioned.

Although most of these “organizations” have been subjected to scrutiny and may have had their real motives known to the world, there are still those who might mislead people into supporting them. If possible take some time and do some research before choosing to support a local conservation organization.

In addition to motives, actions speak louder. Before choosing to volunteer or donate money to a conservation organization observe them a bit. How active are they? Have their actions had some sort of impact? Have the money you are giving them produced some result? Usually donations are in packs of a monthly or yearly donation. Do you feel that the money you are giving them produce an equivalent amount of work? Remember you are donating an organization who coincides with your ideals or does work that you believe is right. If an organization has 10 000 members that donate around $30 a year but the organization does nothing but organize a fund raiser and is not even present in the conservation front line then maybe its time to change your donations. Be careful though. Your organization may not win the battles it is fighting. It is often the problem with conservation, that people are fighting a losing battle but every inch saved is a small victory. Sometimes grand victories will be won but more often than not conservation is about a collection of small victories that matter. So if your preferred organization is out there everyday, attending conferences, participating in research, fighting legislation and getting involved but the government refuses to listen to them then it might not have been their actions that prompt the government to ignore them. Internet is your best ally at this point. Use a search engine and find out what your organization has been up to and what have they done in the past. Here are few bullet points that in my opinion can give you a broader perspective about the groups that you support:

• How long have they been set up? Through age you know that there will be a record of the group's actions
• How often are they mentioned? With age comes exposure. The younger the group the less exposure will be around. If an organization is young but is mentioned in news articles constantly it means they are driven which is usually good. If they are an old organization and not mentioned then that they might not be as driven.
• Observe the website. The news section, the networking and the design usually points to a well structured organization.
• Ask around. Don't be afraid to email them asking for actions taken and why you should support them. If they are driven or care they will reply to you with information. Further more look around in different forums and read what other people say.

In regards to volunteering, then things are often easier to distinguish. By entering an organization you join a circle. That circle may be small and limited to your coworkers but you learn things. While you are there you will hear conversations, you will hear viewpoints and if you don't agree with what they are saying then get out. If you support any sort of organization with your time and effort and don't feel good doing it then there is hardly any point of volunteering there. Be careful of what you support as well while volunteering there. Know your organizations objectives, ideas and viewpoints and covey them whenever you can. If you think you are doing doesn't agree with you then stop volunteering there.

Finally use your judgment. You have done some pocking around and read about the organization. Now it's time to use your judgment. Apply it to what you learned. If in the end you think that the organization is worth it then support them in any way you can. If you can't volunteer in the field and don't have money to donate but want to help, email them. They might direct you in some ways that you can help. It might seem like nothing to you but liking&sharing on Facebook, setting up a website, monitoring websites or inputting numbers on a spreadsheet might help an organization a long way. Don't be afraid to offer your services no matter what they might be.

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.