Species of the week: Long-legged Buzzard

Species of the week:
Long-legged Buzzard(Buteo rufinus)

1. It can grow from 43-58 cm in length and have a wingspan of 100-155cm.
2. It has three colour types: white, rufous and black. 
3. They can be found in semi-arid areas as well as semi-deserts and steppee.
4. It's a bird of prey and forages food by hovering and soaring and scanning for prey by a vantage point.
5. They prefer to hunt in open spaces where they can use their eyesight to spot prey.
6. It feeds on small mammals, insects and reptiles.
7. They often reconstruct nests used by other birds to give birth to their eggs.
8. They lay three to five eggs, once a year.
9. The eggs are incubated for 30-35 days and the hatchlings remain at the nest for 43-45 days.
10. They are listed as "Least Concern"by the IUCN but some populations have been declining lately.

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.

Species of the Week: Plateau pika

Species of the week:
Plateau Pika(Ochotona curzoniae)

1. It weights around 120-150g when fully grown.
2. Their main habitat is about 3200km-5300m above sea level. In this kind of altitude oxygen concentrations are less than we are used to.
3. They are found in the Tibetan Plateau and in high altitude steppes, deserts and meadows in India, Nepal and Pakistan.
4. They are considered a keystone species due their recycling of nutrients in the ecosystem. As their habitat is often in need of nutrients, the presence of pikas means that more and more nutrients are recycled.
5. Pikas have a monogamous and  polygamous groups.
6. These groups usually contain 3 males to 4 females.
7. Females usually breed every three weeks after the last litter is born.
8. They give birth to 2-5 litters each consisting of 2-7 offsprings.
9. Breeding season last from April to August.
10. Groups form reproductive alliances, helping each other raise their young, deter predators and make sure that genetic diversity is maintained.

What being a field scientist is really about.

Canines have always been a passion for me.  I loved dogs ever since I can remember and I got more and more interested in wolves in my late teens. It was since then that I decided I would like to specialize on wolves in the future, study them and help in their conservation.  I am currently on my way towards trying to achieve that by becoming a researcher. When I am done with my undergraduate, I will apply for a Masters and a PhD, get a Dr. slapped in front of my name and begin a life of wolf studying. The main reason why I am writing this article is because people tend to have a skewed notion of what this will entail. Not just wolves but other animals as well. The media have exposed the public to people who love animals(either through documentaries, reality shows or viral videos) and people either expect you to end up that way or expect themselves to end up that way.

Case and point is Steve Irwin. For those who don’t know Steve Irwin was a brilliant naturalist, a man with a passion in conserving the Australian wildlife and he had a strong love for crocodiles. He is often seen jumping around, being really energetic, picking up animals, wrestling crocodiles and the sort.  Now Steve Irwin was a brilliant passionate person and a great conservationist but he was never a scientist. Not in the conventional sense at least.  Any scientist passionate about crocodiles would not do what he did. It’s not to say that what he did was wrong.  By all means Steve educated generation upon generation (including me) about the Australian wildlife and he was a brilliant TV persona. He was not however a scientist. As much as we all would like  to have a life similar to Steve’s, a scientist’s research is either done in the lab or in the field for a while, then data analysis and then writing. If any biologist is intrigued by crocodiles, then they will either monitor them from afar, breed them in lab conditions or take data from somewhere else.  It all depends on what you would like to investigate on a particular animal.

When I tell people I want to study wolves I often get send videos of Shaun Ellis, usually with comments along the lines of “this will be you in a few years”and so forth. I hope it is not.  The closest I can hope to be is any videos you see from field biologists conducting wolf research such as Doug Smith. Although they handle wolves, most of the science done is either through observation or non-invasive behavior. And at times where humans actually get involved with wolves it is under controlled situations. Allow me to explain why. If you were to bond with a pack of wolves, a pride of lions etc you skew animal behavior, you mess with the data. This sort of data would not be accepted by the scientific community due to biased nature in which they were gathered. Hence if I ever were to become a TV persona  then it will probably mean I am not a scientist.

There needs to be a clear distinction. The people you see on TV handling animals are rarely scientists and what they are doing most of the times is not science. While some documentaries feature recordings of the methods that are used in scientific research, they do not show the painstaking statistical analysis or the paper analysis. I am not saying don’t be a scientist. Just be wary of what the media pass on as science and just take everything with a pinch of salt.

Finally, Steve Irwin was a great influence in my life. This article is by no means meant to be a disrespectful to him what so ever. I just thought I could clear the lines for people who don’t get the differences.

Species of the Week: Goosander

Species of the Week:
Goosander(Mergus merganser)

1. It is found in Europe, North America and central and northern Asia.
2. It's wingspan is 78-98cm long and weigh about 0.8-2.1 kg.
3. Males during breeding season have a greenish hue on their head while females and juvenile males have a brownish hue.
4. These ducks have sawbills. Sawbills are bills that have serrated edges to help them hold their prey and grab their prey easily.
5. They are diving birds, which means that they dive into the water to acquire their food. 
6. Goosander lay about 6-17  white to yellowish eggs that usually incubate in tree cavities.
7. When they are disturbed they will disgorge their food before running away.
8. Goosander have been known to stumble and fall frequently when they are on land.
9. They can be found in both salt-water and fresh-water areas
10. Although not threatened, some conservation work has been undertaken to make sure they aren't victims of shooting or poisoning.

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.

Updates

Hello there everyone,
First of all allow me to apologize for missing the last couple of  the "species of the week"series. Ill try not to miss them from now on.
I just wanted to share some news with you and some ideas for the blog.

First things first. Over the summer I will be in Austria at a science center to do my Bachelor's research on wolf behavior. I am not sure how accessible the internet will be but I will try my best to add least queue a few articles for you. If I get internet access then I will provide my experiences for you read while I am there. So expect a lot of wolf talk over the summer.

Secondly I find that if I have set series it keeps me motivated to write so I decided to review documentaries along with species of the week. I will start with a documentary a month and then see from their own.

Thirdly, I will be writing more articles with one coming soon.

Thanks for understanding
Pete