Old San Juan: steep, tropical, colorful


Photos and text by Sally Kneidel, PhD

I  went to Puerto Rico in March 2010 with my family, to visit our son Alan.

My family in San Juan: Ken, Sadie, Alan, and Matt

Alan is temporarily living in Puerto Rico, doing bird research for NC State. He and his team are studying the use of natural corridors by  birds nesting in forest fragments.

Alan with lizard (lizards are abundant in P.R.)

Corridors help wildlife,  in fragmented forests

This Puerto Rican research has broad implications for all fragmented bird habitat. Many of the world’s forests persist only in fragments now, due to human activities such as logging, agriculture, and development.  Alan is studying whether the breeding birds of  Puerto Rico must have forested corridors in order to move from forest fragment to forest fragment to search for mates or food. The team is also investigating which migratory bird species pass through Puerto Rico on their way to North America from wintering grounds in Latin America.

The heritage and culture of Puerto Rico

Since Puerto Rico was colonized by the Spanish in the 1500s, almost everyone speaks Spanish as their first language. I’ve read that the people of P.R. are varying blends of Spanish, indigenous Taino, and Africans brought in by the Spanish. Alan says that in his home area of Guanica, on the SW coast of P.R., many of the locals are descended from Venezuelans.

Puerto Rico is different from other Latin American countries I’ve visited in that a huge portion of the population speaks excellent English, especially in the cities.

American stores everywhere

Another difference was the American infrastructure. The major highways were in excellent shape with highway signs that looked American, except the words were Spanish. And American stores were everywhere: Walmart, Walgreens, McDonalds, KFC, K-Mart, and more. Alan says you can find almost any American product, from an American store. Although he says a few things are way more expensive than in the U.S., which is typical of islands.

What’s the relationship of Puerto Rico to the U.S.?

Puerto Rico’s political status is a little confusing. It’s an “unincorporated territory” of the United States – belonging to the U.S. but not a part of the U.S.  Federal law applies in P.R., but they have no representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but oddly, they can’t vote in U.S. elections while in Puerto Rico. They can, however, vote if they are in the U.S. during the time of an election. Strange.

Puerto Rico doesn’t want to be a U.S. state

I was told while I was there that the vast majority of Puerto Ricans do not want statehood. In fact, there was a 1950 revolt against the U.S. in the Puerto Rican town of Jayuya, known as the “Jayuya uprising.”  It led to the U.S. attacking Jayuya with bombers.  My family stayed in Jayuya for three days on this trip – I’ll write more about that in a later post. Some of the people of Jayuya were not especially welcoming of our gang of gringos from the U.S.  We never did find any restaurants open, and ate dinner every night on the balcony of our hotel.

Historic,  colorful, steep:  Old San Juan is beautiful

The capital city of San Juan is the second-oldest European settlement in the Americas. It was founded by the Spanish in 1581, and still has two huge fortresses built by the Spanish.   The ocean is almost always visible from the old part of the city, with cruise ships anchored off shore. Cruise-ship passengers roam the narrow and hilly streets, past  historic pastel homes and shops.

Above, many of the steep streets in Old San Juan are paved with blue cobblestones, still in place from the  Spanish colonists in the 1500s. Photo by Sally Kneidel.
Above, the buildings in Old San Juan are charming. Photo by Sally Kneidel
More Old San Juan. Photo by Sally Kneidel

Ken and Alan wait for me on a corner in Old San Juan. Photo by Sally Kneidel.

The coastal boardwalk was cool

We visited one of the two Spanish fortresses (Castillo de San Felipe del Morro) built in the 1500s, then walked back through Old San Juan along a boardwalk (or sidewalk) by the ocean.  That was my favorite part of the day.
Leaving the walls of the fortress behind, setting out on the sidewalk by the sea. Photo by Sally Kneidel
A Puerto Rican family resting under a very odd tree, along the ocean walkway.
We passed a brown pelican in a tree. Photo by Sally Kneidel.
This huge striped caterpillar was perched on a strangler-fig tree. Alan and I both had to photograph it.  Photo by Sally Kneidel
The caterpillar. I have no idea what kind of butterfly or moth it was. Photo by Sally Kneidel

On to the tropical rainforest

By 3:30 pm, we had to blast out of San Juan in our rental car to get to our next destination by sundown. We headed out for El Yunque Caribbean National Forest, a mountainous rainforest.  We couldn’t wait to get there. It would be cooler in the mountains, and we were eager to immerse ourselves in tropical nature. That’s my next post on Puerto Rico, comin’ up.

Sources and additional info:

Suzanne Van Atten.  Puerto Rico. Moon Handbooks. September 2009.  We took this book on our trip, and it was helpful.

Goodbye, me (Alan Kneidel’s blog).  Alan has  a lot of posts about his life in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico.  Wikipedia.  This entry is full of info about the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S. government.

Key words:

Sally Kneidel Puerto Rico Old San Juan Caribbean bird research Alan Kneidel wildlife corridors forest fragments

Posted in Caribbean, Eco-travel, Puerto Rico, Wildlife Tagged with: , , , ,

New study: chocolate reduces risk of stroke and heart attack by 39%

This post now on Google News

I’ve seen various studies over the years about the benefits of dark chocolate, but none as convincing as this one.

In an article published yesterday in the European Heart Journal, German scientists report a study that tracked nearly 20,000 people over a period of 8 years. The researchers found that people who ate approximately one square of a dark chocolate bar every day reduced their risk of both stroke and heart attack by 39%! One square is defined as 6 grams or a quarter of an ounce. This is the first study to follow people for such a long period.

Flavonols provide the benefit

The researchers believe that flavonols in the chocolate are responsible for the benefits. Flavonols are also in red wine, some teas, and some vegetables. Ingestion of flavonols affects the muscles in blood vessels, helping them dilate, which causes a drop in blood pressure.

Because flavonoids (a chemical group that includes flavonols) can have a bitter taste, they are often removed from chocolate, even dark chocolate. Milk, including the milk in milk chocolate, can inhibit the uptake of flavonoids and flavonols.  So if you want to try taking a square of chocolate a day, look for dark chocolate that doesn’t have milk in it, and don’t drink a glass of milk at the same time. Some brands of dark chocolate say on the wrapper that the flavonols and flavonoids have not been removed. To read more about flavonoids and flavonol, and foods that have them, see this article.

Eating too much chocolate can be a health risk

The study’s lead author is Dr. Brian Buijsse, a nutritional epidemiologist at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Nuthetal, Bermany.  He and the other researchers warned that eating too much chocolate could cause weight gain, which has the opposite health effect. Weight gain is a major risk factor for strokes and heart attacks.

Others around the world had similar comments about the new study. “This is not a prescription to eat more chocolate,” said Dr. Robert Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado and a past president of the American Heart Association. He was not linked to the study. “If we all had (a small amount) of chocolate every day for the rest of our lives, we would all gain a few pounds.”

Authors say recommendations may be premature

The authors also stopped short of recommending that everyone eat chocolate every day. “It’s a bit early to come up with recommendations that people should eat more chocolate, but if people replace sugar or high-fat snacks with a little piece of dark chocolate, that might help,” said Dr. Buijsse. The authors, and others, feel that more research is needed to determine the exact impact of chocolate on the body.

The study was funded by the German government and the European Union.

Sources

Easter eggs crack heart risks.” German Herald. April 1, 2010.

Maria Cheng, AP Medical Writer. “Study: Chocolate could reduce heart risk.” Charlotte Observer. April 1, 2010.

A similar story by Maria Cheng is available online: “Study: Chocolate could reduce heart risk.Lubbock Online. March 31, 2010.

Flavonoid. Wikipedia. April 1, 2010.

Key words:

dark chocolate flavonols flavonoids 39% fewer strokes 39% fewer heart attacks Brian Buijsse benefits of chocolate

Posted in Food, Health Tagged with: ,

Invasive 8-inch-long African snails reappear in Florida

Giant African snail, Achatina fulica. Photo courtesy of USDA.

I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago about Burmese pythons and other giant constrictors now living wild in Florida.  Thousands of them are successfully breeding there.   I got a lot of pingbacks from that post, mostly from indignant owners of giant constrictors.

As you probably know, introduced and invasive plants and animals are everywhere in the U.S.  In one county park near my home in North Carolina, 35% of the plant species are nonnative – so I’m told by a professional botanist who frequents the park.

Florida is vulnerable

Florida is particularly susceptible to invasion by nonnative species because of its subtropical climate, and because of the number of people and shipments coming in from the Caribbean and Latin America.  One  invader that has been in the news lately, as a major plant pest and potential public health threat, is the giant African snail Achatina fulica.  Its maximum size is 8 inches long and 4.5 inches wide – one of the world’s largest land snails.  One pair of mated adults can lay 1,200 eggs per year.

A child brought 3 of the snails into the Miami area as pets in 1966, and his grandmother later released them into her garden.  By 1973, those three had spawned a population of 18,000 snails.  The government spent $1 million over the next decade trying to get rid of them.  The snails are still popular as pets.

They eat citrus crops, can carry human diseases

Mark Fagan, a spokesman for Florida Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services says the main concern is damage to agricultural crops. The snails can eat at least 500 types of plants, including citrus crops. They are known to carry a parasite, rat lungworm, that can cause serious diseases such as meningitis in humans. According to the University of Georgia website , these diseases can be transferred to humans by eating raw, undercooked infected snail meat or contaminated vegetables. Vegetables can become contaminated if the snails move across them.

The snails also eat stucco and plaster for minerals to grow their shells, damaging homes and other buildings.

Snails found in Hialeah, Florida

These giant African snails were thought to be eradicated in Florida, although present on Caribbean islands.   But they have recently resurfaced in Florida, says Fagan.  Multiple snails were found last month in Hialeah, Florida.

In addition to their large size, the snails can be recognized by having 7 to 9 spirals and a brownish shell that covers half the body.  If you see these snails in your area, call your local department of agriculture.

Sources:

Anthony Colarossi. “Florida targets giant African snails.”  Orlando Sentinel.  Colarossi’s  article appeared in the Charlotte Observer March 22, 2010.

University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Posted in Agriculture, Ecosystems, Health, Invasive species, Wildlife, Wildlife habitat Tagged with: , , ,

Great Apes Losing Ground

This post now on Google News and on BasilandSpice, a syndicated website
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Text and photos (except gibbon photo) by Sally Kneidel, PhD
bbbbbbbbb

Myself (Sally Kneidel) with a young orang in grad school at OU, while a student of Roger Fouts’

Southeast Asia a center for illegal wildlife trade

I’m going to Indonesia soon, to write about the current plight of orangutans who are losing their habitat. And to learn more about the illegal trade in wildlife, especially endangered primates.

If you regularly read the website of “Traffic: The Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network, you know that southeast Asia is the epicenter of the illegal trade in protected wildlife. The Chatuchak weekend market in Bangkok is said to be the single largest market on the planet where wildlife is traded illegally. That’s one place I’m going.

New study finds endangered gibbons threatened by pet trade

I do read Traffic regularly and spotted on their website this morning a link to a recent article from the journal Endangered Species Research, a study of the trade in seven species of gibbons native to Indonesia. All seven of these gibbon species are listed as Endangered by the IUCN, meaning that all are at very high risk of going extinct in the wild. All are protected by Indonesian law and can’t legally be kept as pets.

Gibbons, courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org

The researchers for the ESR article I mentioned above reported on 600 gibbons found in 22 zoos and 9 wildlife rescue centers and reintroduction centers from 2003 to 2008. About 2/3 of these animals had been confiscated by Indonesian authorities from persons keeping or trading them illegally. About 1/3 were animals donated by pet owners who grew tired of the gibbons as they aged and were no longer cute pets. The article reported that prosecution of offenders is rare, and so the trade in gibbons and other endangered primates such as orangutans remains rampant.

Traffic published an excellent overview of the ESR gibbon article on Dec 7, 2010, on the Traffic website.

Both gibbons and orangutans (also highly endangered) are Great Apes, the animals most closely related to humans. (Other Great Apes include chimpanzees and gorillas.) What animals could be more deserving of our protection, or more interesting?

The illegal pet trade grows  more significant as species dwindle

The main threats to most primates are loss of habitat and hunting, but as their numbers decline, the illegal trade in primates is having an increasing impact on the surviving populations. This trade is driven not only by pet owners, but also by demand from biomedical companies and zoos. I recently wrote a post in which I reported that the country importing the most primates is the United States, largely for medical, pharmaceutical, and other research. Many or most of these are wild-caught primates, because wild-caught are much cheaper than those bred and raised in captivity. And most research is paid for by grants, so researchers shop frugally for their experimental subjects.

But the primate pet trade is thriving in the United States too.  If you doubt it, take out a subscription to Animal Finders’ Guide, or attend one of the many exotic animal auctions held across the U.S. every year, such as the infamous “Woods and Waters.” Animal Finders’ Guide advertises these auctions, but the weekly publication is mostly pages of ads selling wildlife, from lions to camels to primates, including chimpanzees. Selling them to anyone who’ll pay. Stunned when I read my first copy, I called a man selling a young chimp from his “backyard compound” in Texas. He assured me I needed no papers, offered to drive the chimp halfway to deliver it to me. I don’t remember exactly how much he was asking, but I think it was $25,000.

Many of the animals for sale in the United States arrive the same way drugs do: by boat, by private plane, in the trunks of cars. I went to an animal market in Peru that offered baby tamarins, marmosets, night saki monkeys, sloths, baby spider monkeys for sale to anyone who would buy.

Above, a baby spider monkey for sale illegally in a market along the Amazon, photo by Sally Kneidel
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Above, an indifferent policeman plays with a baby sloth for sale illegally, photo by Sally Kneidel

The price of these endangered and threatened wildlife in that market by the Amazon?  The equivalent of $2 each. Many were sold as pets; keeping primates as companion animals is still quite popular in the villages of remote Amazonia. Some families had a baby marmoset for every child in the family, as well as turtles and iguanas that they dragged around on rope leashes.

Above, a teenage girl in an Amazonian village with a pet marmoset, photo by Sally Kneidel

Check out my previous post about the Amazonian wildlife market, and my previous post about the popularity of wildlife and primates as pets in Amazonia – both posts with lots of pics.

What can you do?
1. Support organizations such as the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOS), which manages a 1 million acre reserve that is home to 3500 wild orangutans. BOS is committed to rescuing orangutans displaced by the ongoing destruction of their remaining habitat for palm oil plantations.

2. Support Orangutan Land Trust, an organization affiliated with BOS. I know the people who manage BOS and OLT, and I know they’re making a difference.

3. Visit the Orangutan Outreach website to learn more.  Orangutan Outreach fundraises directly for BOS Nyaru Menteng in the US.  According to a comment from Orangutan Outreach on my other website yesterday,  “orangutans are critically endangered in the wild because of rapid deforestation and the expansion of palm oil plantations. If nothing is done to protect them, they will be extinct in just a few years.”

Orangutan Outreach
http://redapes.org
Reach out and save the orangutans!
Join our Facebook Cause

4. Support TRAFFIC, an organization committed to informing the public about all species threatened by loss of habitat, hunting, and illegal trade. TRAFFIC has been around for a long time, and is associated with WWF.

5. I don’t know much about Kalaweit, but just looking at their website, they appear to be an organization working to protect and rescue gibbons in Indonesia.

Sources:

Vincent Nijman et al. October 13, 2009. “Saved from trade: donated and confiscated gibbons in zoos and rescue centers in Indonesia.” Endangered Species Research (http://www.int-res.com/journals/esr/esr-home/)

See also:

Traffic. “Study highlights gibbon trade in Indonesia” Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.  12/7/2009.

David Adam. “Monkeys, butterflies, turtles… how the pet trade’s greed is emptying south-east Asia’s forests.”
guardian.co.uk The Observer Feb 21, 2010.

Some of my previous posts on these topics:

Monkeys and parrots pouring from the jungle..

U.S. imports 20,000 primates per year

From the Amazon to the Andes, Peru knocked me silly

Posted in Endangered species, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, Wildlife, Wildlife habitat, Wildlife survival Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

We were made to run barefoot, says new study from journal Nature

Photo and text by Sally Kneidel, PhD

This post now on Google News and on www.basilandspice.com

New research from Harvard University suggests that running barefoot might be beneficial.  Says Daniel Lieberman of Harvard, “One shouldn’t be scared of barefoot or minimal shoe running or think it odd.  From an evolutionary perspective, it’s normal and, if done properly, it is very fun and comfortable.  We evolved to run barefoot.”

Bare feet strike the ground differently
Running barefoot is different from running with shoes on. The invention of the springy running shoe in the 1970s allowed runners to land comfortably on the heel before rolling forward on the foot.  In contrast,  landing on the barefoot heel  is not a good idea. Barefoot, “a rear-foot strike is like someone hitting you on the foot with a hammer with about one and a half to three times your body weight,” says Lieberman  Ouch!  But modern cushioned running shoes make landing on the heel not only comfortable, but possible without damage.

Historically, people running barefoot have landed on the front or middle of the foot first, before lowering the heel and transitioning body weight to the back of the foot.  Sprinters still run primarily on their forefeet, but the mechanics of sprinting are different from long distance running.

Researchers studied Kenyan barefoot runners
To study the mechanics of running and sprinting, Lieberman and his colleagues traveled to the Rift Valley of Kenya and taped the movements of endurance runners who grew up running barefoot.  The researchers found that these runners generally hit the ground with the forefoot or middle of the foot before lowering the heel.  Runners in the U.S. typically hit the ground first with the heel.

Barefoot runners take shorter strides, but each stride has less impact
So far, there is not much evidence about which way of running causes more injuries. But it is clear that barefoot runners flex the foot in a way that results in a shorter stride. Reed Ferber, a bio-mechanist at the University of Calgary in Canada, said that a 6-foot 2-inch barefoot man would take 7,200 more steps to finish a marathon, because the length of his stride would be shorter than the stride of a man with shoes. Would that mean more injuries? Maybe.  But not necessarily, because all those extra steps don’t have that “impact peak, so that might be injury protective.”

Too early to be sure…
The researchers concluded that it’s too early to draw conclusions about the advantages or disadvantages of running barefoot. More research is needed to evaluate the effect of the variables, such as one’s condition, the amount of calf muscle, ability to run on the forefoot or midfoot, and so on.

So, don’t throw out those running shoes yet!

Sources:
Daniel E. Lieberman. “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.” Nature 463, 531-535. January 28, 2010

Laura Sanders. “Running barefoot cushions impact of forces on foot:  too soon to say if shoeless approach reduces injuries”.  Science News, February 27, 2010.

Key words: running barefoot, shoes, feet, Kenya


Posted in Health, Human behavior Tagged with: ,

Review of documentary “End of the line: where have all the fish gone?”

The documentary "End of the Line"
Review by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

My husband, an ecologist, keeps a list of people whose profession matches their name, such as peanut specialist Shelly Nutt, ornithologist Christopher Bird, editor Zachary Read.  But the best is Dr. Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada’s Dalhousie University. He’s always been our favorite, because we loved the peculiar marine worms we learned about in grad school.

Abundance of marine fish has decreased 90%
So I was thrilled to finally see Dr. Worm, on screen. He is perhaps the “star” of  the new and excellent documentary “End of the Line”.  Worm is much more charming than his name might suggest, but the news he delivered was bad. A dogmatic researcher, Worm analyzed Japanese fish-capture records gathered over several decades, looking for trends in numbers of marine fish.  What he found was disturbing, to say the least. Since “large scale fishing” began in 1952,  the abundance of large oceanic fish has decreased globally by 90%!

Worm said that when he first realized the magnitude of what we’ve lost, “it sent shivers down my spine.”

The angels would weep
What exactly is “large scale fishing”? The documentary does a wonderful job of impressing upon the viewer the magnitude and power of today’s modern fishing techniques. “High-tech industrial vessels are hunting down every known edible species of fish,” said narrator Ted Danson.  Too many boats with too much capacity are chasing too few fish. For example, the “long-lining industry” sets 1.4 billion hooks annually, on heavy-duty fishing line that could encircle the globe more than 550 times. The mouth of a single large trawling net could accommodate thirteen 747 jetliners. Fishing vessels, and airplanes that track schools of fish illegally, are equipped with so much technological equipment, fish have no chance of escaping.  Bottom trawlers, which drag nets across sea beds and coral reefs, cut down everything in their path including the inedible, such as sea fans, corals, and sponges. The unintentionally caught or “by-catch” include sea birds, hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, sharks, whales, and dolphins.  Seven million tons of by-catch are tossed back into the ocean each year, dead.

Said Dr. Callum Roberts of York University in the U.K., “the signs of destruction brought up on deck would make an angel weep.”

The film’s strengths are its personal portraits
Most of the stats and data presented in the documentary are probably available from various websites, journals and books.  But the strengths of the DVD are its emotional impact, and the persuasive presentation of the whole story in one sitting. Its emotional impressions are delivered via personal stories of passionate scientists on a quest for the truth and solutions, and indigenous fishermen in handmade boats, now unable to feed their families. Said Adama, a young Senegalese fisherman, “The sea has betrayed us. If my children grow up here today where there is no future, how will they think of me as a father?”.

China falsified catch data for 14 years, concealing a global decline
Until 2002, the scientific community was under the impression that, despite all odds, the world catch was increasing each year.  So, although scientists were worried, no one was too alarmed. Turns out, China had been reporting false catch data for years.  The world catch is actually decreasing every year and has been since 1988.

Mitsubishi stockpiles a disappearing species – for future profits?
Another of the compelling stories told on the DVD involves the demise of bluefin tuna, as related by Roberto Mielgo, a man dedicated to identifying the perpetrators of an impending extinction. Scientists have recommended that fishing of bluefin be limited to 10,000 tons per year to allow the species to recover from previous overfishing. A ceiling as high as 15,000 might prevent collapse of the population. But for political reasons, governments have sanctioned a catch of 29,000 tons annually. In reality, 61,000 tons were caught in  one recent year – 1/3 of the entire remaining bluefin population. Fishermen and corporations cheat because they can, and they don’t get caught. In the documentary, a passionate Mielgo described the role of Mitsubishi in the decline of bluefin tuna.  He believes the company is stockpiling bluefin for the day when the species will be extinct and the price of their highly regarded flesh will skyrocket. The bluefin situation demonstrates what multinational corporations, international fishing policy, and consumer demand can do to a wild species.

“We are crazy!”
Several scientists and fisheries workers expressed pessimism about human nature and the ultimate depletion of the ocean. Said professional diver Haidar El Ali, “Man is not going to change and the sea is going to be dead.  Because man is crazy.  We are crazy!”

Steve Palumbi of Stanford University said that, assuming things remain the same, the ocean will be devoid of edible fish by the year 2048.  Added Charles Clover, the author of the book on which the documentary is based, “When we start really feeling the effects of climate change, when we start running out of food to feed ourselves, at the same time we will have squandered one of the best resources we’ve ever had on the planet.”

What will remain? Jellyfish, plankton, and…..worms.  Lots of marine worms.

Solutions
Toward the end, the DVD turned to solutions. Farmed fish is not a solution, because more wild fish (such as anchovies) are harvested to feed the farmed stock than are produced for our consumption…a clearly illogical and unsustainable endeavor.  Five kg of anchovies are required to produce 1 kg of farmed salmon.

Future “global marine reserves” comprising 20-30% of the oceans were proposed with some enthusiasm in the DVD – large areas of ocean where commercial fishing would be banned.  Nice idea, but much of today’s commercial fishing is carried out in violation of governmental or international regulations.  How would protection of these reserves be enforced?  The DVD said $12-14 billion per year could manage the reserves.  Maybe.

According to the filmmakers and Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, Alaska is on the frontline in the battle to conserve the sea.  The number of fishing boats off the coast of Alaska is carefully monitored.  Catch limits are set at sustainable levels or below.  Fishing boats are given only a limited amount of time to fish.  While the catch rate in the North Sea is 50%, Alaska’s catch rate is only 10%.

The documentary mentioned several companies that are making an effort to conserve marine fishes.  By 2011, Walmart will sell only fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council, a board that certifies sustainable fishing.  Ninety percent of the fish served by McDonalds are MSC approved. Two-thirds of Birds Eye fish are from sustainable sources.

Recommendations for consumers
The filmmakers asserted that, among the world’s problems, the overharvesting of marine fish is one of the easiest problems to fix. They recommended:
1) Ask before you buy. Eat only sustainably harvested seafood. (For a guide, see www.seafoodwatch.org).
2) Tell politicians to cut the fishing fleet.
3) Join the campaign for protected marine reserves and responsible fishing.

I wish they had stressed…
The DVD mentioned the value of eating lower on the marine food chain – eating anchovies ourselves instead of feeding them to farmed fish. And it mentioned very briefly changing consumer habits. But the film never addressed, that I recall, the option of not eating fish at all. We don’t need to eat fish, or food from any animal sources. Ecologists, MDs, nutrition scientists and many, many popular writers have asserted that humans can reduce our ecological impact and our carbon footprint, and improve our health, by avoiding animal products in our diet altogether. Why does a filmmaker on such a dire subject as complete depletion of the oceans not explore this avenue of future action?

The other topic I would like to have seen explored is the obvious suffering of the fish in many of the scenes in the DVD. Conscious animals were often hauled on board boats by stabbing and yanking them with large hooks, then clubbing them to death or tossing them down chutes to be buried by more live fish.  The camera many times showed rivers of blood on decks of ships. Fish are vertebrates, like ourselves, and have brains not that dissimilar from our own.  They feel pain; they feel fear. They don’t look as much like us as other vertebrates, they’re not cuddly – but they are sentient. For more details about studies demonstrating the sensibilities of fish, see Peter Singer and Jim Mason’s book about animals as food, The Way We Eat.

Awareness is key….show this important film to students
The strength of the DVD, in my opinion, was not its prescription for solutions, but its touching and memorable portrayal of the scientists and activists so desperately trying to educate consumers of the world….our oceans are on track to be empty 38 years from today.  If we’re not part of the solution, we’re part of the problem.  Awareness is the first step toward change. And this documentary does an excellent job of dramatically increasing awareness. I strongly recommend it to teachers. Show it to your classes. Talk about it and brainstorm solutions. The next generation has a short window of opportunity to take action. Or the jellyfish, plankton, and motly assortment of marine worms my husband and I found so intriguing will be the sole inhabitants of our grandchildren’s seas.

Extra material with the DVD:
The DVD comes with a wallet-sized card, “National Sustainable Seafood Guide.” The card lists Best Choices, Good Alternatives, and Avoid.  It also mentions these websites as useful:

Some of my earlier posts on fishing, fish farming, greenhouse gases from raising livestock:

End of the Line: new book about how overfishing is changing the world

Farmed salmon versus wild salmon

North Carolina’s vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to rising seas

Lice from fish farms attack wild salmon

Number of imperiled fish doubles in 20 years

Livestock account for 51% of annual greenhouse gases

Puffins and whales endangered by fishing industry; online guides to choosing healthiest fish

Celebrity Chef imbraces animal welfare and eco-friendly fishing

I fell off a cliff while seeking whales, seals, and other marine mammals

Tuna is the biggest source of mercury from fish: is it safe to eat fish?

Top 10 ways to help wildlife

My book about the hazards of overfishing and of fish farms:

Going Green: A Wise Consumer’s Guide to a Shrinking Planet

Key words: ocean fish long-lines longlines gill nets overfishing overharvesting of ocean declining fish populations depletion of the oceans marine biology trawlers trawling coral reefs End of the Line Boris Worm Charles Clover marine fish oceanography fish farms Marine Stewardship Council

Posted in Animal welfare / animal rights, Ecosystems, Endangered species, Food, Health, Sustainable choices for your home, Wildlife, Wildlife habitat, Wildlife survival Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

10,000 wild pythons in Florida, says new USGS report

This post now on Google News!

Nine species of introduced giant snakes could pose risks to U.S. ecosystems, according to a report recently released by the U.S. Geological Survey. The giant species now present in the U.S. are descended from imported pets that have been released outdoors.  Already there are more than 10,000 Burmese pythons reproducing in the wild in south Florida.  Boa constrictors are also known to be reproducing in south Florida. The USGS says there’s “strong evidence” that an African python may have a breeding population in Florida too.

Some snakes big enough to eat people

All nine potentially risky species are constrictors – nonpoisonous species that kill their prey by wrapping around them and squeezing until the prey can’t breathe.  The USGS report says that “most…would not be large enough to consider a person as suitable prey.”  But some of then are large enough to eat people, such as the reticulated python, which can grow longer than 26 feet.  This python is the snake “most associated with unprovoked human fatalities in the wild.”  Reticulated pythons have been both sighted and captured in south Florida, but are not yet known to be breeding there.

Mature individuals of other species – Burmese python, northern and southern African pythons – have also been documented killing people in their native range, although unprovoked attacks are rare.

High-risk species for the U.S.

Several giant snake species are considered “high-risk species” for the U.S. because they:
(1) could put larger areas of the U.S. mainland at risk – not just Florida (because have broader habitat tolerances)
(2) are a major threat to native mammals and birds
(3) are common in the pet trade, hence more likely to be released within the U.S. than some other species

Among these “high risk” species are the boa constrictors and yellow anacondas, which could breed north of Florida in areas with mild winters.

Above, a boa constrictor in Manuel Antonio Parque Nacional in Costa Rica.  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD
Above, our friend Jose Luis holding up an immature boa on his farm near Limon, Costa Rica.  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Above, Nicole the resident biologist, Ken Kneidel, and Sadie Kneidel examine an immature boa at Palo Verde Biological Station of OTS, in Costa Rica.  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Several species of anacondas have also been sighted or captured in south Florida. Anacondas can grow longer than 25 or 26 feet too, and I believe have been known to kill humans, although the USGS report didn’t say that.  I’ve read that the record length of an anaconda is 28 feet.

Deep in the jungle, we found a recently-severed anaconda head

Below are two anaconda pictures my son Alan took on a foray into the Amazon rainforest in 2008. We were slopping and tripping through a difficult swamp on our way to spot hoatzins (birds) when we passed a family of indigenous Peruvians returning to the river after a hunting/foraging walk.  All of them, including grandma, were slogging barefoot through the most treacherous swamp I’ve ever experienced, having submerged 3″ long thorns.  (I stepped on two, which punctured my rubber boots.)  The whole Peruvian family had homemade packs on their backs, and one pack carried a chopped up anaconda they intended to eat. The head, as you see, they had left behind.

The head of an Amazonian anaconda, severed by an indigenous family hunting for food. Photos by Alan Kneidel.

Introduced snakes can devastate native wildlife

The USGS scientists who wrote the new report said that U.S. birds, mammals, and reptiles in areas of potential invasion have never been exposed to huge snakes before, snakes longer than 20 feet and weighing more than 200 pounds.  Said Dr. Gordon Rodda, a USGS scientist, “Compounding the risk to native species and ecosystems is that these snakes mature early, produce large numbers of offspring, travel long distances, and have broad diets that allow them to eat most native birds and mammals.”  He also said that most of these snakes can live in a variety of habitats, including urban or suburban areas. Boa constrictors and northern African pythons are already thriving in metropolitan Miami.

“We have a cautionary tale with the American island of Guam and the brown treesnake,” said Robert Reed, an invasive-species scientist with the USGS, and coauthor of the report.  “Within 40 years of its arrival, this invasive snake has decimated the island’s native wildlife -10 of Guam’s 12 native forest birds, one of its two bat species, and about half of its native lizards are gone.”  Reed goes on to say that “these giant snakes threaten to destabilize some of our most precious ecosystems and parks, primarily through predation on vulnerable native species.”

What can you do?

Don’t keep snakes as pets, and if you must do so, don’t get snakes that grow into large constrictors. If you have one, or know someone who does, there are alternatives to letting them go outdoors after they grow too large to keep at home. Google “reptile sanctuary” to find a facility near you that accepts unwanted pets. If googling doesn’t help, call a nature center or zoo near you for referral to a nearby sanctuary for unwanted and non-native reptiles.  Releasing non-native pets outdoors is never a good idea.

More snake pics by Sally, below

Above, a coiled and wary Bushmaster, among the most venomous vipers in Latin America. Photo taken along a trail at La Selva Biological Station by Sally Kneidel, PhD
Above, a coral snake at Arenal Volcano Parque Nacional in Costa Rica, photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD.

Sources:

Catherine Pucket (USGS) et al.  10/13/2010.”Report documents the risks of giant invasive snakes in the U.S.”  USGS Release. USGS: science for a changing world.
Paul Rauber. Jan/Feb 2010. “Woe is us: ready, set, panic. Snakes on plains.” Sierra magazine.

Some of my previous post on the pet trade,  invasive species, and snakes:

Keywords: invasive species snakes threats to wildlife wildlife trade  endangered ecosystems python, anaconda boa python pet trade Florida invasive snakes giant snakes USGS report
Posted in Ecosystems, Wildlife, Wildlife habitat, Wildlife survival Tagged with: , , , ,

U.S. imports 20,000 primates per year

A vervet monkey in Africa, photo by Sally Kneidel

This post now on Google News and on BasilandSpice

Text and photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

U.S. is the world’s leading importer of primates

I learned while researching our book Going Green that the United States is the biggest importer of primates worldwide.  According to an American University document, the U.S. imports more than 20,000 primates per year!  The U.S. imports four times more primates than any other single country, and many of those primates are wild-caught.

I was shocked and puzzled to hear it. And not very happy.

The primate trade threatens wild primate populations

This information is disturbing because more than 130 of the world’s primate species are endangered. Although the leading threats to primate populations are destruction of tropical forests and poor protection of nature reserves, the primate trade and black-market trade are major contributors to the worldwide decline of wild primates and other wildlife. In tropical countries, wild primates are captured and sold for food, for pets, and increasingly, for use in our research labs.

Here’s the real puzzler: I also learned that the U.S. is third in the world in the export of primates – those that are bred here in captivity. Why would the U.S. import wild-caught primates, and then export the ones that are bred here in cages?

Turns out the answer is pretty easy. Wild-caught primates cost only a third as much as cage-bred animals. Big savings for a research outfit on a tight budget.

Paul McCartney was right…

So what happens to the 20,000 primates that are imported here each year for medical and pharmaceutical research? When I contemplate that question, I think about Paul McCartney’s saying “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we’d all be vegetarians.” Likewise, if research facilities that use animals as subjects had glass walls, we’d all pay attention to those little labels on personal-care products that say “Not tested on animals.” And we’d put pressure on medical schools and pharmaceutical companies to use more films, computer modeling, and plastic models for training and testing purposes.

Animals as commodities

Animals in research labs do not, in general, lead happy lives. Many suffer lives of torment and profound discomfort, boredom, or pain, equivalent to the lives of animals raised on factory farms. Research animals and animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to generate profit for their owners, who are motivated to shave pennies off animal care by skimping on rations, on housing, on cleanliness, space, and medical attention. If you doubt it, check out the footage of Covance, one of the biggest companies to do this work under contract to medical and pharmaceutical companies. Yet…the public knows little about it. How can we care if we don’t know?

Two companies make a small step in the right direction

That’s why I was mildly excited to learn about a sort-of new approach announced by two North Carolina animal research facilities. North Carolina is the third largest biotech hub in the United States, with more than two dozen animal labs that keep primates, dogs, pigs, mice, and other animals for lab research.  For decades, the location and specific activities of these labs have been guarded secrets, to protect against public outrage, and sabotage by animals-rights groups. But two of those companies, Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences (in Research Triangle Park) and Synecor Labs in Durham, have recently announced a collaboration with the UNC Pharmacy School to form the N.C. Biomedical Innovation Network. (Synecor provides dogs, cats, and pigs to test medical stents and other surgical devices.)  This new collaboration requires the involved organizations to follow “good laboratory practices” that include “proper animal husbandry” says Naina Bhasin, a biologist who heads business and tech development at Hamner. “You want to reduce stress to make sure that the animals are happy and healthy,” Bhasin said. Colleen Stack N’diaye, medical director for Synecor Labs, agreed, adding that crowded and dirty conditions skew lab results.

We need transparency

Animal activists are skeptical.  The fact that the two companies announce that they intend to strive for less-stressful conditions says volumes about what’s going on right now. Still, their statement is an indication that these companies are feeling the heat from animal-rights activists. Change often starts small. Let’s hope the rate of change accelerates rapidly. Because right now, too many animals are suffering for our medical, pharmaceutical, and personal care products, and for the animal products for sale in your local supermarket.  It’s not necessary, and as Paul McCartney said, transparency could put an end to the abuse very quickly.

Source:

Sabine Vollmer. “New team lifts veil on animal testing: 2 Research Triangle labs, UNC Chapel Hill school will employ stricter treatment standards than is the norm” The Charlotte Observer.  February 15, 2010.

Some of my previous posts about animal testing and factory farming:

U.S. labs import thousands of wild primates for research.

The wildlife trade, forestry, and the value of activism

Monkeys and parrots pouring from the jungle

Obama to fight consolidation of farms: good news for small farms and consumers.

Key words:  animal research primate research Covance imported primates medical research pharmaceutical research Hamner Institute Synecor Laboratories North Carolina Biomedical Innovation Network factory farming Paul McCartney if slaughterhouses had glass walls

Posted in Africa, Animal welfare / animal rights, Pharmaceuticals, Wildlife, Wildlife survival Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Recovery of endangered fox a model for conservationists

Text and photos by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

Red fox on San Juan Island. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Red foxes are common on lots of islands on the west coast of the U.S., many of them introduced. But Santa Cruz Island, near Santa Barbara, CA, has its own native fox species. The “Santa Cruz Island fox” looks very much like a red fox, but is a distinct species. It was added to the endangered species list in 2004, after a decline from 1500 to fewer than 100 individuals.

DDT to blame

Their decline was due to a series of events that started with DDT.  Ocean dumping of DDT wiped out the island’s fish-eating bald eagles.  When that happened, golden eagles moved in from the mainland to take advantage of the vacated space and dine on the island’s feral pigs.  But the golden eagles ate not only the pigs but the foxes too. The golden eagles hunted the foxes almost to extinction.

Luckily for the foxes, the island is jointly owned by the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service.  So when the foxes were declared endangered, 10 pairs were captured and bred in captivity.  Meanwhile, the Park Service and Nature Conservancy together relocated the golden eagles and brought in bald eagle chicks.  The feral pigs and sheep, which had overgrazed the island, were removed.

Fox dilemma fixed

Today, the island and foxes are making a speedy recovery.

Says Lotus Vermeer, the Nature Conservancy’s project director for Santa Cruz island, “This is the fastest recovery of a listed endangered species in U.S. history that we know of.”

Endemic succulents and other native plants are regrowing.  Oak seedlings abound, now that feral pigs no longer eat the acorns. The island has seven pairs of breeding bald eagles. And the foxes are rebounding.  Says Vermeer, “Five years ago, I never saw a fox on the island; a sighting was a rare event. Now you see foxes all the time – you can’t help it.”

New model for other endangered-species recovery plans

Vermeer says that the partnership between the Nature Conservancy and the Park Service is a new model for endangered-species recovery.  She expects the fox to be removed from the endangered species list in 5 to 10 years.

Red fox scratching, on San Juan Island. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

There are plenty of other candidates who could use a successful model of species recovery, such as black-footed ferrets, gray wolves, grizzly bears, prairie dogs, red wolves, Florida panthers, mountain lions, lynxes, badgers – to name a few.  No doubt, the fact that the Park Service and Nature Conservancy jointly own  the island was a major factor in their ability to manipulate animal populations – removing invaders and reintroducing native species. As owners, they also had no complaints from private property owners or commercial outfits to contend with.  I don’t know how much money was spent on this project, but with the Park Service involved, it could have been plenty.

Still, a good model is a good model. It provides hope that other ecosystems can be restored to their original state. Nothing like a good success story to thwart objectors.  And where commercial interests are involved, there will always be objectors.

Source:

Curtis Runyan. “Outfoxed: Island restoration brings record recovery.” Nature Conservancy Magazine. Summer 2009.

Some of my previous posts about wildlife on the west coast of North America:

Best place in the world to spot Orcas from shore

Puffins and whales endangered by fishing industry: online guides to choosing healthiest fish

In search of Northwest birds

We saw one humpback whale: the good and bad on whale-watching

I fell off a cliff while seeking whales, seals, and other marine mammals

Some of my previous posts about wolves:

Gray wolves booted from endangered species list

On Friday, Wyoming condemns wolves to slaughter

Wolves in danger from the U.S. government, once again

Keywords: Santa Cruz Island fox red fox west coast wildlife endangered species recovery plan Nature Conservancy wolves whales

Posted in Ecosystems, Endangered species, Wildlife, Wildlife habitat, Wildlife survival Tagged with: , , ,

Why do girls fear snakes and spiders more than boys?

Text by Sally Kneidel, PhD
Photos by Alan Kneidel
See Alan’s blog at http://goodbykneidel.blogspot.com

Photo of gopher snake by Alan Kneidel

I love snakes. Every time I take a walk around the neighborhood, I stop and examine every squashed snake carcass I see on the road, of which there are many. I lament the loss of every one of them.

My parents, on the other hand, killed every snake they saw when I was a kid, and called all of them “copperheads.”  They were protecting us young’uns, or so they thought. I didn’t realize how many people kill all snakes until I spent three years teaching elementary science.  I used to bring a lot of snakes in to show my students. Every single time I did this, a dozen hands would shoot up begging to make a comment.  And almost every single comment was “My daddy killed a snake last week with a shovel” or “My granddaddy chopped a snake in half in the garden.”  No one ever said that a snake their family saw was a welcomed or even a tolerated sight. And all of the snakes were allegedly “copperheads.” After awhile, I began my snake lessons by banning stories about family members killing snakes; I couldn’t take it anymore.  It’s a miracle that the U.S. has any remaining snakes at all.

Why are we so afraid of snakes? As a person partial to snakes, I have little patience with it.

Are girls genetically primed to fear snakes?

I read recently an intriguing study about fear of snakes, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. That study is the subject of this post.  Researcher David Rakison of Carnegie Mellon University looked at differences in the way 11-month-old humans react to pictures of snakes and spiders.  Specifically, he looked at differences between male and female children. His findings surprised me.

Rakison showed pairs of images to the youngsters in his study.  First he paired either a happy or a fearful cartoon face with a snake, a spider, a flower, or a mushroom.  After that, Rakison timed how long each baby looked at new pairings of images that were different from the orignial pairings they had viewed. He wanted to see if the new pairings would seem odd to them and would cause them to look longer, out of puzzlement or curiousity.

Here’s what Rakison found

Apparently the girls more readily associated the snake or spider with a fearful face. When the girls were subsequently shown a happy face with the snake or spider, they looked at it a long time (as if trying to make sense of something surprising).  With the little boys, no pairings of images were more interesting than any others. The boys did not find the snake or spider paired with a happy face surprising or interesting.

Tarantula in Amazon rainforest by Alan Kneidel

Rakison said that this finding (if confirmed by other studies) indicates that human females have evolved an aversion to snakes and spiders. That trait evolved because women in our evolutionary history were in charge of protecting their children from the bites of snakes or spiders. Another study in Sweden found that snake and spider phobias are four times more common in women than in men.

Black-tailed rattlesnake by Alan Kneidel

Not so fast…

says Vanessa LoBue of the University of Virginia. She disagrees with Rakison’s findings. If girls gaze longer at the pairing of a snake with a smiling face, it’s because 11-month-old girls are better at recognizing facial expressions than male babies, and therefore understand the pairings better. This understanding would account for their surprise and longer gazes.

LoBue offers evidence from her own studies that 5-year-old girls recognize threatening and nonthreatening expressions faster than boys. Do 11-month-old girls have that capacity too? We need to find out! What do you think?

Maybe women are squeamish because of gender stereotypes

I personally don’t believe that girls are “primed” genetically to be more fearful of snakes and spiders. I think it’s cultural, that little girls learn to act squeamish and fearful by watching older females. I believe women often behave as though they’re fearful and vulnerable because that’s the sexy female prototype that’s been promoted by our Western culture since who knows when. Powerful fearless women are, in popular culture, not widely admired. That’s changing, but slowly. Women are still encouraged (often very subtly) to appear helpless and afraid like Olive-Oyl, while Popeye eats his spinach and beats the tar out of Brutus. I agree with LoBue. Rakison’s results can be explained by female children’s acuity in reading human facial expressions.

Or maybe girls already been affected by cultural expectations for their gender, at the age of 11-months!

Spider in Bolivia by Alan Kneidel

I would love to hear reader comments.

Sources:

David Rakison. “Does women’s greater fear of snakes and spiders originate in infancy?” Evolution and Human Behavior. Volume 30. November, 2009.

Bruce Bower. “Girls but not boys may be primed for arachnophobia, ophidiophobia: Fear of crawly, slithery things could begin before first birthday. Science News, September 26, 2009.

Photographer is Alan Kneidel of  http://goodbykneidel.blogspot.com

Posted in Wildlife Tagged with: ,

What’s this blog about?

These days, I blog mostly about nature and wildlife. Even the tiniest creatures make me happy! You'll also find here lots of posts about plant-based foods, health, and ecotourism. Ecotourism can support local people who make a living through sustainable use of wildlife, habitat, and natural resources.

Amazon Page

My Amazon page shows most of my books (click here)

Archive of Posts

Categories

Link to our other blog, Veggie Revolution

Our other blog, Veggie Revolution, focuses more on food than this one does, especially the environmental, health and humane aspects of our food choices. That blog was started in 2005 and continues today, while the blog you're reading now began in 2009. Some of the newer posts are on both blogs, but Veggie Rev has at least 260 more posts than this blog, including Sadie's travels to Morocco. In the sidebar of Veggie Rev, you'll see links to each year that can take you back to all the posts for a particular year.

Veggie Revolution blog