ELEPHANTS GET THEIR SPACE!

Courtesy:oer.uaf.edu

Asian species of elephants will soon be seen in an exclusive 'room' of their own in America. Next week, the Los Angeles Zoo would be opening an Elephants of the Asia habitat.

"The habitat will include features that are dedicated to the health and welfare of the elephants, such as bathing pools, sandy hills, varied topography, enrichment opportunities and a state-of-the-art barn."(toacorn.com)

The exhibit would bring to attention the shrinking habitats of the Asian elephants, focussing on the connection between the Asian countries' cultures and their elephants. In this unique and colourful way, it will be spreading awareness and encourage contributions for conservation of the elephants.

 It's a brilliant idea, that would not only be boosting tourism in the area, but also boosting, what I call, 'tourism-for-a-cause'. Conserving a particular species of animal should not be region-specific. The responsibility for protecting animals should not be restrained to efforts undertaken by people from that region (where those animals are found) alone. Although their efforts are of utmost importance, if people from elsewhere can also support the cause, then what's the harm? It's great that the cause of Asian elephants is being promoted in America on such a grand scale.

After all, each individual, of every country and of every continent is a stakeholder in protecting the environment, the flora and the fauna since they are all ultimately part of the same planet, the Earth!

A DOG'S PRAYER

Pet dogs being are often ill-treated or even killed by their owners(and even strangers) . Stray dogs are also tortured for no fault of theirs. Such incidents were recently in news.
In the midst of all this, it was quite heart-warming to come across this poem by Beth Norman Harris (Poem Courtesy:inspirationpeak.com):

“A Special Prayer    From A Dog To His Master”

Treat me kindly, my beloved master, for no heart in all the world is more grateful for kindness than the loving heart of me. Do not break my spirit with a stick, for though I should lick your hand between the blows, your patience

and understanding will more quickly teach me the things you would have me do. Speak to me often, for your voice is the world's sweetest music, as you must know by the fierce wagging of my tail when your footstep falls upon my waiting ear. When it is cold and wet, please take me inside... for I am now a domesticated animal, no longer used to bitter elements... and I ask no greater glory than the privilege of sitting at your feet beside the hearth... though had you no home, I would rather follow you through ice and snow than rest upon the softest pillow in the warmest home in all the land... for you are my god... and I am your devoted worshiper. Keep my pan filled with fresh water, for although I should not reproach you were it dry, I cannot tell you when I suffer thirst. Feed me clean food, that I may stay well, to romp and play and do your bidding, to walk by your side, and stand ready, willing and able to protect you with my life, should your life be in danger. Courtesy:pet-homecare.co.uk And, beloved master, should the Great Master see fit to deprive me of my health or sight, do not turn me away from you. Rather hold me gently in your arms as skilled hands grant me the merciful boon of eternal rest... and I will leave you knowing with the last breath I drew, my fate was ever safest in your hands.

As a proud owner of a doggie and as an animal lover, the poem made me emotional when I read it for the first time. Don't people have the slightest feel of sympathy before brutally killing or terribly treating their pets?

FILMING WITH THE ANIMALS

Courtesy:stylemg.com

Animals have often been part of filming, ever since Hollywood or Bollywood or Animal-Wood or any other 'Wood' began in any part of the world.
As viewers of such animal movies, it has always been natural to admire them for their 'oh-so-cute' acts, expressions and dialogues (dubbed by humans, of course) delivered by them. However, no matter how adorable we might find them on screen. the picture may not be as rosy as it seems to be, in reality. That's what I found out when I came across a blog by Chris Palmer, titled "Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom" . 
That's because to make animals look and perform their cutest best on screen, may not exactly be an easy jobs for the creatures. Chris, an insider of this industry came up with the following claims:

"There have been accounts of a cameraman put stinging Bengay on a beaver so it would be active for his camera. In the old days, if a filmmaker wanted to capture a hunting scene of a bobcat chasing a rabbit it was standard practice to get the shot by the use of invisible filament around the rabbit’s neck or leg to artificially slow it down."

Courtesy:amazon.co.uk

But physical abuse of animals while shooting is only one form of negligence. There have been several movies where certain animals have been shown in a negative, villainous and terribly man-eating type. The movie 'Sharks' is a prime example here (apart from a host of others like 'Anaconda', 'Jaws', 'Spiders'). 
Animals are not only physically hurt to make them appear like something, but in their portrayal as beasts, the sensitivities of the audience watching them are also adversely affected. It tends to cultivate a sort of a fear and disgust among the people. That definitely wouldn't promote the cause of such species' conservation, particularly if it is endangered. Chris said (OnEarth magazine):

"Sharks  face dire threats from the pollution of their habitat and the disgusting practice of shark finning for shark fin soup. If viewers think of sharks only as killers, they are much less likely to act to protect and conserve them."

 The audio-visual medium (films and TV) are strong means to reach out to the masses.Advantage of such a medium should be taken by sending out a positive message to the people about conserving and protecting Nature rather than create evil images of it to garner viewership. Hence, the content of such productions should be revised in a way, more sensitive to the Nature and wildlife. 
Also, to make animals perform for the camera, it's not necessary to harm them. Of what use is computer graphics then? Technology can be used to make animals perform 'stunts'. If the long extinct dinosaurs could be re- created and made alive for screen using this technology (Jurassic Park), then the former task would be much easier, wouldn't it?

CAN HUNTERS BE ENVIRONMENTALISTS?

Mac McDaniel, in his recent blog post (Hunters Are Not Environmentalists), wrote about a very strange result of an ecological survey. The survey in Wisconsin found that some of the major reasons why hunters liked practicing their game in the forest and shooting animals were because they got to "spend time outdoors" and "get close to nature".

The Green Hunter(Courtesy:nacexpo.net)

A rather ironical interest-hobby match, I must say! They seem to be quite incompatible. How could somebody who enjoyed nature's bounty, the sights of the trees, the greens and the sounds of the animals and birds, venture into that territory, just to vandalize it all? It must be a severe case of split personality disorder.
But apparently, it isn't. Mac said in his blog:

"Hunters and their organizations like to champion themselves as conservationists who love nature and the outdoors because fees and taxes on guns and hunting licenses go toward government conservation and wildlife agencies."

 But that's just the partial story. The complete and real one, in Mac's words are:

 "these organizations' primary goals are not to maintain biodiversity or advocate in the best interests of parks and animals, but rather to ensure game populations for the benefit of hunters...The money contributed by hunters doesn't help the environment, it simply gives hunting groups more bargaining power to dictate wildlife policy. ."

How can the hunters then only be blamed for violating the environmental and wildlife code, if the stakeholders of conservation are themselves championing the hunters' cause by ensuring game populations for their benefit? Neither, the hunters nor such conservationalists have the right to call themselves "environmentalists". They are both helping each other to destroy the forests, in the name of protecting it!

Yes, through selling of the guns, money is coming in. But the money is being utilised to commercialize "destructive" forest activities like hunting. That makes forest popular and touristic attractions for the wrong reasons. Would that be an "environmentalist" intention?

The common people can be environmentalists. Where then is the need to depend on revenue from guns?(courtesy:artaban.7.wordpress)

The money is not being utilised for forest and ecological interests, like preserving species and preventing hunting and poaching.Now would you call that "environmentalist"?
Forests might be promoted. But there's a difference between promoting them ecologically and commercially. Those who do the former(ecological), play an active role in safeguarding the interests of the forest creatures and plants and preserve them for the future generations. They are the environmentalists. The others simply aren't.

A FISHY DOWNPOUR!

Courtesy:webecoist.com

I have heard of the phrase 'raining cats and dogs'. It's an idiom that literally means 'raining very heavily'. Recently, I came across a blog post from the Animal Blog. The blog title read, 'It's raining fish in Australia'. And literally, it DID mean that it WAS raining fish in Australia!
This strange phenomenon occurred in March this year, at a small town called Lajamanu in Australia that was hit by torrential rains.The blog stated:

"The phenomenon is created by whirlwinds over water, which have enough power to lift fish out of the water and even empty the entire contents of a pond."

However, this is not the first time that this has happened in Australia, nor has Australia been the only place where fish have fallen from the sky, neither have fish been the only kinds of animals to have been bombarded from the heavens!
In the past too, natural disturbances have led to animals like frogs, birds, spiders, worms, cows and even alligators being scooped away from their settlements and carried across long distances(ranging thousands of kilometres) and over high altitudes (several thousand feet up in the air), only to be landed on unsuspecting people. This phenomenon, where objects and animals are showered from the sky due to a heavy storm or any other strong atmospheric turbulence is called "farfrotskies". It has taken place since times immemorial.

 It would be so creepy to have animals falling over you in the midst of a heavy downpour and to see the terrestrial (land based) and aquatic(water-based) animals to be suspended in mid-air and then falling in hundreds on the streets.The situation would also be dangerous if the animals were to be large and carnivores(meat eating) like the alligators. So it feels weird when I say, "Thank God it was only the fish that fell in hundreds and not the crocodiles!" (Although I maintain that falling fish was unusual enough, if not dangerous).
Raining animals is still a rare meteorological phenomenon, which the scientists are still researching on. It has inspired scenes from several movies (like "Wonderful World" in 2009 and "Magnolia" in 1999) and novels (like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams). Not for no reason is it said that reality is stranger than fiction!
Now perhaps I understand why "raining cats and dogs" refers to raining heavily (heavy downpours can lift animals and cause them to 'rain' along). May be that's the reason why other languages also use animals to refer to heavy rains. Take a look at the words used to express heavy rains in the following languages(courtesy:Wikipedia)

• English: cats and dogs
• Dutch (Flemish): het regent kattenjongen (kittens)
• German: junge hunde (young dogs)
• Polish: pada zabami (frogs)
• Romanian: ploua cu broaste (frogs)
• Turkish: kedi kopek yagiyor (cats and dogs)

They are all idioms referring to heavy rains (that require ducking for cover!) metaphorically. But they do have a strong reality quotient! What say?

CLONING TO RESURRECT THE EXTINCT?

I remember looking at the rear view mirror of the car, looking straight into the enormous eyes and huge face of that dinosaur. It freaked me out as I saw the dinosaur move closer towards the car. The words printed on the mirror were-'objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.' I wondered, "wasn't it dangerously close enough already?"
Nothing to worry, I really didn't get lost in the dinosaur age! I was just recalling my feelings when I watched this scene from the movie 'Jurassic Park', a movie about cloned dinosaurs among the human race.

A still from Jurassic Park movie (Courtesy:unrealitymag.com)

The movie was a fictitious one but today, it seems that it inspired reality. It looks like, it set the scientific imagination running as scientists explored the possibility of cloning extinct animals.
Wendee Holtcamp, in her blog, Cloning the Mammoth? (from Animals in the News) analysed the possible impact of cloning the woolly mammoth.Progress in science has made it possible to extract the undamaged genetic material and re-creating the woolly mammoth.After all, if living animals have been cloned, extinct animals could be cloned too (as their DNA information is within access).
Wendee, in her blog stated:

"Bringing back a species that is long since extinct, like the woolly mammoth, is surely more ecologically problematic than attempts to restore presently endangered species, or recently extinct species...if one does successfully clone the mammoth, where will it go? We could put the mammoth in a zoo or a pen, and study it like a lab rat. And that’s probably what would happen. Is that ethical?"

Could mammoths adjust from the Ice Age to the Global Warming Age? (Courtesy: fraekingnews.com)

I agree with Wendee. Although bringing alive the extinct animals sounds fantastic and would be a breakthrough in science, the matter raises several issues.
Animals like the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths existed several thousand centuries ago. Climatic conditions were completely different then. There were different sorts of living were roaming the Earth then and there was a certain cycle of nature operating that made it possible for each of the species to survive. With time, that cycle broke to make for a new one, then another one and another one. Wouldn't re-introducing extinct species into today's cycle of nature be problematic for all species and lead to problems of adaptation? Besides, there are problems of adjusting with their dietary requirements and temperaments that Wendee talks of.

Cloned sheep (Courtesy:grtu.net)

Cloning itself is problematic even when it comes to cloning living species. Animals like sheep, goats, cows, etc have been cloned succesfully, but they usually died soon due to weak health in comparison to their non-cloned counterparts. In that case, how risky would it be to clone extinct species?
The Earth today is over-crowded. Everybody is clamouring for space to make way for the rapidly increasing population entering into billions. As a result, natural habitats are getting destroyed and animals are dying out due to lack of space. I fail to understand, how we could accommodate gigantic animals under such conditions.

On a personal and simplistic level, if computerized, graphic dinosaurs on the large screen could have a scary impact on you, how would it be like to face the real versions right from your window?
It is commendable that science has advanced so much and keeps expanding its own possibilities. But wouldn't it make more sense if technology is invested more on the living and endangered species on Earth and ensuring their survival, rather than bringing back more species from the dead?

DOG AND DONKEY'S (UN)FAIRY TALE

Courtesy:crazykfarm.com

Earlier this month, I had written this blog on Halloween and the black cat's plight. I received a rather thought provoking comment from Inder on that blog. He brought attention to the condition of donkeys and dogs, how they are subjected to ridicule especially in Asian countries in spite of being of such great service to mankind.

That is indeed so true.When we talk about donkeys and dogs, we get contrasting images for each of them. Let's see that in both the Indian and global context.

Dogs
On one hand, we visualize dogs as cute puppies, faithful, loyal and obedient pets, man's best friend and other such  flattering stuff.
On the other hand, in the Indian parlance (and even other countries' for that matter), the most insulting and rudest abuses are associated with the word 'dog', 'kutta'('dog' in Hindi) or 'bitch' (female dog)
Donkeys
Donkeys carry heavy burden on their backs for long distances and make faithful pets to their owners. To a poor man, he's not only a pet, but also like a partner in earning a livelihood as it helps in carrying and transporting goods.
The word 'donkey' on the other hand is also used for rudely addressing somebody be it in English or Hindi(gadha). It's equivalent to calling somebody an idiot, useless, foolish, etc.

Why such contrasts? It's not as if the words 'donkey' and 'dog' are homonyms. Then, why are these creatures targetted in a way, so starkly opposite to their real natures?

I may not have answers to these, but it makes me ponder about something else. Dogs and donkeys are definitely some of the most ill-treated animals, especially the stray ones. They are hit with stones and sticks for no fault of theirs, burning crackers are often attached to their tails just for fun, etc. Do the rude references using donkey-dog words, play a role in shaping mentalities and attitudes towards these poor creatures? Do those abusive words meant to be amusing, unconsciously make people look down upon dogs and donkeys, who then are ill-treated by those people? Or is it just a co-incidence?I wonder..