Love For Animals

I remember it like it was yesterday. I was around 16 years old, and my friends and I would go to Marine World (renamed Six Flags Discovery Kingdom) during the summer. We saw a couple of scattered people standing near the entrance of the parking lot. They had signs and they were shouting. They were protesters, and they were protesting against keeping marine mammals in captivity. My friends started commenting about the protesters, saying, “They’re stupid. What the hell are they doing?” We just didn’t understand why they were making a big fuss because being the young kids we were, we grew up knowing these places to be popular family places with cute shows involving highly-trained animals. We naturally believed that if it existed and was legal, it can’t be seriously bad like these protesters were making it out to be. However, when I saw them, it caught my attention…but we drove past them and forgot about it all in an instant.

Specifically speaking of marine mammals being held in captivity at theme parks (e.g. SeaWorld or Discovery Kingdom), why do we do it? Primarily for entertainment. Research, while also using them as entertainment? Is that really all we have to say for taking these beautiful wild mammals from their vast home — the oceans that stretch out into an infinite horizon. They have about 75% of this world as their own, and they’re taken away from all of that and dumped into a small chlorine pool. In the wild, they travel long distances all the time in big “family” groups. They’re not meant to be stuck in the confinements of a “puddle.”

Marine mammals, along with many other animals, are being captured and exploited so we can sit in awe and clap in amusement. We know that dolphins will even gladly come up to ships or swim alongside random boats, even the capture boats. They don’t know, and they become an easy capture. The captivity of marine mammals is also considered by many to have an adverse effect on their lifespan. This is a life we’re giving these intelligent creatures. If they could make the choice, honestly don’t you think they’d choose the wild instead? It probably won’t seem like a big deal to some people. I can only speak for myself when I say that when everything is said and done, it just feels wrong.

I’ve never eaten at a sushi restaurant in Japan before. I haven’t even been to too many sushi restaurants where I live, but one thing is for sure — it’s probably rare for someone to see a live fish gasping for oxygen, i.e. dissolved oxygen, while it has skewers pierced through its body as pieces of its own body lay on top of it. It’s been said that the Japanese like their fish very fresh and raw. Well, this preference is very much reflected in their cuisine.

Of course, the preference to eat something that is alive or cook a live crayfish on a sizzling grill is a practice seen as being very normal in Japan and many other countries as well. They like their seafood really fresh, and apparently to some people, a couple of seconds or minutes make a whole lot of difference in freshness. I would think that in some Asian cultures, particularly the Japanese, they’ve witnessed the live cooking/eating practices since they were young. It’s very normal to them, but it’s such a culture clash when you’re not used to seeing people eat things while they’re still alive. It almost seems cruel. Yet, I know that the ethical belief that it’s cruel runs mostly off of the fact that it’s a cultural difference, which explains why I’m more apt to thinking it’s disgusting and morally gross.

So far, scientists do not know for sure whether fish experience pain in the same way as a chicken, cow, or human feels pain. Obviously fish have nerves, but some scientists believe they may lack a specific part of the brain that senses pain. On the other hand, there are some scientists that believe fish are very capable of feeling pain in the same way as any other animal would. If the latter is true, I can’t even imagine the torture that they have to endure as they’re slowly eaten alive while suffocating and being picked at by people who are taking their sweet time.

Beluga Whale (Photograph by Brian J. Skerry) _

On October 10, 2008, I posted a blog entry, “U.S. Navy Sonar and Marine Life” on the Supreme Court hearing of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council — a case that involved the concern over whether or not the use of sonar in U.S. Navy training drills should be regulated due to its potential harm on marine life. Please read the first blog on this topic in order to better orient yourself to the case. It wasn’t until yesterday, November 12, that the Supreme Court made a decision to overturn the injunction placed on the U.S. Navy by the United States District Court for the Ninth Circuit.

The majority of the Justices (Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.), including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., felt that “the District Court abused its discretion” and ruled in favor of the navy. Stephen G. Breyer and Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion partially agreeing. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice David H. Souter dissented and argued that “in imposing manageable measures to mitigate harm until completion of the [environmental impact statement], the District Court conscientiously balanced the equities and did not abuse its discretion.” Ginsburg agreed that the navy’s usage of sonar in training exercises is critical in its purpose, but also stated that “those interests do not authorize the Navy to violate a statutory command, especially when recourse to the Legislature remains open.”

I am a little disappointed at this decision. I had hoped that both sides could meet somewhere in the middle, and I would have to agree with Justice Ginsberg and Justice Souter. The U.S. Navy clearly could have completed the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before they engaged in the training exercises, but they didn’t and continued with the exercises not knowing the impact their actions made on the environment. There’s a reason for an EIS and a reason why it is legally required — especially in this case where many environmentalists contested against the use of sonar within a certain proximity of marine mammals. It’s an unfortunate ruling in my opinion because I do think there is a link between sonar and the mass occurrences of beached whales, whom appear to be suffering from a painful form of decompression sickness.

You can read more on the details of the case at On The Docket: Supreme Court News - Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

It appears that the Masai Mara Reserve in Kenya is struggling with funds to upkeep the reserve and protect wildlife from poachers. You can hear the “Urgent Appeal” of the Mara Triangle (the North-Western part of the Masai Mara Game Reserve) online in their blog on WildlifeDirect. WildlifeDirect is a non-profit organization that seeks to raise funds for conservation efforts in Africa, Asia, and South America. Dr. Richard Leakey, Chairman of WildlifeDirect, hopes to reach people all around the world via the Web among other media outlets, in order to inform people about the issues concerning the continued protection of endangered wildlife and habitat conservation. Donations to WildlifeDirect help towards funding a range of field costs from ranger boots to gas for patrol vehicles to veterinary equipment.

You can also visit the Mara Triangle’s Web site here to learn more about Masai Mara and the Mara Triangle in partnership with the Mara Conservancy. In this site, you can donate to fund the Masai Mara’s patrol rangers. Watch videos posted by Joseph Kimojino, the head of tourism and anti-animal harassment for the Mara Conservancy (seen blogging in the YouTube video above), on Vimeo.

Open donations are also welcome at WildlifeDirect or you can find pages on their site where there are funds being raised for specific necessities for certain locations. In addition, WildlifeDirect provides other blogs (bloglist) from other countries around the world that are working towards preserving endangered wildlife, ending illegal wildlife trafficking, and protecting wildlife habitats.

You can choose how much you want to donate and to whom you want to help. Even five dollars would help to fuel the conservation efforts happening all around the world. Just imagine, you can be thousands of miles away from the actual place in need of funds and you can still help with a few clicks from your computer. If you’ve never made an online donation using PayPal, it’s easy and secure. Learn about PayPal here, or you can also donate to WildlifeDirect through Network for Good by clicking here. Find out more on Network for Good on their Wikipedia page. If you’re new to making online donations, keep in mind these general safety tips. Please get started so that places in need can get a helpful hand.

In early October, I posted a blog entry urging California voters to vote yes on prop 2. As someone who loves animals very much, this prop was really important to me. I am glad to report back and say that yesterday (Tuesday, November 4, 2008), California voters passed prop 2, a measure that will improve the standards of confining practices for CA farm animals. I tracked the polls last night on California’s propositions, and ‘yes’ on prop 2 led the way with a pretty wide margin even from the beginning. Take that agri-corporations!

Even farm animals, those raised for food, can experience a more decent quality of life. This measure isn’t going to solve all the problems associated with cruel treatment of animals in factory farms, but it’s a step towards the right direction. Animal rights supporters and organizations can now add this onto their list of achievements for bettering the lives of many animals in the food industry. 

“All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.”

Thank you to all the California voters who voted yes on prop 2! We did it!

P.S. I am aware that three-fourths or 75% of props that pass get overturned by the courts, but I am confident that prop 2 (Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) will not be short-lived.

_

My dog is a labrador/shepard mix (probably mixed with more breeds though) and just turned nine years old. It seems as though her age is interfering with her ability to hold in that ungodly smell within her—the GAS! I have to give her some credit though because she doesn’t fart all the time. It happens rarely but is becoming slightly more noticeable.

I’ve learned that when certain breeds get older, their intestines start to lose their muscular tone; hence the doggy farting. Other reasons may include a poor diet, lack of exercise, constipation, or eating their food too quickly, which causes poor indigestion. Or, it just depends on the dog breed. The following dog breeds are considered the top 10 gassiest breeds according to seefido.com:

1. Mixed Breed (Check one for my dog)
2. German Shepherd (Check two)
3. Labrador Retriever (Check three)
4. Boxer
5. Poodle
6. Doberman
7. Cocker Spaniel
8. Rottweiler
9. Beagle
10. Dalmatian (I’ve actually experienced a heavily farting Dalmation! Air-freshener required! )

Of course, it all depends on your dog. I think it’s just an age factor with my dog since she gets a 30-minute walk everyday and eats dry dog food, never any wet dog food. She really only farts once in a blue moon, but I thought this was interesting. For those of you who have gassy dogs, remember to make sure your dogs get the appropriate exercise and a healthy diet suited for their needs. Oh! And keep those air fresheners in hand!

Is it wrong to declaw your cat? I hear of people declawing their cats pretty often, but in my opinion, it just seems a little excessive and inhumane. Although some cat owners do it to protect their household furniture from being clawed at, is it really the only way? I’ve heard about vinyl nail caps (probably best for indoor cats) and scratching posts, yet some cat owners say they have no luck with getting their cat to use the posts. It’s not my intention to blame a pet owner for their pet’s overall behavior, but I do believe that the habits of an animal depend on how the owner raised or trained it (that is, if you raised your pet since they were young). I think that training or familiarizing your pet to certain habits works best when the animal is young. I just don’t want this declawing procedure to be abused by the percentage of pet owners that are just looking for a quick fix.

Hypothetically speaking, even if declawing a cat was the only way to maintain a beautiful home (furniture and all), I don’t think it’s reason enough to physically alter or amputate a part of a cat’s anatomy. After all, that is what happens in the surgery room—the doctor has to cut bones, ligaments, and tendons during this procedure. It is not equivalent to pulling out a human finger nail. With surgery comes possible complications that can occur during the recovery period. Surgery should be performed under extreme circumstances or needs, but is protecting furniture one of them?

So, lately I’ve been in the mood to post about animals that are not exactly your average pet and not exactly your ordinary animal either (at least not one that you’d be familiar with). First thing comes first–what is the definition of an animal? Dictionary.com defines an animal as “any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli.” Now I am aware that this “animal” has already been in the news for quite some time now, getting people to raise their brows and scratch their heads in a reluctant manner. For those of you who have seen the Montauk Monster, the following picture and information may come of no surprise to you. Yet, for those who haven’t seen or heard of this animal, it is my pleasure to present to you–the Montauk Monster:

The Montauk Monster washed up on the shores of Montauk, New York (July 2008) and has created a buzz since then.

The picture is enough to appear shocking at first glance, but then again, I’ve never seen a decomposing body in its raw form. When I initially saw this picture, I immediately noticed the nose area to look like a beak. I remember thinking that it looked like a dog/pig/parrot (yes I said pig). Of course, people have resorted to claims that the animal was a subject of government experiments at a testing facility nearby. What else are people to do with the unknown, but let their imaginations get a little bit of action, ey? Jeff Corwin, the host of Corwin’s Quest on Discovery Channel’s Animal Planet network, gives his expert opinion in an interview with FOX News about what he thinks the Montauk Monster is:

Hmm… So are you sold on Corwin’s opinion? He is, after all, considered an animal expert. However, without much scientific recourse, both expert and non-expert are equally left to wonder in the dark.

Have you ever heard of the Anglerfish? If you haven’t, I’ll give you a clue. The Anglerfish was depicted in a hit Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, as a hugely jawed fish that lured/chased Marlin and Dory. Still have no idea? Well then, let me give you a glimpse into the world of the Anglerfish. The Anglerfish is truly a unique creature that lives 3,000 feet and deeper into the pitch black waters of the deep sea. The waters all over the world are home to the Anglerfish, and its scientific name is Melanocetus johnsoni (Whew! Science likes to be complex). According to National Geographic, there are more than 200 species of the Anglerfish. Although some females are only about 5 inches in length, they can swallow prey twice the size of their body! Other females are known to reach up to a maximum length of 3.3 feet. Besides its jaw, the Anglerfish has another distinctive characteristic, which is an elongated dorsal spine that produces a blue-green light through a process known as bioluminescence. This thin, long tip emerges out of its head and naturally glows in the dark, luring its prey. However, what is really unique about the Anglerfish is its reproductive process.

Female Anglerfish

The male angler is about the size of a small finger and lives like a parasite while “mating.” The male spends most of its life looking for a mate. As soon as the male fully matures, its digestive system starts to degenerate or weaken until it is physically impossible for the male to support itself. Now this is the crazy part. Once the male finds the female, he sinks his teeth into her flesh and attaches his body to hers with one bite. Eventually from that one bite, the male will fuse with the female until they share the same skin and bloodstream. The male’s internal organs and eyes will die out over time, leaving only the testes of the male for the reproduction purposes of the female. This is why the males are generally described as being a permanent “parasitic mate.” The female will carry more than one male on its body. Try six or more! It is very incredible how the Anglerfish survives in the stark conditions of our deep oceans. I’m sure there are plenty more deep fish that are just as strange, but very intriguing as well.

It’s a dog, no it’s a monster, no it’s a chupacabra? There’s no doubt that this animal does exist. However, much of its extraordinary appeal exists on generations of mythical folklore. For example, if you look at the following pictures, the first one is someone’s depiction of a chupacabra, while the second is a picture collage of a chupacabra (similar to the appearance of chupacabras seen in Puerto Rico, Texas, and Mexico).

I don’t know how the drawing resembles at all what the chupacabra is now known to look like (albeit the spotted pattern on the drawing has been seen on some chupacabras). I was watching a TV show called MonsterQuest on the Texas chupacabra. I was only able to watch a few parts, but the appearance of the animal’s skin suggests that it may be suffering from a skin disease known as Mange. Yet, since scientists didn’t have living tissue samples from the animal, they could not prove or disprove the presence of Mange. Teeth pulled from an Elmendorf, TX chupacabra and a hair sample from a Puerto Rico sighting were matched through a DNA test and proved to be a 100% identical match and they both match the domestic dog. On the other hand, mitochondrial DNA tests done on a Cuero, TX chupacabra link the animal with coyotes and wolves. Instead of the chupacabra being a part of a whole new species, one theory indicates that maybe the animal is a hybrid of a coyote and wolf.

It is still peculiar how the chupacabra is thought to kill though. Reports state that livestock animals are drained of their blood, but the only exit wounds evident are small puncture wounds found on the prey. El Chupacabra, the modern day vampire? The whole deal with the chupacabra is strange, but it really doesn’t sound as strange as everyone is portraying it to be. With mythical folklore, ideas have been passed down for a long time, but I seriously think that a lot of the hype comes from old stories, beliefs, and simply, the unknown. Folklore has really clouded the discovery of this animal in the sense that everything this animal does is somehow seen as extraordinary. 

For instance, during the MonsterQuest episode, a cryptozoologist and a wildlife expert sprayed a wooden post with coyote urine and the next day they returned to find that the post had been clawed at. The night before, they claimed to have seen something move in that same area. The claw marks were made from a three-foot stance. They looked at the post like it was unbelievable how the animal could’ve reached it to create such deep scratch marks on it. It’s an animal, no doubt, with some pretty huge claws as seen on a dead chupacabra; however, I don’t think scratching on a pole should be seen as evidence of an extraordinary animal. My dog can reach at least four feet when on her hind legs and if she had huge claws, she would be able to do the same. Sure, it’s remarkable how long the chupacabra’s claws and teeth are, but it’s not the only animal that exists with those physical characteristics. My point is that folklore has portrayed the chupacabra as a creature unlike anything this planet has ever known. It’s as if people are trying to apply the same kind of awe factor known in folklore to that of the scientific discoveries about the animal. I’m not saying the chupacabra doesn’t exist. I just think the chupacabra is an animal of an unknown breed from the canidae family; I’m not going to join in on a frenzy that says it’s an evil monster that commits outrageous acts (especially when someone glorifies a scratched post as an incredibly odd event).