Thanks to my mom for reminding me to update! Been so busy during my time here in Seattle, and haven't gotten around to it. Today, I gave myself a birthday present and went whale watching! Saw lots of harbor seals, a couple Steller's sea lions, and a couple bald eagles, but unfortunately no whales. Luckily, the company I booked it with has a guarantee and I can go on another cruise for free until I do see whales. Wish me luck on Saturday!
But anyway, back to my internship! The past two weeks have been great. I've really been honing the skills I've been learning, and successfully intubated several birds. I even got to do an anesthesia session on my own and succeeded! It was a young male mallard duck that came in with a broken leg. Jean was sick that day, so with the observation of Dr. Huckabee, I did everything I needed to do on my own to get radiographs and monitor under anesthesia while the exam an'd assessment was done. The duck was found to have an old fracture on the leg, but we decided to see how he would fare with some time to swim in the pool and perhaps heal on his own.
We did a number of "shoes" for patients these past couple weeks. Included in the shoe fittings were an American crow, a violet-green swallow, and a dark eyed junco. Each of these young birds had problems using their toes or feet, and a shoe was fastened to hold the toes in a normal position for a couple days to "reset" their position. The shoes were made from a variety of materials, including old x-ray film or stiff paper for a sole, and tegaderm, steri-strips, and vetrap to hold the shoe on. The crow and the swallow did remarkably and no longer are wearing shoes. The junco was not doing so well on an unrelated nest-mate illness.
I've also been practicing reading blood slides. Avian blood is much different than mammal blood, and it's interesting to look at. The patients I did the smears on suffered from anemia or had huge loads of blood parasites. Jean and Dr. Huckabee have been great in helping me identify the different white blood-cells and to perform estimates and differentials. The blood parasites of course have been the most interesting to me. The ones we've identified them in and treated for have had improving smears with less parasites and a good red blood cell regenerative response, meaning they're producing more red blood cells to battle the anemia. However, I've been told that some birds, like great horned owls almost always have blood parasites and they resolve themselves with no treatment. Cool how nature can take care of itself sometimes, eh?
One of the coolest things we did this week was take radiographs of three river otters that presented a few months ago with nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism, or metabolic bone disease. These otters, since I've been here, have had to deal with some other tough obstacles, including serious hyperthermia (heat stroke) during a record-setting hot day during the first week, and a sudden bout of corneal ulcers and conjunctivitis. This was to be their last set of x-rays to see how well their bones had been healing after treating for the MBD, which was basically a daily round of Tums, which added calcium to their diet. Luckily for all three, the radiographs turned out magnificently, and the otters are on the home stretch and can now enjoy their new enclosure with a nice deep pool with a current to swim in. That is, once they get over their fear of water!
The amount of time the vet team puts into small, tiny birds amazes me. So many songbirds come in with enormous soft tissue wounds, tears, and punctures from domestic cat attacks, and the vet team doesn't skip a beat to put the poor bird under anesthesia to spend the better part of half an hour suturing a tear the size of a fingernail. I've seen tiny splints for bird legs not wider than a toothpick and no longer than an inch or two. Splints made from paper clips, tape, wooden sticks, soldered metal, custom fit hinged braces, webbing cut and molded into the shape of duck feet. The dedication, ingenuity, and time spent are inspiring.
I go into this last week with more confidence and a thirst to learn the most that I can before I have to go back. I look forward to updating you all afterwards!
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Saturday, July 5, 2014
PAWS Internship, Week 1
Last year I began the veterinary technician program at a local community college. I felt my skills in wildlife rehabilitation were inadequate and I wanted to provide better medical care, so I became the luckiest person in the world to have a guardian angel to help me financially through the vet tech program for the next two years, as well as making a great friend to talk to. In January of this year, I applied and was accepted for an externship at the PAWS Wildlife Center in Lynnwood, WA. I applied for a full four week vet tech externship. I started this week and I couldn't have asked for a better experience so far.
PAWS takes in over 3000 wild animals each year and has been around since the 80's. They have an expansive wildlife hospital, a full time and part time vet on staff, two vet techs, several rehabbers, and a huge support staff. They take everything from songbirds to opossums to bears, eagles, and harbor seals. Being in the great northwest, there is a huge variety of species big and small. And PAWS is equipped to handle each of these species with really amazing enclosures. The ducks and other water birds have large pools with floating platforms and enough room to dive and swim, the otters have in ground pools to swim in, the flight cages can be opened or closed to adjacent cages to change the size the birds are allowed, the raccoons are limited to their own buildings, and the baby bird nursery is fool-proof with signs everywhere on how to feed, feeding formulas labeled and indicated on feeding charts and great training program for volunteers specifically for that area in place. Everything is cleaned daily and the volunteer base is large and dedicated.
My part is on the "vet team" of PAWS, which is nothing short of amazing. Dr. John Huckabee, the full time vet at PAWS, is a wealth of knowledge and never disappoints in your quest to learn more. He asks questions often to get your brain going. Dr. John is also teaching a vet student intern, so I take the opportunity to listen in on their chats to get a little extra education. My supervisor is Jean, who has been a vet tech at PAWS for 8 years and really knows her stuff and is always teaching and giving the opportunity to learn. I hope someday I can be as good as her at anesthesia monitoring and jumping into action.
The vet team is separate from the rehabbers. Rehabbers do intakes on new patients and monitor animals as well as create diets, supervise volunteers, and are more involved in the caging, general care, monitoring, enrichment, etc. I hope someday to see a little bit more of what they do. The vet team is more focused on animals that need critical care or a vet consult. For instance, a bird that can't stand that needs radiographs, bloodwork needing done on a sick animal, a recheck on an animal that received previous vet care such as a splint or a wrap or wound management. Decisions are also made by the vet team on whether to continue supportive care on an animal of concern or whether to humanely euthanize.
Each day starts off with a rounds meeting in the vet office with the vet team and rehabbers on staff. A print out of all animals in vet care is given to each person and rounds are done, going through each animal, the animal's presenting problem, and the plan. A second sheet is created by the vet tech outlining which animals will be checked on that day, as well as what animals will be NPO'ed (that is, not fed) so that they can be anesthetized for a procedure. All animals getting radiographs are anesthetized and, if possible, intubated. Wings are taped down on the plate with masking tape while monitoring the animal for breathing patterns, heart rate, and plane of anesthesia. V/D and Lateral views are taken for each patient, with more requested as needed.
Some patients I've come across so far are river otters, lots of northern flickers, American robins, dark-eyed juncos, mallards, a harbor seal, lots of American crows, a red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, hummingbirds, swallows, a gull, and many more to come. We've done wound flushing and management, splints, wraps, PCV/TS, medications, fracture assessments, and emergency medicine (heat stroke). I've gotten great practice in bird venipuncture, especially in jugular, ulnar, and tarsal veins. Now just to hold that syringe a little more steady haha.
I'm only a week into this internship and already I am sad I only have three weeks left. This place is great, and I couldn't have asked for anything more. Can't wait to see what's to follow for the weeks to come!
PAWS takes in over 3000 wild animals each year and has been around since the 80's. They have an expansive wildlife hospital, a full time and part time vet on staff, two vet techs, several rehabbers, and a huge support staff. They take everything from songbirds to opossums to bears, eagles, and harbor seals. Being in the great northwest, there is a huge variety of species big and small. And PAWS is equipped to handle each of these species with really amazing enclosures. The ducks and other water birds have large pools with floating platforms and enough room to dive and swim, the otters have in ground pools to swim in, the flight cages can be opened or closed to adjacent cages to change the size the birds are allowed, the raccoons are limited to their own buildings, and the baby bird nursery is fool-proof with signs everywhere on how to feed, feeding formulas labeled and indicated on feeding charts and great training program for volunteers specifically for that area in place. Everything is cleaned daily and the volunteer base is large and dedicated.
My part is on the "vet team" of PAWS, which is nothing short of amazing. Dr. John Huckabee, the full time vet at PAWS, is a wealth of knowledge and never disappoints in your quest to learn more. He asks questions often to get your brain going. Dr. John is also teaching a vet student intern, so I take the opportunity to listen in on their chats to get a little extra education. My supervisor is Jean, who has been a vet tech at PAWS for 8 years and really knows her stuff and is always teaching and giving the opportunity to learn. I hope someday I can be as good as her at anesthesia monitoring and jumping into action.
The vet team is separate from the rehabbers. Rehabbers do intakes on new patients and monitor animals as well as create diets, supervise volunteers, and are more involved in the caging, general care, monitoring, enrichment, etc. I hope someday to see a little bit more of what they do. The vet team is more focused on animals that need critical care or a vet consult. For instance, a bird that can't stand that needs radiographs, bloodwork needing done on a sick animal, a recheck on an animal that received previous vet care such as a splint or a wrap or wound management. Decisions are also made by the vet team on whether to continue supportive care on an animal of concern or whether to humanely euthanize.
Each day starts off with a rounds meeting in the vet office with the vet team and rehabbers on staff. A print out of all animals in vet care is given to each person and rounds are done, going through each animal, the animal's presenting problem, and the plan. A second sheet is created by the vet tech outlining which animals will be checked on that day, as well as what animals will be NPO'ed (that is, not fed) so that they can be anesthetized for a procedure. All animals getting radiographs are anesthetized and, if possible, intubated. Wings are taped down on the plate with masking tape while monitoring the animal for breathing patterns, heart rate, and plane of anesthesia. V/D and Lateral views are taken for each patient, with more requested as needed.
Some patients I've come across so far are river otters, lots of northern flickers, American robins, dark-eyed juncos, mallards, a harbor seal, lots of American crows, a red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, hummingbirds, swallows, a gull, and many more to come. We've done wound flushing and management, splints, wraps, PCV/TS, medications, fracture assessments, and emergency medicine (heat stroke). I've gotten great practice in bird venipuncture, especially in jugular, ulnar, and tarsal veins. Now just to hold that syringe a little more steady haha.
I'm only a week into this internship and already I am sad I only have three weeks left. This place is great, and I couldn't have asked for anything more. Can't wait to see what's to follow for the weeks to come!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Exotic Pets Should Stay Exotic
There’s a certain age most of us go through where we love all animals. It’s usually when we’re young. Nothing is cooler than going to a petting zoo or a mall where you can do the coolest thing ever: pet, play with, and hold fuzzy, rambunctious tiger cubs. I know my eyes sparkled when I saw men or women with adorable capuchin monkeys on their shoulders or cuddling with them on the street or in movies or television. To this day, I absolutely adore animals and would very much love to live with these beautiful, amazing creatures.
However, I also know that it is not fair to the animals and it is my moral obligation not to keep these animals as my personal pets. Many, many people do not share this same sentiment. A search on Google or YouTube for videos or stories of people owning and proudly displaying their exotic pets is growing increasingly in number. I’ve seen videos of adorable animals ranging from monkeys to wild cats to even sloths! Most of these people are very proud of their pets and their ownership of them, and through personal experience I have noticed that they will defend to the death their right to own an exotic animal and that there is nothing wrong with it. Well, “wrong” is subjective, but here I will outline the range of arguments I’ve come across and my counter points to them. If it isn’t clear, my stance on exotic pets is that it should not be legal to keep them or breed them unless in very specific circumstances that I’ll address later. It is my firm belief that wild animals belong in the wild, and not in our homes. My reasons why will be covered in the following arguments.
Argument: A wild animal’s life in captivity is much, much longer than their life span in the wild, where they can and will be hunted by poachers, game hunters, or struck by a car, die of starvation, eaten, or become displaced by habitat loss. In captivity they will be fed well, receive tender loving care, will be able to play until its heart’s content, and live a full, happy, safe life. Places you can find this argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64sHRMb5ydc&feature=related, http://repticzone.com/forums/Exotics/messages/1768170.html, http://www.exoticcatz.com/dontban.html, and several YouTube and random forum comments.
Response: Of course an animal’s life in captivity will be longer than in the wild. In the best of care, they’re provided with a nutritious meal every day, fresh water, enrichment, love, attention, and everything you could ask for. Let me put you into this scenario: When you’re born, you are taken into a lovely room with all the toys you could imagine. You’re fed three square meals a day, someone comes in to play with you, and best of all, you live in a hospital, so when you get sick, you’ll be taken care of immediately and won’t have to worry about dying of disease. All you’ll be sacrificing is being able to leave that room, make any friends, or wandering the outside world to socialize, get a job, or do exciting things like ride a bike, bungee jump, get into a fight, or fall in love and have a family. Without all of these risks, you’ll live to a nice, ripe old age of 90 or higher! Man oh man, you’d be set.
Before you start accusing me of anthropomorphizing, just think about it. Sure, this exact situation won’t apply to most animals, but it’s the same basic concept. Animals do run into serious risks such as poaching, as shown in the graphic video linked above. But that is a risk that we all face in different situations. As humans, we are at risk of getting into a car accident, being murdered, skinning our knees, breaking an arm, choking, being seriously injured or dying in a plane/train/car crash, getting lost in the woods or desert and dehydrating or starving… you get the picture. As for starvation or being eaten, that’s nature! If animals weren’t eaten, then several other animals would die. Starvation is a horrible, horrible way to die, but this is how animals evolved. It’s brutal, but it’s survival of the fittest. I’m not saying that we should leave animals to die of starvation if we can help it, but this is what happens in nature. I once read letters to the editor by angry readers of the magazine National Geographic that a photographer did not intervene in the process of wolves slowly killing their elk prey. The brutality of this act shocked many readers and made others very angry that the photographer allowed this animal to suffer. It sounds cold, and as an animal lover myself, it’s hard to say, but that is how nature works. Although nature can be amazingly beautiful at times, it is also unforgiving and brutal. You have to accept that this is how these animals lived for millennia before humans came into the picture.
Some of these animals have amazingly huge territories in the wild. Mountain lions, for instance, defend ranges of 30-125 miles or more (some sites record up to 600 miles for males!). Within this territory, the animal is allowed to run unhindered, climb mountains, find a mate and reproduce, defend its territory, and most of all, hunt. Most animals kept in captivity are repressed in their natural behavior to hunt live prey. I have met or talked to many people who feed their exotic pets raw chicken, beef, pork, and in some cases, extremely unnatural foods (one raccoon owner fed her raccoon a diet of gummy worms and bubble gum). Very, very rarely, if ever, will an owner allow their pet tiger kill a deer, a bobcat kill a rabbit, etc. Snake owners are the biggest exceptions, but that doesn’t make it OK for them to keep the animals as pets for several other reasons.
(From http://www.exoticcatz.com/dontbanconservation.html)
This, my friends, is called anthropomorphizing. How do we know what the “emotional needs” are of a wild cat? They seem to be doing fine in the wild without someone to “love” them. Why do we think that it’s in the cat’s best interest to be loved, snuggle, and receive affection? We, as humans, have this deep desire to pet things and love them, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it’s our desire, and not necessarily that of wild animals who are not humans. Of course they appreciate it; the sensation of being petted is hard to turn down. Anyone being cared for and fed without doing any real work is going to appreciate it. But that doesn’t justify us keeping them in captivity. As wild animals, they evolved to do this on their own.
Counterargument: But by keeping these animals in captivity in responsible homes, we are conserving the species from extinction. These animals will be gone forever if we don’t do something about it.
Response: You’re right. We DO need to do something about it. However, keeping these animals as pets is not the answer. The purchase of exotic animals can become quite expensive. http://www.exoticpetsforsale.com lists a single lemur for $5,500; a pair of spotted skunks for $1,400; and a kudu with a hefty price tag of $10,000. There are pages and pages and pages of exotic animals for sale ranging from muntjac deer to skunks to servals to coati. Just looking at this website or even doing a simple Google search confirms that exotic animals are more business to some people than pets. Some (possibly many) exotic animal owners will breed their pets in order to sell to others. At those prices, it can become very lucrative. As exotic animals are becoming more popular due to advocacy by exotic animal groups or owners such as UAPPEAL, Rexano Exotics, Joe “Exotic” Schreibvogel, USZA, exoticcatz.com and many others, the appeal of owning an exotic animal grows stronger and easier to achieve. With all of this awareness, people could really put their money where their mouth is, and instead of buying a $3,000 animal, could donate to a wildlife conservation program such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club, the American Zoological Association, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, and many, many other organizations that use their funds to protect wildlife habitat, raise awareness on endangered species, support reintroduction of animals into the wild through captive breeding programs, rehabilitate injured and orphaned animals, fund programs to police poaching and illegal hunting, and other causes that work towards the future of wildlife and nature. Is exotic pet ownership really about the preservation of species, or for selfish reasons?
Argument: Exotic pets can be just as dangerous as domesticated pets. No small exotic animal has ever killed a human, but dogs kill people every year. Furthermore, exotic pets can be just as loving and affectionate as regular house pets.
Response: This is difficult to address. The above argument is true. There are far more documented cases of dogs attacking and killing people – especially children – every year. I admit that the media has a habit of reporting attacks on people by exotic pets more than attacks by domestic dogs or cats. They’re bigger news items. However, it’s not a news item that exotic pets, big or small, can be more unpredictable and vicious than their domestic counterparts because of their wild nature. Just as certain breeds of dogs are more predisposed to be aggressive than other breeds, exotic pets maintain genes that retain natural instincts necessary to survive. This is hard to prove scientifically, but with cases such as a chimpanzee attacking a woman, in which the chimp was reported to be “like a child to [the owner]” and was probably well cared for; the infamous tiger attack during a Siegfried and Roy show where it was reported that Roy slept with the tigers for the first year of their life, conditioning them to be affectionate to him; and several other “pet” animal attacks, including snakes, African servals, and other exotics, it shows that even with a life of love, caring, and attention, that like all animals, can be unpredictable, and because most exotic pets are generally larger or more “equipped” than domestic animals (claws, teeth, weight, etc), can do a lot more damage.
The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association’s (APPMA) 2009 National Pet Owners Survey (NPOS) showed that 77.5 million dogs were owned by Americans. It is difficult to find updated statistics on how many people own exotic pets, but in 2004 it was 18.2 million, up from 16.8 million in 2002 according to the NPOS. If the 8% increase trend continues into 2010, we can expect 22.9 million exotic pets in the US at present. That is significantly less than the amount of dogs currently owned. With the nearly 250% difference in dog ownership, there is an obvious trend in numbers that dog attacks will be higher than exotic animal attacks.
Counterargument: Small cats, such as servals, bobcats, and lynx, have not been reported to kill anyone but other domestic pets have.
Response: Possibly. However, just because they haven’t killed anyone doesn’t mean they’re not capable of doing serious damage. As mentioned previously, wild animals come with more “equipment” necessary for survival, and even with small cats this includes very sharp claws, powerful teeth, and amazing strength. They are bigger than your typical house cat, and people with regular cats already know how bad they can be. Some people will declaw or even remove the front canine teeth of their exotic cats, and I find this to be extremely cruel. If you can’t handle the potential damage this animal can do, you should not have one, especially if you have children. Declawing is only benefiting you, and not the animal you claim to love. Some accidents occur even during play time, when the animal has no intention of harming you, but in the excitement of play, can inadvertently claw you badly or bite down too hard. The point is that of course, all pets are capable of doing damage to their owners, but exotic pets are even more capable of increasing that damage. A lot of people love having raccoons as pets. However, here are some articles of interest: http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?spid=&id=2132990 http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/news/headlines/109080229.html. The first is about a raccoon that had to be euthanized because it mauled a baby because it was probably “attracted to the baby’s headband.” The second is a pair of pet raccoons that seriously injured a baby in a crib. I’m sure both owners thought these animals were safe because they raised them personally. I don’t think the raccoons purposely attacked the babies for malicious reasons, but it’s just an indication of how unpredictable and dangerous they can be. Most cats or dogs would not crawl into a baby’s crib and start gnawing on it.
Another article of interest: Man killed by pet deer tells of a man who raised a red stag as a fawn and was then gored to death by the deer. Deer aren't even predatory, yet this deer's hormones and instincts came into play and he gored the man since the man did not have antlers of his own to fight back. Talk about unpredictable and dangerous.
The potential for zoonotic diseases is also something that should be taken into extreme consideration, especially those exotic pet owners that take orphaned wild animals. Wild animals can carry rabies, parvovirus or distemper that can be transmitted to your pets, all kinds of parasites and worms, and some even potentially fatal parasitic larva. All of these are things you should never expose to the people you love.
Argument: Some people claim that because some exotic pet owners cannot properly care for the animals and abuse, neglect, and abandon them, that all exotic pet owners should be liable for this and pay the price for it.
Response: I never use this argument because I’m admittedly on the side of exotic pet owners on this one. Just like regular house pets, exotic pets such as bears, tigers, and ungulates are poorly cared for and given improper diets either because of a lack of knowledge, money, and/or the inability to care for it once it grows out of the small cub/baby stage. Most exotic pet owners will buy a cute baby animal to take home and then not realize the immense financial toll it can take on them. A tiger will eat up to 25 pounds of meat a day. Since tigers can live in captivity for up to 20 years, the costs of this can add up astronomically. Add this to the cost of proper caging, vet bills, enrichment, and other necessary things and you can see why sanctuaries aren’t necessarily rolling in money. The ones that can afford all this and give their animals amazing care deserve kudos. This also applies to domestic animals; there are several people who abuse, torture, and starve animals and yet the rest of us who are responsible pet owners are not facing pressure on owning our own pets.
However, a point must be raised here. Because of the increasing appeal of exotic animals as pets, more inexperienced people are keeping them as pets and giving others a bad name. Look at the amount of once people-owned pythons taking over in Florida, or the toll Asian carp or other goldfish are doing to our ecosystems. These serious problems came from people who could no longer care for the pets, so they “set them free” to wreak havoc on native animals. Now, obviously, if someone let their pet tiger free it wouldn’t quite be the same experience. Because people can’t simply let their chimpanzee or lion roam free once they get too big to care for, they are often shoved into small cages outside and the cycle of neglect and abuse begins. This can be solved or seriously reduced in one of two ways:
1. Strict regulations on the ownership of exotic animals. This includes requiring all exotic owners to have a license for each animal they own, and in addition, a separate, harder-to-obtain license to breed them, with fees attached to each. Some states do not require such licenses and unfortunately, it appears that these states are where the most deplorable conditions are discovered.
2. The banning of all exotic animals. This is, of course, a very extreme measure, and agreeably very unfair for responsible pet owners. It’s also a large gray area. What do you define as an exotic animal? Of course there are the big cats, the bears, the monkeys, and others, but an exotic pet is defined by most people as animals that have not gone through the process of domestication, such as our common house cats, dogs, ferrets, rabbits, parakeets, rodents such as gerbils and rats, livestock, etc. With that definition, exotic pets can and do include chinchillas, all snakes, lizards, frogs, sugar gliders, parrots, turtles, tarantulas, millipedes, cockroaches, scorpions, and other invertebrates, most fish, and many, many others that you can find in every day pet stores. So where do we draw the line? The big exotic pets get the most attention because they’re the most attractive and the most dangerous. Some groups would have you believe that all animals should be liberated, including cats and dogs, so there is no gray area. Do we have a right to pick and choose when it comes to morals? This is why exotic animal bans are difficult to legislate and enforce and that banning, in my opinion, is a poor method of dealing with neglectful owners.
While I could go on for at least 4 more pages, this article is already long enough, and has taken me several months to write to find legitimate sources and arguments. I appreciate input from people who have helped me find creative ways to present counterarguments to people who are pro-exotic pets.
I am very open to criticism on this blog post as I hope to update it with more relevant and/or stronger arguments. If you have any input, either pro-exotic pets or anti-exotic pets, by all means, send me an e-mail or post in the comments your thoughts. All I ask is that you keep it mature, as little profane as possible, and not an attack on me or any other posters.
However, I also know that it is not fair to the animals and it is my moral obligation not to keep these animals as my personal pets. Many, many people do not share this same sentiment. A search on Google or YouTube for videos or stories of people owning and proudly displaying their exotic pets is growing increasingly in number. I’ve seen videos of adorable animals ranging from monkeys to wild cats to even sloths! Most of these people are very proud of their pets and their ownership of them, and through personal experience I have noticed that they will defend to the death their right to own an exotic animal and that there is nothing wrong with it. Well, “wrong” is subjective, but here I will outline the range of arguments I’ve come across and my counter points to them. If it isn’t clear, my stance on exotic pets is that it should not be legal to keep them or breed them unless in very specific circumstances that I’ll address later. It is my firm belief that wild animals belong in the wild, and not in our homes. My reasons why will be covered in the following arguments.
Argument: A wild animal’s life in captivity is much, much longer than their life span in the wild, where they can and will be hunted by poachers, game hunters, or struck by a car, die of starvation, eaten, or become displaced by habitat loss. In captivity they will be fed well, receive tender loving care, will be able to play until its heart’s content, and live a full, happy, safe life. Places you can find this argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64sHRMb5ydc&feature=related, http://repticzone.com/forums/Exotics/messages/1768170.html, http://www.exoticcatz.com/dontban.html, and several YouTube and random forum comments.
Response: Of course an animal’s life in captivity will be longer than in the wild. In the best of care, they’re provided with a nutritious meal every day, fresh water, enrichment, love, attention, and everything you could ask for. Let me put you into this scenario: When you’re born, you are taken into a lovely room with all the toys you could imagine. You’re fed three square meals a day, someone comes in to play with you, and best of all, you live in a hospital, so when you get sick, you’ll be taken care of immediately and won’t have to worry about dying of disease. All you’ll be sacrificing is being able to leave that room, make any friends, or wandering the outside world to socialize, get a job, or do exciting things like ride a bike, bungee jump, get into a fight, or fall in love and have a family. Without all of these risks, you’ll live to a nice, ripe old age of 90 or higher! Man oh man, you’d be set.
Before you start accusing me of anthropomorphizing, just think about it. Sure, this exact situation won’t apply to most animals, but it’s the same basic concept. Animals do run into serious risks such as poaching, as shown in the graphic video linked above. But that is a risk that we all face in different situations. As humans, we are at risk of getting into a car accident, being murdered, skinning our knees, breaking an arm, choking, being seriously injured or dying in a plane/train/car crash, getting lost in the woods or desert and dehydrating or starving… you get the picture. As for starvation or being eaten, that’s nature! If animals weren’t eaten, then several other animals would die. Starvation is a horrible, horrible way to die, but this is how animals evolved. It’s brutal, but it’s survival of the fittest. I’m not saying that we should leave animals to die of starvation if we can help it, but this is what happens in nature. I once read letters to the editor by angry readers of the magazine National Geographic that a photographer did not intervene in the process of wolves slowly killing their elk prey. The brutality of this act shocked many readers and made others very angry that the photographer allowed this animal to suffer. It sounds cold, and as an animal lover myself, it’s hard to say, but that is how nature works. Although nature can be amazingly beautiful at times, it is also unforgiving and brutal. You have to accept that this is how these animals lived for millennia before humans came into the picture.
Some of these animals have amazingly huge territories in the wild. Mountain lions, for instance, defend ranges of 30-125 miles or more (some sites record up to 600 miles for males!). Within this territory, the animal is allowed to run unhindered, climb mountains, find a mate and reproduce, defend its territory, and most of all, hunt. Most animals kept in captivity are repressed in their natural behavior to hunt live prey. I have met or talked to many people who feed their exotic pets raw chicken, beef, pork, and in some cases, extremely unnatural foods (one raccoon owner fed her raccoon a diet of gummy worms and bubble gum). Very, very rarely, if ever, will an owner allow their pet tiger kill a deer, a bobcat kill a rabbit, etc. Snake owners are the biggest exceptions, but that doesn’t make it OK for them to keep the animals as pets for several other reasons.
Now consider the life of a zoo animal. Their physical needs are attended to, but rarely their emotional ones. Felines kept in a pet environment get to experience the comfort of a good snuggle, love and affection, and the type of personal care that even the most renowned zoo could never provide. And yes, they do appreciate it. Servals are incredibly affectionate when raised properly in a pet environment, and bond very strongly to humans.
This, my friends, is called anthropomorphizing. How do we know what the “emotional needs” are of a wild cat? They seem to be doing fine in the wild without someone to “love” them. Why do we think that it’s in the cat’s best interest to be loved, snuggle, and receive affection? We, as humans, have this deep desire to pet things and love them, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it’s our desire, and not necessarily that of wild animals who are not humans. Of course they appreciate it; the sensation of being petted is hard to turn down. Anyone being cared for and fed without doing any real work is going to appreciate it. But that doesn’t justify us keeping them in captivity. As wild animals, they evolved to do this on their own.
Counterargument: But by keeping these animals in captivity in responsible homes, we are conserving the species from extinction. These animals will be gone forever if we don’t do something about it.
Response: You’re right. We DO need to do something about it. However, keeping these animals as pets is not the answer. The purchase of exotic animals can become quite expensive. http://www.exoticpetsforsale.com lists a single lemur for $5,500; a pair of spotted skunks for $1,400; and a kudu with a hefty price tag of $10,000. There are pages and pages and pages of exotic animals for sale ranging from muntjac deer to skunks to servals to coati. Just looking at this website or even doing a simple Google search confirms that exotic animals are more business to some people than pets. Some (possibly many) exotic animal owners will breed their pets in order to sell to others. At those prices, it can become very lucrative. As exotic animals are becoming more popular due to advocacy by exotic animal groups or owners such as UAPPEAL, Rexano Exotics, Joe “Exotic” Schreibvogel, USZA, exoticcatz.com and many others, the appeal of owning an exotic animal grows stronger and easier to achieve. With all of this awareness, people could really put their money where their mouth is, and instead of buying a $3,000 animal, could donate to a wildlife conservation program such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club, the American Zoological Association, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, and many, many other organizations that use their funds to protect wildlife habitat, raise awareness on endangered species, support reintroduction of animals into the wild through captive breeding programs, rehabilitate injured and orphaned animals, fund programs to police poaching and illegal hunting, and other causes that work towards the future of wildlife and nature. Is exotic pet ownership really about the preservation of species, or for selfish reasons?
Argument: Exotic pets can be just as dangerous as domesticated pets. No small exotic animal has ever killed a human, but dogs kill people every year. Furthermore, exotic pets can be just as loving and affectionate as regular house pets.
Response: This is difficult to address. The above argument is true. There are far more documented cases of dogs attacking and killing people – especially children – every year. I admit that the media has a habit of reporting attacks on people by exotic pets more than attacks by domestic dogs or cats. They’re bigger news items. However, it’s not a news item that exotic pets, big or small, can be more unpredictable and vicious than their domestic counterparts because of their wild nature. Just as certain breeds of dogs are more predisposed to be aggressive than other breeds, exotic pets maintain genes that retain natural instincts necessary to survive. This is hard to prove scientifically, but with cases such as a chimpanzee attacking a woman, in which the chimp was reported to be “like a child to [the owner]” and was probably well cared for; the infamous tiger attack during a Siegfried and Roy show where it was reported that Roy slept with the tigers for the first year of their life, conditioning them to be affectionate to him; and several other “pet” animal attacks, including snakes, African servals, and other exotics, it shows that even with a life of love, caring, and attention, that like all animals, can be unpredictable, and because most exotic pets are generally larger or more “equipped” than domestic animals (claws, teeth, weight, etc), can do a lot more damage.
The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association’s (APPMA) 2009 National Pet Owners Survey (NPOS) showed that 77.5 million dogs were owned by Americans. It is difficult to find updated statistics on how many people own exotic pets, but in 2004 it was 18.2 million, up from 16.8 million in 2002 according to the NPOS. If the 8% increase trend continues into 2010, we can expect 22.9 million exotic pets in the US at present. That is significantly less than the amount of dogs currently owned. With the nearly 250% difference in dog ownership, there is an obvious trend in numbers that dog attacks will be higher than exotic animal attacks.
Counterargument: Small cats, such as servals, bobcats, and lynx, have not been reported to kill anyone but other domestic pets have.
Response: Possibly. However, just because they haven’t killed anyone doesn’t mean they’re not capable of doing serious damage. As mentioned previously, wild animals come with more “equipment” necessary for survival, and even with small cats this includes very sharp claws, powerful teeth, and amazing strength. They are bigger than your typical house cat, and people with regular cats already know how bad they can be. Some people will declaw or even remove the front canine teeth of their exotic cats, and I find this to be extremely cruel. If you can’t handle the potential damage this animal can do, you should not have one, especially if you have children. Declawing is only benefiting you, and not the animal you claim to love. Some accidents occur even during play time, when the animal has no intention of harming you, but in the excitement of play, can inadvertently claw you badly or bite down too hard. The point is that of course, all pets are capable of doing damage to their owners, but exotic pets are even more capable of increasing that damage. A lot of people love having raccoons as pets. However, here are some articles of interest: http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?spid=&id=2132990 http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/news/headlines/109080229.html. The first is about a raccoon that had to be euthanized because it mauled a baby because it was probably “attracted to the baby’s headband.” The second is a pair of pet raccoons that seriously injured a baby in a crib. I’m sure both owners thought these animals were safe because they raised them personally. I don’t think the raccoons purposely attacked the babies for malicious reasons, but it’s just an indication of how unpredictable and dangerous they can be. Most cats or dogs would not crawl into a baby’s crib and start gnawing on it.
Another article of interest: Man killed by pet deer tells of a man who raised a red stag as a fawn and was then gored to death by the deer. Deer aren't even predatory, yet this deer's hormones and instincts came into play and he gored the man since the man did not have antlers of his own to fight back. Talk about unpredictable and dangerous.
The potential for zoonotic diseases is also something that should be taken into extreme consideration, especially those exotic pet owners that take orphaned wild animals. Wild animals can carry rabies, parvovirus or distemper that can be transmitted to your pets, all kinds of parasites and worms, and some even potentially fatal parasitic larva. All of these are things you should never expose to the people you love.
Argument: Some people claim that because some exotic pet owners cannot properly care for the animals and abuse, neglect, and abandon them, that all exotic pet owners should be liable for this and pay the price for it.
Response: I never use this argument because I’m admittedly on the side of exotic pet owners on this one. Just like regular house pets, exotic pets such as bears, tigers, and ungulates are poorly cared for and given improper diets either because of a lack of knowledge, money, and/or the inability to care for it once it grows out of the small cub/baby stage. Most exotic pet owners will buy a cute baby animal to take home and then not realize the immense financial toll it can take on them. A tiger will eat up to 25 pounds of meat a day. Since tigers can live in captivity for up to 20 years, the costs of this can add up astronomically. Add this to the cost of proper caging, vet bills, enrichment, and other necessary things and you can see why sanctuaries aren’t necessarily rolling in money. The ones that can afford all this and give their animals amazing care deserve kudos. This also applies to domestic animals; there are several people who abuse, torture, and starve animals and yet the rest of us who are responsible pet owners are not facing pressure on owning our own pets.
However, a point must be raised here. Because of the increasing appeal of exotic animals as pets, more inexperienced people are keeping them as pets and giving others a bad name. Look at the amount of once people-owned pythons taking over in Florida, or the toll Asian carp or other goldfish are doing to our ecosystems. These serious problems came from people who could no longer care for the pets, so they “set them free” to wreak havoc on native animals. Now, obviously, if someone let their pet tiger free it wouldn’t quite be the same experience. Because people can’t simply let their chimpanzee or lion roam free once they get too big to care for, they are often shoved into small cages outside and the cycle of neglect and abuse begins. This can be solved or seriously reduced in one of two ways:
1. Strict regulations on the ownership of exotic animals. This includes requiring all exotic owners to have a license for each animal they own, and in addition, a separate, harder-to-obtain license to breed them, with fees attached to each. Some states do not require such licenses and unfortunately, it appears that these states are where the most deplorable conditions are discovered.
2. The banning of all exotic animals. This is, of course, a very extreme measure, and agreeably very unfair for responsible pet owners. It’s also a large gray area. What do you define as an exotic animal? Of course there are the big cats, the bears, the monkeys, and others, but an exotic pet is defined by most people as animals that have not gone through the process of domestication, such as our common house cats, dogs, ferrets, rabbits, parakeets, rodents such as gerbils and rats, livestock, etc. With that definition, exotic pets can and do include chinchillas, all snakes, lizards, frogs, sugar gliders, parrots, turtles, tarantulas, millipedes, cockroaches, scorpions, and other invertebrates, most fish, and many, many others that you can find in every day pet stores. So where do we draw the line? The big exotic pets get the most attention because they’re the most attractive and the most dangerous. Some groups would have you believe that all animals should be liberated, including cats and dogs, so there is no gray area. Do we have a right to pick and choose when it comes to morals? This is why exotic animal bans are difficult to legislate and enforce and that banning, in my opinion, is a poor method of dealing with neglectful owners.
While I could go on for at least 4 more pages, this article is already long enough, and has taken me several months to write to find legitimate sources and arguments. I appreciate input from people who have helped me find creative ways to present counterarguments to people who are pro-exotic pets.
I am very open to criticism on this blog post as I hope to update it with more relevant and/or stronger arguments. If you have any input, either pro-exotic pets or anti-exotic pets, by all means, send me an e-mail or post in the comments your thoughts. All I ask is that you keep it mature, as little profane as possible, and not an attack on me or any other posters.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Equal Opportunity Employment...?
I recently attended the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association (NWRA) Symposium in Bellevue, Washington. For those of you unfamiliar with this, it’s a week-long conference where wildlife rehabilitators from around the country and even some parts of the world meet to learn and share new techniques to make the challenging practice of wildlife rehabilitation smoother and better for the animals. Lectures were given all day from veterinarians, other rehabilitators, education animal trainers, and others.
While the information given was extremely valuable, there was one very visible, resounding observation: women are the very dominant gender in this field. Out of every room full of around 100 women, perhaps one or two men were seen on average. Most of the men that did attend were veterinarians or worked only with the “cool” and dangerous animals (bears, eagles, and hawks, for example). The NWRA Board of Directors is sixteen people strong, and all but one are women. This was mentioned in a lecture I attended titled “Education or Condemnation: Face to Face with your Fellow Rehabilitators.” Who admitted it out loud? A man who, before making this exclamation, called rehabbers “the most dysfunctional group of people” he’s ever seen. He made it in jest, of course, and followed it with his observed appreciation of the field. But we soon got into the discussion: Why are there more women in wildlife rehabilitation than men?
A few other professions dominated by women include education, social services, and healthcare fields. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2006, women make up 97.7% of pre-K teachers, 82.2% of elementary and middle school teachers, and 56% of secondary school teachers (high school), dropping to 46.3% for post-secondary education (like prep colleges or community colleges). 73.4% of healthcare professions are women, with 91.3% of nursing professions, and 91% dieticians or nutritionists. Healthcare support (which includes home nursing, massage therapists, and home health aides) accounts for 89.4% of women employed compared to men. Social workers are 82.6% women, with an overall 61.6% of women in social services. What do all of these professions have in common, and why are there more women than men? These professions are the so-called “nurturing” professions and have been labeled by some men as not “real” professions, because women are “naturally” more nurturing than men.
Is it because men are less nurturing or is it because of some societal standard that “real men” do “real work” like heavy lifting or operating machinery? It’s a clear distinction that in the education field, as children get older, the less likely they are to have a woman teacher. In my university alone I have been taught by a total of four women in my six semesters here. Men dominate the zoology field here, and most of them are doing research that involves trapping, killing, and opening up animals to collect data. The head of the cooperative wildlife research lab on campus is rumored to be against wildlife rehabilitation, claiming that animals should adapt to us, and we don’t need to allow more raccoons and squirrels in the world to live. I have yet to meet a woman with the same sentiment. I digress.
I once saw a book at a local book store titled “If Women Ran the World, Shit Would Get Done.” I haven’t read the book, but the title has stuck in my mind ever since. Some men may think that women are weak, and that nurturing-type jobs aren’t real jobs at all. But if it wasn’t for women nurses and healthcare technicians, men could quite possibly be walking around with broken legs and systemic infections without being nursed to health by a supportive, caring woman. Families would be in a state of utter chaos without the dedication and compassion of women social workers. Children wouldn’t grow up appreciating life and animals and the environment because the non-nurturing men wouldn’t reinforce a caring, appreciative attitude, and then who knows what the state of the world would be in today.
OK, I may be exaggerating or stereotyping here. I agree that men provide may types of supportive services us women would be lost without. According to the same Bureau of Labor statistics above, the logging industry is made up of only .4% of women. That’s four women for every 1,000 men that provide us with wood for buildings, paper, and other necessities. Men also make up the majority of the workforce in sanitation, hard labor such as construction and mining, and farming practices. However, to scoff at the less intensive work us women do as any less significant is ignorant.
To touch back on the wildlife rehabilitation part of this: the guys who volunteer at the wildlife rehabilitation center I volunteer at generally are more interested in doing construction, feeding the bobcats or cougar, or love to watch the birds of prey descend and kill their daily live mice. Most of them have little to no interest in the squirrels, the baby animals (unless it’s a baby predator), or the raccoons. Many of them will go on to work with large predators like big cats or raptors and rarely handle other less “interesting” wildlife. Likewise, a large majority of male undergraduate students that I’ve come to know in the zoology department are avid hunters and are more interested in game species (deer, waterfowl, gallinaceous birds, and other big ungulates) and the management aspects of them compared to the management aspects of protected or non-game species.
More animals that come into wildlife rehabilitation centers with human-caused injuries were inflicted by men. Forgive me; I don’t have statistics to back this up. I suppose I’m generalizing, but I find it hard to believe little girls or women are shooting eagles and red-tailed hawks. Men completely eliminated passenger pigeons, once the most abundant species on Earth, with brutal methods of trapping or killing by the thousands. It seems that more environmentally devastating political decisions and actions are created by men. Sure, some women are responsible for completely barbaric decisions (Sarah Palin and the aerial gunning of Alaska’s wolves, for example) but Reagan and George W. Were probably some of the worst influences on the environment in recent history (my lack of political knowledge, however, admittedly probably makes that an ignorant statement). I’m curious to know the statistics of women supporting or suggesting engagement in a war or battle compared to men. We hear far more often of negligent men in the military killing, raping, and abusing women in foreign lands. Men are, without question, more violent and less diplomatic than women.
The conclusion I've come to here is that women are more important in the workforce than men may think we are. We’ve come a long way from objects and homemakers to some of the most important professions in the world. Our natural aptitude to care and nurture others is unmatched, and the world would be lost without it. Should more men become the same way and join women in the same professions, or should some women embrace the rugged, physical side of the male workforce? I think a combination of the two would teach us all more tolerance when it comes to either side of our natural instincts, and could possibly eliminate a lot of the current corruption, competition, unfairness, violence, and brutality in the world. Equal opportunity for the world.
While the information given was extremely valuable, there was one very visible, resounding observation: women are the very dominant gender in this field. Out of every room full of around 100 women, perhaps one or two men were seen on average. Most of the men that did attend were veterinarians or worked only with the “cool” and dangerous animals (bears, eagles, and hawks, for example). The NWRA Board of Directors is sixteen people strong, and all but one are women. This was mentioned in a lecture I attended titled “Education or Condemnation: Face to Face with your Fellow Rehabilitators.” Who admitted it out loud? A man who, before making this exclamation, called rehabbers “the most dysfunctional group of people” he’s ever seen. He made it in jest, of course, and followed it with his observed appreciation of the field. But we soon got into the discussion: Why are there more women in wildlife rehabilitation than men?
A few other professions dominated by women include education, social services, and healthcare fields. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2006, women make up 97.7% of pre-K teachers, 82.2% of elementary and middle school teachers, and 56% of secondary school teachers (high school), dropping to 46.3% for post-secondary education (like prep colleges or community colleges). 73.4% of healthcare professions are women, with 91.3% of nursing professions, and 91% dieticians or nutritionists. Healthcare support (which includes home nursing, massage therapists, and home health aides) accounts for 89.4% of women employed compared to men. Social workers are 82.6% women, with an overall 61.6% of women in social services. What do all of these professions have in common, and why are there more women than men? These professions are the so-called “nurturing” professions and have been labeled by some men as not “real” professions, because women are “naturally” more nurturing than men.
Is it because men are less nurturing or is it because of some societal standard that “real men” do “real work” like heavy lifting or operating machinery? It’s a clear distinction that in the education field, as children get older, the less likely they are to have a woman teacher. In my university alone I have been taught by a total of four women in my six semesters here. Men dominate the zoology field here, and most of them are doing research that involves trapping, killing, and opening up animals to collect data. The head of the cooperative wildlife research lab on campus is rumored to be against wildlife rehabilitation, claiming that animals should adapt to us, and we don’t need to allow more raccoons and squirrels in the world to live. I have yet to meet a woman with the same sentiment. I digress.
I once saw a book at a local book store titled “If Women Ran the World, Shit Would Get Done.” I haven’t read the book, but the title has stuck in my mind ever since. Some men may think that women are weak, and that nurturing-type jobs aren’t real jobs at all. But if it wasn’t for women nurses and healthcare technicians, men could quite possibly be walking around with broken legs and systemic infections without being nursed to health by a supportive, caring woman. Families would be in a state of utter chaos without the dedication and compassion of women social workers. Children wouldn’t grow up appreciating life and animals and the environment because the non-nurturing men wouldn’t reinforce a caring, appreciative attitude, and then who knows what the state of the world would be in today.
OK, I may be exaggerating or stereotyping here. I agree that men provide may types of supportive services us women would be lost without. According to the same Bureau of Labor statistics above, the logging industry is made up of only .4% of women. That’s four women for every 1,000 men that provide us with wood for buildings, paper, and other necessities. Men also make up the majority of the workforce in sanitation, hard labor such as construction and mining, and farming practices. However, to scoff at the less intensive work us women do as any less significant is ignorant.
To touch back on the wildlife rehabilitation part of this: the guys who volunteer at the wildlife rehabilitation center I volunteer at generally are more interested in doing construction, feeding the bobcats or cougar, or love to watch the birds of prey descend and kill their daily live mice. Most of them have little to no interest in the squirrels, the baby animals (unless it’s a baby predator), or the raccoons. Many of them will go on to work with large predators like big cats or raptors and rarely handle other less “interesting” wildlife. Likewise, a large majority of male undergraduate students that I’ve come to know in the zoology department are avid hunters and are more interested in game species (deer, waterfowl, gallinaceous birds, and other big ungulates) and the management aspects of them compared to the management aspects of protected or non-game species.
More animals that come into wildlife rehabilitation centers with human-caused injuries were inflicted by men. Forgive me; I don’t have statistics to back this up. I suppose I’m generalizing, but I find it hard to believe little girls or women are shooting eagles and red-tailed hawks. Men completely eliminated passenger pigeons, once the most abundant species on Earth, with brutal methods of trapping or killing by the thousands. It seems that more environmentally devastating political decisions and actions are created by men. Sure, some women are responsible for completely barbaric decisions (Sarah Palin and the aerial gunning of Alaska’s wolves, for example) but Reagan and George W. Were probably some of the worst influences on the environment in recent history (my lack of political knowledge, however, admittedly probably makes that an ignorant statement). I’m curious to know the statistics of women supporting or suggesting engagement in a war or battle compared to men. We hear far more often of negligent men in the military killing, raping, and abusing women in foreign lands. Men are, without question, more violent and less diplomatic than women.
The conclusion I've come to here is that women are more important in the workforce than men may think we are. We’ve come a long way from objects and homemakers to some of the most important professions in the world. Our natural aptitude to care and nurture others is unmatched, and the world would be lost without it. Should more men become the same way and join women in the same professions, or should some women embrace the rugged, physical side of the male workforce? I think a combination of the two would teach us all more tolerance when it comes to either side of our natural instincts, and could possibly eliminate a lot of the current corruption, competition, unfairness, violence, and brutality in the world. Equal opportunity for the world.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Environmental Roadblock
Most people, when hearing the news of a company tearing down a tract of rainforest, would cry out in protest. Images come to mind of thousands of acres of trees being cut down, wildlife running desperately for life, streams being polluted in the wake of the machines causing such carnage, and a public outpouring of sympathy would follow. To hear of environmental devastation evokes compassion in most people, and many of them will fight to prevent such a thing.
Every day we hear of bills going to congress on clean coal technology, protecting endangered species, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, climate change, pollution, and many other environmental issues. Millions of dollars are poured into creating such change or preventing it. Mostly, we know that preserving and protecting the environment is the right thing to do.
But at what point do we really fight for it? I’m a huge environment proponent, but I admittedly do several things I could stop doing to really help the planet. I have increasing anger for the practice of mountaintop removal (for those not familiar with mountaintop removal, it’s a process where the entire top of a mountain is stripped of trees and blasted off, or removed, to extract coal to keep our electricity flowing) and the environmental devastation it causes as well as the serious health risk posed for residents around such operations. Yet, this post is coming to you from my laptop, plugged into my outlet, underneath an electric lamp, as I watch TV and listen to the TV on the stereo plugged into it. In the corner, my roommate’s snake basks under its heat lamp, and I sit cross-legged on my couch in my comfortably heated home, eating soup heated on my electric stove.
In an ideal world (well, at least mine) we would live in houses we built ourselves, tending to our own personal gardens, hunting for our own meat using natural tools, under natural light or candle light, cooking over fires and being completely self-sustainable. Not to mention our population would be reduced by several billion because of smart, voluntary population control.
This is not an ideal world. Humans are ever prevalent and will continue to be. Most, if not all, of us will not be able to give up what luxuries we have in order to prove a point. We have come to rely on technology, transportation, mass-farming practices, electricity, and convenience to get us through life. And why shouldn’t we? We as humans have the capabilities of creating these things, why not embrace our intelligence?
Let’s revert back to the ideal world situation. The houses we built must be made by wood from trees we must cut down. Our garden plots must be made by clearing even a small portion of land. Many of the vegetables and fruits we’ve come to know and love today are some sort of genetic manipulation and do not occur naturally. These gardens might even give way to future exotic, invasive species. Our candle light must be made by some type of wax, which would involve the exploitation of bees. Ways to counter disease would be sought after, starting the medical and pharmacology industry. The point I’m trying to make here is that our ancestors did start here at one point. The growing population gave way to these new technologies and more land to be cleared, making way for bigger and better things. No matter where we start from, it will inevitably lead to the same point.
I’m not saying that this technology will save us, or that our human nature is an excuse for the state we leave the world in today. Our gross waste of nearly everything has put us in a pollution nightmare across the globe. Our growing technology leads to greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our climate to possibly catastrophic conclusions. We are in danger of losing our natural resources, which no one can ignore is very finite.
The problem here is how we curb this very severe problem. It’s unrealistic to think that humans can change 360 degrees and stop waste altogether. Our growing population demands more energy use, and that means more coal. If it’s not coal, it’s wind turbines with a threat to avian creatures, or solar panels which will only work when the sun is out. Nuclear power is the next option, which is a serious health and pollution problem. No matter what we choose, any “solution” will lead to the use of some sort of natural resource and not be 100% foolproof.
The unfortunate thing is that one would think the technology we’ve amassed so far would find a way to remove the waste we’ve amassed, to solve our problems, allow us to keep this planet living for longer and more naturally. It seems that human compassion has left those who are in every position to get a head start on these possible solutions, and instead replaced with greed, indifference, and ignorance. What energy that could be used to turn the world around instead fuels the drive for bigger, better, and more profitable. Some even say that more people in the world would be the best thing to happen to us; the more minds on the earth, the more possibility of developing a magic solution to cure the world’s ills.
Politics play a big role in how our environment and planet survives underneath our growing population and technology. Economics is a very close second, if not first. As people continue to inhabit this earth, our resources to continue living must come from somewhere. We argue that we shouldn’t drill in the ANWR, yet there is no doubt in our minds that we need oil to make the gas for our cars or the plastics that we’ve come to depend on. Our increased dependence on foreign oil is something we all agree we need to curb, yet we also don’t want to destroy a wilderness to get a few million, finite gallons of oil to satiate our consumption. It raises the question: why do we care about this wilderness? Does the wilderness, that relatively few people ever trespass upon, have any direct effect on us? Isn’t it true that the oil underneath the wilderness is more useful to us, as humans, than the plants and animals within it? This goes into an entire philosophical debate that could take pages and pages to ponder, but it’s something to think about.
There’s no denying that humans are here to stay, and that our needs have to be met. No one is going to volunteer him or herself in order to reduce the population to stop the exploitation and consumption of resources so that fifty years from now we’re not all in some serious trouble. We all recognize this problem; yet in a sad twist of fate can do almost nothing about it. People recycle mostly for the “feel good” factor, to feel like they’re doing something good for the planet, when in reality it’s a very, very small piece of the puzzle. It’s a rather daunting scenario and difficult to tackle. It’s this frame of mind that fuels the bigger corporations and companies to exploit every resource possible.
There is no simple solution to any of this. I’m not suggesting that our exploitation and resource use is OK by any means. We, as humans, have become disconnected and greedy. The earth is no longer about balance towards all things on this planet, but solely on the human race. We desecrate land in order to support ourselves without regard to other organisms that might depend on it. We’ve not only eliminated all competition against our resources (the removal of predators against deer, for instance), but we’ve begun to turn on our own kind. While people in big corporate or political offices are shouting phrases like “drill, baby, drill”, people suffer and die from lack of adequate food, water, or housing. Plants and animals critical not only in each other’s food chains, but ours, are disappearing and becoming extinct at rapid rates due to our expansion and destruction. How much or how long will it take before we reach our limit and realize we’ve gone too far? Can we really rely on technology to pick up the slack once we’ve destroyed everything? It is these natural places, these plants, animals, and natural phenomena that keep us as humans inspired to look at more than just ourselves, beyond just the human race. It seems to me no coincidence that those of us in the life sciences are more compassionate, more willing to help out each other and other organisms while those who are money-interested are self-involved and only look within.
So what do we do? We can’t focus on what we’ve already done; that ship has sailed, and we can’t change the past. Yes, we need to reduce our waste, but we also need to find a way to convert what waste we’ve already made into something usable. The earth won’t be able to support us forever, no matter what technology we might depend on to save us. Eventually humans will discover their carrying capacity, and we need to be prepared to deal with the consequences and handle our mistakes. How we go about doing that is no easy answer.
Every day we hear of bills going to congress on clean coal technology, protecting endangered species, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, climate change, pollution, and many other environmental issues. Millions of dollars are poured into creating such change or preventing it. Mostly, we know that preserving and protecting the environment is the right thing to do.
But at what point do we really fight for it? I’m a huge environment proponent, but I admittedly do several things I could stop doing to really help the planet. I have increasing anger for the practice of mountaintop removal (for those not familiar with mountaintop removal, it’s a process where the entire top of a mountain is stripped of trees and blasted off, or removed, to extract coal to keep our electricity flowing) and the environmental devastation it causes as well as the serious health risk posed for residents around such operations. Yet, this post is coming to you from my laptop, plugged into my outlet, underneath an electric lamp, as I watch TV and listen to the TV on the stereo plugged into it. In the corner, my roommate’s snake basks under its heat lamp, and I sit cross-legged on my couch in my comfortably heated home, eating soup heated on my electric stove.
In an ideal world (well, at least mine) we would live in houses we built ourselves, tending to our own personal gardens, hunting for our own meat using natural tools, under natural light or candle light, cooking over fires and being completely self-sustainable. Not to mention our population would be reduced by several billion because of smart, voluntary population control.
This is not an ideal world. Humans are ever prevalent and will continue to be. Most, if not all, of us will not be able to give up what luxuries we have in order to prove a point. We have come to rely on technology, transportation, mass-farming practices, electricity, and convenience to get us through life. And why shouldn’t we? We as humans have the capabilities of creating these things, why not embrace our intelligence?
Let’s revert back to the ideal world situation. The houses we built must be made by wood from trees we must cut down. Our garden plots must be made by clearing even a small portion of land. Many of the vegetables and fruits we’ve come to know and love today are some sort of genetic manipulation and do not occur naturally. These gardens might even give way to future exotic, invasive species. Our candle light must be made by some type of wax, which would involve the exploitation of bees. Ways to counter disease would be sought after, starting the medical and pharmacology industry. The point I’m trying to make here is that our ancestors did start here at one point. The growing population gave way to these new technologies and more land to be cleared, making way for bigger and better things. No matter where we start from, it will inevitably lead to the same point.
I’m not saying that this technology will save us, or that our human nature is an excuse for the state we leave the world in today. Our gross waste of nearly everything has put us in a pollution nightmare across the globe. Our growing technology leads to greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our climate to possibly catastrophic conclusions. We are in danger of losing our natural resources, which no one can ignore is very finite.
The problem here is how we curb this very severe problem. It’s unrealistic to think that humans can change 360 degrees and stop waste altogether. Our growing population demands more energy use, and that means more coal. If it’s not coal, it’s wind turbines with a threat to avian creatures, or solar panels which will only work when the sun is out. Nuclear power is the next option, which is a serious health and pollution problem. No matter what we choose, any “solution” will lead to the use of some sort of natural resource and not be 100% foolproof.
The unfortunate thing is that one would think the technology we’ve amassed so far would find a way to remove the waste we’ve amassed, to solve our problems, allow us to keep this planet living for longer and more naturally. It seems that human compassion has left those who are in every position to get a head start on these possible solutions, and instead replaced with greed, indifference, and ignorance. What energy that could be used to turn the world around instead fuels the drive for bigger, better, and more profitable. Some even say that more people in the world would be the best thing to happen to us; the more minds on the earth, the more possibility of developing a magic solution to cure the world’s ills.
Politics play a big role in how our environment and planet survives underneath our growing population and technology. Economics is a very close second, if not first. As people continue to inhabit this earth, our resources to continue living must come from somewhere. We argue that we shouldn’t drill in the ANWR, yet there is no doubt in our minds that we need oil to make the gas for our cars or the plastics that we’ve come to depend on. Our increased dependence on foreign oil is something we all agree we need to curb, yet we also don’t want to destroy a wilderness to get a few million, finite gallons of oil to satiate our consumption. It raises the question: why do we care about this wilderness? Does the wilderness, that relatively few people ever trespass upon, have any direct effect on us? Isn’t it true that the oil underneath the wilderness is more useful to us, as humans, than the plants and animals within it? This goes into an entire philosophical debate that could take pages and pages to ponder, but it’s something to think about.
There’s no denying that humans are here to stay, and that our needs have to be met. No one is going to volunteer him or herself in order to reduce the population to stop the exploitation and consumption of resources so that fifty years from now we’re not all in some serious trouble. We all recognize this problem; yet in a sad twist of fate can do almost nothing about it. People recycle mostly for the “feel good” factor, to feel like they’re doing something good for the planet, when in reality it’s a very, very small piece of the puzzle. It’s a rather daunting scenario and difficult to tackle. It’s this frame of mind that fuels the bigger corporations and companies to exploit every resource possible.
There is no simple solution to any of this. I’m not suggesting that our exploitation and resource use is OK by any means. We, as humans, have become disconnected and greedy. The earth is no longer about balance towards all things on this planet, but solely on the human race. We desecrate land in order to support ourselves without regard to other organisms that might depend on it. We’ve not only eliminated all competition against our resources (the removal of predators against deer, for instance), but we’ve begun to turn on our own kind. While people in big corporate or political offices are shouting phrases like “drill, baby, drill”, people suffer and die from lack of adequate food, water, or housing. Plants and animals critical not only in each other’s food chains, but ours, are disappearing and becoming extinct at rapid rates due to our expansion and destruction. How much or how long will it take before we reach our limit and realize we’ve gone too far? Can we really rely on technology to pick up the slack once we’ve destroyed everything? It is these natural places, these plants, animals, and natural phenomena that keep us as humans inspired to look at more than just ourselves, beyond just the human race. It seems to me no coincidence that those of us in the life sciences are more compassionate, more willing to help out each other and other organisms while those who are money-interested are self-involved and only look within.
So what do we do? We can’t focus on what we’ve already done; that ship has sailed, and we can’t change the past. Yes, we need to reduce our waste, but we also need to find a way to convert what waste we’ve already made into something usable. The earth won’t be able to support us forever, no matter what technology we might depend on to save us. Eventually humans will discover their carrying capacity, and we need to be prepared to deal with the consequences and handle our mistakes. How we go about doing that is no easy answer.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A Commercial Society
“Now you can wash your car tires with ease! Watch as it cleans this dirty patio chair in seconds!”
“We loved our back patio, but the sun was just so hot that it was unbearable to be out there.”
“Stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky! Now you can keep unwanted odor in!”
“Just wear this device and you can get a workout even at your desk. Have great abs in days!”
I’m sure you’ve heard at least one or more of these commercials recently. They all have something in common. Most of them provide some type of service to counter the inconvenience of doing something else in a much faster way.
Our society has become full of lazy people who have disconnected themselves from the real world. The first commercial is for a power washer. It shows images of this power washer spraying water at full force at a tire rim, blowing the dirt off, and a patio chair, also at full force, blowing the dirt off. Both objects could have been cleaned with a bucket of water and a sponge and used much, much less water. It’s almost sad to see this commercial advertising perfectly good drinking water (in most cases) being sprayed at full force to clean something off, when people in Haiti, after the earthquake, are desperate for clean drinking water. What a gross waste of water. We also have the luxury of wasting millions of gallons of water a day to flush only a few ounces of waste per person down the toilet. Automatic toilets are great for people suffering from some sort of mysophobia, but in the long run, something that could put us into serious trouble.
The second commercial is for the Sun Setter patio covers. This commercial acts as if the sun is an inconvenience to us, and that it’s the sun’s fault that they built their patio in the direction of the open sun. So instead of doing the environmentally friendly option of maybe planting a tree to garner shade in that spot, or go out during certain parts of the day, or even use a better planning strategy, it can all be fixed with harmful plastics and an unnecessary coal-using electric option to open the shade for you! How convenient. Then he goes on to mention that the Sun Setter can protect you from the sun’s harmful rays (thanks, Liam, for reminding me of this part)… if you were worried about the sun’s harmful rays, why did you even plan on building a patio to enjoy yourself outside? You might as well just stay in the house and save yourself thousands of dollars, especially if you’re going to bitch that it’s too hot outside. Poor you.
The third commercial is for a new type of Hefty bag. It blocks odors without being scented. Again, our waste has become a huge inconvenience to us, even though we’re the ones making the waste. The commercial shows various stinky-makers, including chicken legs, fish, vegetables, diapers, and other such items that can either be A.) recycled after getting rinsed out B.) eaten completely and not wasted (and if you don’t eat it completely, deal with your own consequences of being wasteful) C.) composted, or D.) usable by an alternate method (cloth diapers still exist, people). We throw away so much garbage it’s ridiculous. How much do we waste? Here is a video of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUjTHB1lvM and some images of hundreds of albatross chicks that die every year due to such garbage: http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11 Ironically enough, as I went to search for the YouTube movie of the garbage patch, a popup ad came up for Hefty trash bags.
Commercial number four is for that ab workout belt you can wear that sends electrical pulses through the belt to work your muscles, as you do absolutely nothing but sit there. This is on top of the diet pills and the “fast results” diet plans, lap bands, and pills that have exploded on today’s market. Our laziness has become the epitome of waste. Instead of going outside and jogging, or even taking a walk in the park, the woods, or some sort of natural piece nature, we’re destroying nature in mountaintop removal processes that provide the coal to power your lazy-belt.
These services and items are made for our American, lazy convenience. While I realize it’s not possible for every American to stop what they’re doing and become super-environmental, products like these are completely unnecessary. I’m reminded of the scenario played out in the Pixar movie Wall-E, where everyone has evolved to have everything done for them. While I realize it’s a little far-fetched, it’s also not beyond the realm of possibilities. Every day a new product or piece of technology comes out in order to make our lives simpler or to do things for us. With the mass production of meat and vegetables, we’ve become dissociated from what really occurs in the real world. Most women nowadays would scream if they had to be self-sustainable and get their hands dirty by creating a garden, and if we had to kill our own animals for food, there would be far less omnivores in this society. However, our enthusiasm (or lack thereof) to actually participate in change will be covered in my next blog. For now, I ask that you please do the responsible thing and not give in to these products, because you’ll be jogging (or using your Segway?) the downhill path along with the planet.
“We loved our back patio, but the sun was just so hot that it was unbearable to be out there.”
“Stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky, stinky! Now you can keep unwanted odor in!”
“Just wear this device and you can get a workout even at your desk. Have great abs in days!”
I’m sure you’ve heard at least one or more of these commercials recently. They all have something in common. Most of them provide some type of service to counter the inconvenience of doing something else in a much faster way.
Our society has become full of lazy people who have disconnected themselves from the real world. The first commercial is for a power washer. It shows images of this power washer spraying water at full force at a tire rim, blowing the dirt off, and a patio chair, also at full force, blowing the dirt off. Both objects could have been cleaned with a bucket of water and a sponge and used much, much less water. It’s almost sad to see this commercial advertising perfectly good drinking water (in most cases) being sprayed at full force to clean something off, when people in Haiti, after the earthquake, are desperate for clean drinking water. What a gross waste of water. We also have the luxury of wasting millions of gallons of water a day to flush only a few ounces of waste per person down the toilet. Automatic toilets are great for people suffering from some sort of mysophobia, but in the long run, something that could put us into serious trouble.
The second commercial is for the Sun Setter patio covers. This commercial acts as if the sun is an inconvenience to us, and that it’s the sun’s fault that they built their patio in the direction of the open sun. So instead of doing the environmentally friendly option of maybe planting a tree to garner shade in that spot, or go out during certain parts of the day, or even use a better planning strategy, it can all be fixed with harmful plastics and an unnecessary coal-using electric option to open the shade for you! How convenient. Then he goes on to mention that the Sun Setter can protect you from the sun’s harmful rays (thanks, Liam, for reminding me of this part)… if you were worried about the sun’s harmful rays, why did you even plan on building a patio to enjoy yourself outside? You might as well just stay in the house and save yourself thousands of dollars, especially if you’re going to bitch that it’s too hot outside. Poor you.
The third commercial is for a new type of Hefty bag. It blocks odors without being scented. Again, our waste has become a huge inconvenience to us, even though we’re the ones making the waste. The commercial shows various stinky-makers, including chicken legs, fish, vegetables, diapers, and other such items that can either be A.) recycled after getting rinsed out B.) eaten completely and not wasted (and if you don’t eat it completely, deal with your own consequences of being wasteful) C.) composted, or D.) usable by an alternate method (cloth diapers still exist, people). We throw away so much garbage it’s ridiculous. How much do we waste? Here is a video of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUjTHB1lvM and some images of hundreds of albatross chicks that die every year due to such garbage: http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11 Ironically enough, as I went to search for the YouTube movie of the garbage patch, a popup ad came up for Hefty trash bags.
Commercial number four is for that ab workout belt you can wear that sends electrical pulses through the belt to work your muscles, as you do absolutely nothing but sit there. This is on top of the diet pills and the “fast results” diet plans, lap bands, and pills that have exploded on today’s market. Our laziness has become the epitome of waste. Instead of going outside and jogging, or even taking a walk in the park, the woods, or some sort of natural piece nature, we’re destroying nature in mountaintop removal processes that provide the coal to power your lazy-belt.
These services and items are made for our American, lazy convenience. While I realize it’s not possible for every American to stop what they’re doing and become super-environmental, products like these are completely unnecessary. I’m reminded of the scenario played out in the Pixar movie Wall-E, where everyone has evolved to have everything done for them. While I realize it’s a little far-fetched, it’s also not beyond the realm of possibilities. Every day a new product or piece of technology comes out in order to make our lives simpler or to do things for us. With the mass production of meat and vegetables, we’ve become dissociated from what really occurs in the real world. Most women nowadays would scream if they had to be self-sustainable and get their hands dirty by creating a garden, and if we had to kill our own animals for food, there would be far less omnivores in this society. However, our enthusiasm (or lack thereof) to actually participate in change will be covered in my next blog. For now, I ask that you please do the responsible thing and not give in to these products, because you’ll be jogging (or using your Segway?) the downhill path along with the planet.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Independence: A Dream
I had another dream last night. My dreams recently seem to be taking a storyline-type feel to it, which is intriguing since my dreams are normally quite random and discontinuous. There are random elements in this dream, but generally it stays together. Here goes:
I am a slightly younger girl, given a cute, quaint, pale yellow house in Florida, all to my own, with a garden surrounded by a fence in the back yard. I go to a college near this house. I narrate throughout my dream. This girl I am is a very confident, self-oriented person. She depends on no one but herself and is very outgoing.
At this new school, I begin a swimming class. I change in a wooden locker room (it much resembles a sauna, with individual rooms to change in with triangular benches built into the corner) and then go out into the hallway to go to class. My swimsuit is one piece and black, but for some reason I wear my orange underwear over the swimsuit. I don’t dream about going to the swimming class.
Next I find myself at a magazine rack in the school, and I am dressed normally. I see a famous man-- I think he is a musician-- on the front cover of a popular magazine. I look up to see him browsing the magazine rack as well. I don’t swoon or get excited; I don’t care that he’s a celebrity, but he is very attractive (by my dream self’s high standards). His hair is long and spiky and dyed various shades of black and white. I talk to him and ask if he wants to hook up. He says yes. At this point I narrate that since I acknowledged him and liked him, that I must have him. I was successful.
I go back to the locker room to change and find a muffin underneath the triangle bench in the corner by the wooden post underneath it. I eat a piece of the muffin and decide it’s pretty good. Suddenly a dog comes out from behind the post where the muffin was, impossibly hidden, like some kind of cartoon character. He is a very large, long-haired yellow lab-type dog, and he can talk, similar to that of Dug the dog on the movie “Up.” I share the muffin with him as he talks to me. I casually mention that it probably wasn’t a good idea to eat some random muffin, and it was probably poisoned, and we laughed about it. The dog was quite articulate, again, like Dug in “Up.” I decide that he is a good dog and take him home. It is then that I learn his name, appearing in text below him: “Belmont Washington III.”
I go home in my nice car (also provided to me) and park. I go to the back garden and notice that the wind has picked up and it’s dark outside. I pay no mind and continue to work in my garden. The view switches the behind the stupid kids that live next to me, who are looking down at me and my garden from their high ledge/cliff, with worried looks on their faces. I don’t like these kids. They know a hurricane is coming and are worried I’ll get in trouble instead of looking at my garden and seeing how awesome my garden is. They run off for cover as the hurricane gains strength but I’m not worried at all and continue to work in my garden through the storm. I wake up here.
I am a slightly younger girl, given a cute, quaint, pale yellow house in Florida, all to my own, with a garden surrounded by a fence in the back yard. I go to a college near this house. I narrate throughout my dream. This girl I am is a very confident, self-oriented person. She depends on no one but herself and is very outgoing.
At this new school, I begin a swimming class. I change in a wooden locker room (it much resembles a sauna, with individual rooms to change in with triangular benches built into the corner) and then go out into the hallway to go to class. My swimsuit is one piece and black, but for some reason I wear my orange underwear over the swimsuit. I don’t dream about going to the swimming class.
Next I find myself at a magazine rack in the school, and I am dressed normally. I see a famous man-- I think he is a musician-- on the front cover of a popular magazine. I look up to see him browsing the magazine rack as well. I don’t swoon or get excited; I don’t care that he’s a celebrity, but he is very attractive (by my dream self’s high standards). His hair is long and spiky and dyed various shades of black and white. I talk to him and ask if he wants to hook up. He says yes. At this point I narrate that since I acknowledged him and liked him, that I must have him. I was successful.
I go back to the locker room to change and find a muffin underneath the triangle bench in the corner by the wooden post underneath it. I eat a piece of the muffin and decide it’s pretty good. Suddenly a dog comes out from behind the post where the muffin was, impossibly hidden, like some kind of cartoon character. He is a very large, long-haired yellow lab-type dog, and he can talk, similar to that of Dug the dog on the movie “Up.” I share the muffin with him as he talks to me. I casually mention that it probably wasn’t a good idea to eat some random muffin, and it was probably poisoned, and we laughed about it. The dog was quite articulate, again, like Dug in “Up.” I decide that he is a good dog and take him home. It is then that I learn his name, appearing in text below him: “Belmont Washington III.”
I go home in my nice car (also provided to me) and park. I go to the back garden and notice that the wind has picked up and it’s dark outside. I pay no mind and continue to work in my garden. The view switches the behind the stupid kids that live next to me, who are looking down at me and my garden from their high ledge/cliff, with worried looks on their faces. I don’t like these kids. They know a hurricane is coming and are worried I’ll get in trouble instead of looking at my garden and seeing how awesome my garden is. They run off for cover as the hurricane gains strength but I’m not worried at all and continue to work in my garden through the storm. I wake up here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
