Intelligent Life is All Around Us

Scientists Find a Touch of "Humanity" in Rats

2012-01-28T10:47:00.003-05:00

A University of Chicago study was recently reported in the journal Science:

Experimenters put a rat in a small cage that could only be opened from the outside. A second rat introduced into the area would see the situation and start trying to free the caged rat. When the second rat figured out how to rescue the first, the two were observed to do what the researchers called a celebration dance.

More on this can be found at the New York Times, including how the rescuer would share treats with the rescuee.

William Mullen, in the Tribune Newspapers, adds:

Previously, scientists thought that empathy and pro-social behavior to help others were unique to humans... The experiment is being hailed as a new paradigm that will help scientists trace the development of emotions in mammals back through the evolutionary tree.

Well, I'm glad that some scientists are beginning to pay attention to the way animals act. They're using the wrong assumption if they're looking for the "evolution" of emotions, however. Emotions did not evolve; they arise from the spirit, the essence of being, which is fundamentally the same in all living beings. What's different is the expression of emotions, due to physical differences in the bodies, and that is what keeps people thinking humans are so different from the rest of the animal world.

Some we love, some we hate, some we eat.

2011-12-04T13:07:00.002-05:00

Here is a clear-headed article on the subject of horse slaughter for human consumption in the U.S.:

http://www.examiner.com/pet-rescue-in-national/dispelling-the-myths-and-the-facts-about-horse-slaughter-resuming-america

Sweetness

2011-10-29T09:47:00.002-04:00

Without going into details, I am facing a very bad situation and I am in a very bad state, emotionally. But when I got up this morning, I saw that our bundle-of-boundless-energy cat had placed two of her favorite toys, including her favorite toy of all, in front of my chair. I recognized this for what it was, a very sweet and loving gesture and she was trying to cheer me up. It helped.

Anger

2011-09-26T09:48:00.004-04:00

Dealing with the subject of human-animal interactions often inspires anger in me. I want to stay positive, but the examples of unspeakable callousness--such as, dogs thrown out of high-rise windows or Navy sonar experiments driving whales to suicide--seem to overwhelm the stories of a Christian or Zamba. I don't want to be an angry person, but I often feel lost in anger.

I found the following in the book "Animals in Spirit" by Penelope Smith. Ms. Smith relates the experience of fellow animal communicator Teresa Wagner, who received anger management counseling from a whale she was familiar with.

What follows is paraphrased from the book. I figure re-telling it in my own words will help me assimilate it.

Your anger is leading you down the wrong path. There is a better way, a way out of your outrage and grief, and a way to help everyone involved.

Take a deep breath and fill yourself with love. Get back in touch with that limitless love that you know is within you. Support your own broken heart.

Remember that you are never helpless to shower someone who is suffering with love, even when you cannot physically help. Send your love to the soul of the animal that has suffered. If he has died, ask for blessings for the journey of his soul through time and space.

Then send the same love and comfort to the ones who loved the animal. Whatever hurt you feel, they grieve even more. Surround them with love and compassion.

Then you must send the same love and compassion to those who caused the suffering or death. Anger at them gets you stuck in anger and does no good. Send love to those known or unknown to you who caused the suffering because it is only with love and compassion that their consciousness will expand to see the souls of animals and their hearts will understand and direct their actions. Compassion will help them to grow.

After this, you must tend to your own grief and sorrow. Honor your feelings even if they are dark and confusing. Ask for help to understand and release these feelings. There is always enough love and support for everyone. Reach out for help. Your own heart is as important as the suffering of others. Tend to yourself with great compassion and love.

This process is about acknowledging the overwhelming energy of your feelings and turning it into something positive for everyone, rather than allowing it to trap you.

It feels so good to be free...

2011-09-10T07:36:00.004-04:00

This is a true story. Since the tiger I'm going to tell you about was not owned by me, I have changed her name here.

I met Kefira at a big cat sanctuary far from where I live. She was a wonderful, huge, perfectly gorgeous Siberian* tiger. I was told to walk slowly and quietly past her cage because she was "a real bitch" and would snarl, roar, and lunge and anyone who came close. But the way things were arranged, a person had to walk past her cage to get to other animals. There was a sign on her cage warning of her dangerous personality. When I saw that sign on her cage I just felt so very sorry for her, like everyone had given up hope for her.

But I watched this tiger as she performed as advertised and I was sure that her actions arose from fear, not meanness. For reasons unknown to me, she had a tremendous fear of people. Whenever anyone got near her cage, she got very actively defensive. And when a full-grown tiger gets defensive, she can be very scary. Poor thing, trapped in a world of fear...afraid of the people who were scared of her. And I decided I wanted to relieve her fear.

Later, when my escorted tour was over and I could visit whomever I chose, I went back to see Kefira. I approached slowly, determined not to upset her. I found the edge of her personal safe space, which was some 20 feet away from her. I stayed there, close enough that her attention was fixed on me, but she didn’t get defensive. Then I did something that may sound strange: I envisioned a 'bridge' extending from my mind to hers, to carry one thought--"I love you". In my visualization, the bridge slowly grew, from my mind to hers. At the exact moment I envisioned the bridge reaching her mind, she jumped back, like she had been physically hit in the head. I then chuffed at her, and she stood up and chuffed back at me. Having exchanged proper greetings, I knew that I could now approach her, and I did. She started to rub against the near wall of the cage. She paced around, looking intently at me and rubbing against the wall as we repeatedly exchanged greetings. I moved over to the door, where we would be separated by two layers of wire fencing--no contact was permitted with her--and she reared up, with her paws on the wire, and rubbed her face against it. I tried to put my hands opposite hers, but she wanted to sniff them. I moved close and she tried to rub her face against mine. More than just contact, I had made a friend. I never saw her scared and defensive side directed toward me at any time after that.

The next day, as soon as Kefira saw me [and the intensity of her look really sticks in my mind] she jumped up and started chuffing to me. Again she rubbed affectionately against the wall and came to the door to be close to me. I wished she could keep that attitude all the time, but she still snarled and hissed at others (there were many other people at the sanctuary that day).

Kefira pointed out to me that her water bowl was empty (tigers [and lions too] use a great deal of body language, including eye motions), and the sanctuary workers were glad to allow me to fill it, with a hose, from outside the cage--she was considered a very dangerous tiger. But she and I enjoyed each other's company on that day, and on the third day of my trip as well. At the end of my visit I made sure to go back to her to say goodbye, and she came up to the door for a face-to-face, close as possible sendoff.

My next visit was a year later, and I went straight to see Kefira. As I got near, she went into her defensive position, ready to try to frighten me away. I stopped, and said, "Kefira, it’s me." Right away she stood up and chuffed at me. I went to the door of her cage, and she stood up with her front paws on the wire, to look me in the face just like before. But this time, the extra layer of wire had been taken down, and we got to touch noses! She was such a sweetie! I called dibs on her at feeding time, and the workers were glad to let me take the "chore" of feeding her... and so was I.
As I said, this sanctuary is far from where I live, but I kept in email contact. Two years after I last saw her, Kefira developed severe medical problems; her back half became paralyzed, and no one knew why.

They did everything that could possibly be done for her, but from my distant position I felt I needed to do something, but there was nothing for me to do. All I could do was send my loving thoughts to her, putting as much energy as I could into healing rays.

Notes from the sanctuary were frustratingly brief, but seemed encouraging. Kefira’s spirits were up; now she could move her tail; now they had hopes for her recovery.

One night, as I was again concentrating on her, I saw her in my mind's eye. She was there with me. This had never happened before. And she was smiling. She was so very happy, practically bursting with energy and joy, and I was happy to see her. She told me how much my love meant to her, and how good it felt to be free from the sickness in her body. I should have known what that meant, but I wanted to interpret it as meaning she had made a sudden recovery.

In the morning, when I got my email, I read that Kefira had died during the night, put down by a vet after everyone had given up hope for her recovery.

I had been so focused on her recovering that I had not thought that's what she had told me about. But I will never forget that final meeting with her, a meeting of our minds.

This experience taught me the reality of what others have said: that our spirits live on, that death is a natural process, that we leave behind our pain and suffering but not our love. And should someone say that animals have no souls, I can try to correct them with the utmost confidence.

I have just started reading a book titled Animals in Spirit: Our faithful companions' transition to the afterlife written by animal communicator Penelope Smith, and already I have read several accounts of animals who had died or been put down and they all include the sentiment of how good it feels to be free of their illness. A lot of people don't believe in telepathic communication with animals, and so may not accept the idea of joy after passing, but I experienced the same sentiment from my tiger friend, spontaneously, without pre-conceived expectations, and I am convinced that it's true.

*Yes, I am aware of the term Amur tiger for this subspecies. Call me old-fashioned, but the name Siberian is more attractive to me. Just so long as you know that Siberian tigers are not white tigers...

A Tragic True Story

2011-08-17T15:20:00.003-04:00

Making the limited-engagement rounds of select theaters is a movie called "Project Nim", a documentary that is also a tragedy, an indictment of academia, and a loud cry for people in general to wake up and think about how they treat other living beings.

Project Nim was supposed to be about raising a chimpanzee in a human-oriented environment to see if he could acquire skills in using human language; American Sign Language to be precise, since chimpanzees are physically incapable of speaking English words.

It is important to note that it is the learning of human language at the center of the project, since no one involved seemed to consider that animals can have languages of their own.

A chimpanzee was chosen as the subject since chimps are so much like Us. But the insanity of the researchers' unexamined preconceived notions about non-human animals is revealed right at the start: The days-old baby chimp is ripped away from his mother, after she had been paralyzed (but still conscious) with a tranquilizer dart.

So, are chimps like us, or are they not? Why is it so convenient to shut out any thought of chimps having an emotional life while contending that they are intellectually similar to humans? This isn't just insanity, it's wanton insanity.

As the high-profile experiment proceeds, it becomes clear that those in charge had no idea of how to proceed, and seemingly no desire to come up with an idea. The chimp is raised without structure or discipline, which does nothing to promote learning. At the end, the head of the project proclaims that the chimp did not really have language skills; all the chimp ever communicated was immediate wants. But the same thing would happen with a human child raised in the same way--a completely free-form upbringing induces a detachment from all others, and no desire to communicate anything except immediate wants. I've seen it happen.

What happened to the chimp after the conclusion of the project is horrifying at best. It's a real shame that there is a high-profile fictional movie about chimps in theaters at the same time. "Project Nim" needs to be seen, discussed, and taken to heart because it is true, and so revealing about our society and its detachment from all other forms of life.

Also this week is an article in the Washington Post about a possible end to medical research on chimpanzees. The United States is one of only two countries in the entire world that still allow such things (the other is Gabon). This change is, of course, a good thing, if too slow in coming about. The end of this legal torture is presumably the result of a growing recognition among some that chimps are like Us. It's also due to the fact that genetically-altered mice and rats are taking over from chimps in medical research projects.

We've got a long way to go before people start thinking that mice and rats might have enough of an intellectual and emotional life that they should be spared torture, too.

“We wouldn’t be having this meeting if ethics wasn’t an issue,” Frans de Waal told the Institute of Medicine committee. The Emory University researcher, whose pioneering studies with captive chimpanzees have revealed their human-like empathy, continued, “We don’t have this kind of meeting about rats.”

Reality... What a Concept

2011-07-24T07:27:00.003-04:00

Have I gone in the wrong direction with my posts to this blog? I have tried to present socially-acceptable arguments to persuade people that all living things are intelligent, and it is our perception--or lack thereof--that causes us to imagine that they are not.

But is such constrained logic good enough? This is a highly emotional issue, after all. We have seemingly insurmountable cultural indoctrination to overcome if we are to expand our collective perceptions to embrace reality.

One of those problems is religion. Religion controls such a huge part of our society and shapes so much of the way we think--and that applies even to those who consider themselves outside of any religion. Now, I have to speak in generalities to keep this topic manageable, but religion doesn't make any allowance for considering animals to be different yet equal beings. The Christian Bible even contains a story of Jesus unnecessarily killing an entire herd of animals.

The scientific side of our society is another problem. In the name of learning and exploration, valid ideas are suppressed and valid observations denied in order to protect established dogma. Yes, I do believe it is correct to use the term, dogma. The concept of animals being "biological machines" lives on and is actively taught despite the fact that any reasonable attention paid to actual observations absolutely destroys the concept.

I have avoided writing about much of what I know to be true, because my experiences and my methods are not acceptable to either religion or science. But both of those are rigidly constructed to protect themselves from change, so maybe I've been too concerned about how my own experiences will be viewed by those with religious and scientific points of view.

After all, I knew in my heart that the Christian the Lion "Reunion Video" had the power to demonstrate the loving side of an animal to people. Some prefer it with the added emotional tug of the Whitney Houston song, others prefer it the way I first posted it back in 2002: silent, so that all attention can be focused on the very demonstrative body language, from the moment of first recognition that Christian's friends had returned after a year's absence, to the explosive joy of being in contact again. This is real, this actually happened.

And still some people argue that a lion can't feel love.

I can't be concerned anymore about those who refuse to see what's real.

Expect more personal, and maybe outrageous, articles here in the future.

Discussion, both pro and con, gratefully received via the comments box that accompanies each article.

They All Look the Same... To Us

2011-07-21T11:46:00.002-04:00

An article at the Live Science site tells us that French researchers have come to the conclusion that feral, untrained pigeons can recognize human faces.

This is based on an experiment in which two similar people behaved differently toward pigeons, after which the pigeons avoided the person who had been antagonistic, even when the people exchanged clothing, thus changing most of their physical appearance.

While I don't wish to denigrate the pigeons' intelligence, the description in the article leaves the findings open to other interpretations, such as perhaps the pigeons may recognize people by their smell rather than their looks. I'm just saying it's a possibility.

Which reminds me of another, oft-repeated experiment, in which scientists try to prove whether an animal is self-aware, by using the mirror test: can an animal use a mirror to detect an unusual mark that has been added to its face? Many animals "fail" this test, leading scientists to conclude that they don't have self-awareness. But many animals are more scent-oriented than vision-oriented, and a mirror has its own scent that is clearly not the animal's own. So it's not a matter of not being self aware, it's a matter of the mirror not providing the proper cues.

I contend that any animal that stealthily stalks its prey, or that hides from a predator, demonstrates self-awareness. But somehow that bit of logic escapes the researchers.

Back to the pigeons. I won't say that they can't recognize human faces. A bird's life requires well-developed abilities to see and process visual cues. But it hasn't been proved that they don't use some other means to recognize people. Smell is only one possibility. It's even possible they use some other cues that we don't know about. We are limited by our own senses and our own views of the world. I am reminded that it is only recently that people became aware that elephants use infrasound to communicate (sounds pitched so low that we can't hear them).

Thought Provoking

2011-07-18T08:54:00.004-04:00

One article that gets a lot of attention here is Are Insects Conscious?, so I thought I would highlight it again; click the link to go to the article.

And since I have a silly sense of humor, I thought I would add a little something you can hum for the rest of the day: Hymn to Cockroaches. There should be a little "Play" button there for you to play the song.

Is it real?

2011-06-28T10:42:00.002-04:00

This short video has been getting a lot of attention. Taken at face value, it's pretty funny--a cat is barking like a dog until he realizes that he's being watched, then he reverts to meowing like a "normal" cat.

One of the most frequent comments people make is to question whether the sound has been altered--whether the cat could really make such barking sounds. In my opinion, the pitch of the barks sounds correct, and the transition from barking to meowing is convincing, but I don't know for sure.

There are other YouTube videos of "barking cats", but they merely show cats making the short staccato noises cats make when they see birds (that's a subject for another time). This cat appears to be truly imitating a dog.

What do you think?

A Tale of Two Kitties

2011-06-10T10:43:00.004-04:00

I just read a new (it's to be released this coming Tuesday) book in which some Ph.D. goes to great lengths to explain how human brains are the most superior of all and no animal can possibly think or react with the same sophistication that humans can.

Rather than bore you with that nonsense, I'm going to tell you one of my favorite stories about my cat, Spike.

This incident involves a laser pointer. The fascination most cats have with the little red dot of light is well known. Spike was no exception, at first. He was a big cat, and seeing his eyes get big, his whiskers point forward and his ears go erect was a joy, as he chased the dot around. Then, one time, and I'm not sure what diverted his attention (maybe it was my laugh), he looked over and saw me holding the laser, saw the red light at the end, and realized that I was controlling the dot. The look on his face changed to one of hurt and dismay, as if he felt tricked and betrayed by me. He stopped chasing the dot immediately, and went into the next room and laid down. From that time on, he never chased the dot of light again. In fact, he would leave the room when I started playing with the other cats with the laser pointer.

Another cat, Arnie, has also made the connection between me holding the laser device and the fascinating dot of light. In fact, since the pointer is attached to a key ring that makes a distinctive sound when moved, no matter how quietly I try to pick it up, Arnie hears the sound and comes running, ready to play. He knows I am in control, but he doesn't mind that, he enjoys the fun of the chase.

As I said, I don't know what triggered Spike's reaction--I probably laughed particularly loud, and Spike never liked being laughed at--but he was obviously hurt by what he perceived as deviousness on my part and he never got over it; he never went back to playing that game. Arnie, whom I know keeps a mental catalog of past wrongs (that's a story for another time), knows the facts of the game and loves it anyway.

Conclusion? They're all individuals with their own personalities.

Cats aren't really from hell, and he'll show you why.

2011-05-22T13:13:00.005-04:00

The Animal Planet channel has hit a grand-slam home run with a series that has the unlikely title "My Cat From Hell", featuring an unlikely-looking guy with the unlikely name of Jackson Galaxy.

Jackson is called upon by various people who have serious problems with their cats. And this guy is really good at understanding cats and teaching people how to understand their cats. He stresses paying attention to cats' body language, and even teaches the slow blink, so essential to gaining a cat's trust and so very seldom mentioned by people talking about cats.

I've embedded a couple of short instructional videos by Jackson below. You can see his case studies on the Animal Planet channel now; they're currently running new episodes as well as repeating past episodes. You can also see some case study videos on their web site, http://animal.discovery.com/tv/my-cat-from-hell/

Cute furry animals for Easter!

2011-04-22T08:20:00.001-04:00

This weekend cute bunnies and cute ducklings will be everywhere. So here's a video of foxes having fun. (Me? Go against the flow?)

And a bear enjoying some backyard relaxation...

Hammocks are not just for bears...

And what could be cuter than a lion on his birthday?

Alright, alright, here's a video of bunnies. At Christmas. Nyah! ;)

Fear of losing credibility

2011-04-11T17:28:00.005-04:00

Found on the interwebs:

For years now I have lived in the deep wilderness with the grizzlies, wolves, elk, moose, eagles, etc. and many times I feel like I am the student and they are the teachers. I am always so awestruck by the intelligence I see in many different animal species. In one close encounter several years ago with a grizzly, we both stared into each others eyes with only 75 feet between us. Afterwards the grizzly and I went our respective ways in peace. Since then I have seriously doubted if we are even really the most intelligent species on this planet. When I looked into that grizzly's eyes, it was such a profound experience, beyond words that I can express, and I could sense such a deep and profound intelligence. I could go on and on about what I have observed with many different species, large or small. I am always just so awestruck in what I see and experience in living with the other lives we two-legged humans share this planet with. I have no doubt that different animal species can reason and think like we do, have emotions, etc. Lately I tend to keep my mouth shut on this topic for I think that many might not be able to handle such information.

That contrasts starkly with other things I've been finding on the 'net, namely a string of reviews of the recent movie The Last Lions, and these reviews all have one thing in common. Here are some examples:

...There is a certain amount of anthropomorphizing going on here, a determination to give human characteristics to animals who may or may not have them....

...The one genuine problem with The Last Lions is its blatant anthropomorphism, which occasionally gets a little over the top. Nearly all of the movie is like this, presenting lions as capable of character development. ...

...“The Last Lions’’ tips into an anthropomorphism as unnecessary as it is absurd....

...But the lioness' biggest war is against the filmmakers, who consistently demean the proceedings with laughably anthropomorphic tropes like giggle-worthy narration lines regarding the lioness' mental state....

Now, I'm going to generalize and assume that those movie reviewers have not had the privilege of a close encounter with a grizzly, shared a snooze with a lioness, or any such experience. And yet they feel compelled to point out and decry "anthropomorphism" in the film--even though the filmmakers themselves said:

We’ve been as careful as we always are, through the rigorous fact-checking process at National Geographic, to avoid anthropomorphisms in the script.

I think this illustrates a real cultural problem. Dereck & Beverly Joubert have produced a powerful, emotional movie about the life of a lioness. These two people have lived with and photographed wildlife for decades, and they say they have produced a movie that tells a realistic story. They should know what they are talking about.

But people who do not have experience with animals feel they need to decry "anthropomorphism" in the film, as if their credibility depends on them doing so.

And the top quote, from an "amateur", yet seemingly very experienced with wildlife, reveals someone who feels caught in the middle--she knows of the intelligence and emotional lives of animals, but feels that such information is not acceptable to most people.

It is true that our society values what we believe to be "scientific" over what individuals have experienced. Truth is not served by this. And ultimately animals suffer for it.

The Last Lions is a powerful movie--almost too powerful. But I say that if you can look at the lioness as she has to leave her wounded cub and you don't see and feel the pain in her face, then you are much too worried about your "credibility" and you're not really living.

Escaped cobra didn't really escape

2011-04-03T12:57:00.006-04:00

This cartoon is by Bill Bramhall and was published in today's New York Daily News:

The story of the cobra that didn't get far is also on the New York Daily News site.

One of the Pride

2011-03-28T07:59:00.003-04:00

"From the moment Christian sat on my feet and licked my hand on my second day at Kora, I was hooked for life. I soon discovered that
if you treat lions with respect, understanding, and love,
they respond with their trust and affection.
Once they've given you that,
they don't take it back
and neither should you."

--Tony Fitzjohn
in his new book, Born Wild

I think that applies to all animals.

Satire... Or Too Real?

2011-03-25T21:50:00.002-04:00

The Onion is probably the top source of cultural satire in America today. It is said that satire has its origins in anger, and that may be why a recent article on The Onion's site cuts so deep. Following is a condensation of that article (full article can be found here), which I feel compelled to post since Easter is approaching.

Darien, CT -- In a familiar sign that spring is just around the corner, animal shelters across the nation announced this week that they have put down the last batch of dogs that were given as Christmas gifts in 2008.

"It's that time of year again," said animal control specialist Erica Tierney, throwing the carcass of yet another 2-year-old Labradoodle into an incinerator. As soon as the weather starts to warm up, we find ourselves administering pentobarbital injections to those final few puppies who were once a welcome Christmas gift, but who gradually became less adorable until they were no longer able to elicit the sympathy of their owners.

"Two years ago we bought Lisa a puppy for Christmas," said Jason Hutton of San Diego, who quietly abandoned his daughter's Lhasa apso by the side of a road when he grew weary of family arguments over whose turn it was to feed it. "And there came a point where it just wasn't a puppy anymore, you know?"

According to animal control officials, the breeds of the dogs they are most commonly obliged by mercy to kill vary as fads and fashions change from year to year. "There must have been a movie with chihuahuas in it a couple years back because half of these little guys are chihuahuas," said veterinary anesthesiologist Leonard Noonan, strapping a gas mask to the muzzle of his 11th small, round- headed dog of the day.

While animal shelter employees said they were relieved that dog-euthanasia season is over, many reported they were already preparing for the massive influx of Easter rabbits that will signal the transition from spring to summer.

We, the family, shout our anger

2011-03-02T23:49:00.002-05:00

From one of the great men of our world, Gareth Patterson:

Golden Lost Souls

We the lions of the past,
Today's ghosts,
Roamed endless plain and wide mountain range
Before man became man, before
Man stood upright, peering with curious eyes--
Fuelled by a mind that in time destroyed much. Man
Today, it seems destined, will destroy that
Very same one with curious eyes and mind
Who rose upright from the plains.

Us, ghosts today, the lions of the past
Lived throughout much of this ancient continent, Africa
And beyond.
From harsh mountain range north at night caressed by winds
From where the blue meets the blue,
The forests' dark depths
And eastern plains dotted with our abundant prey,
Decorating the land like a moving mosaic of flowers.

We, the children of the lions of olden times
On these same eastern plains
Were born within grassy gulleys
And within bushy banks of streams.
Secret nursery places chosen with care
By our mothers.

Life in the beginning for us children of the lions
Was an unclear place of shapes.
Some dark, some light, as we peered
With barely opened eyes.
Our golden mother's tongue, again and again
Would clean our spotted backs
And we,
The children of the lions, would
Clamber about on unsteady legs.
Our golden mother would protect us as best she could--
But some of us died,
Killed by leopard, hyaena or by fierce other golden fathers,
Having chased away our own.

We would grow, taste meat for the first time
And tumble, tumble, tumble
Upon grassy endless plains.
Our childhood is long, a learning time,
Learning from our golden mothers, aunts and benign golden
Fathers.
Always togetherness in our golden lion families,
Making us lions.

We would, as children of lions, learn
to hunt with the family.
In time be the one who seized those
Of stripes, those with horns, those we must kill
To in turn enable us to live.
Our urge to kill is not fuelled by a malevolence, or hate
But by a spirit to live, a spirit of life.

Feast, then days of fast,
The pendulum constantly alternating
With the rhythm of the seasons
and migrations.
We, with seasons passing, we the children
of the lion
Feel the change within us, no longer children,
Then copulate for days--then stop.
One day we would enter that grassy gully
Or that bushy bank by the stream
In which we too had been born,
To give birth to children of the lion of our own.
We would do as our golden mother did,
Caring, protecting,
Raising beloved children of the lion under
An African sun and staring moon.

With these children grown, with now
Our own mothers, old golden mothers,
Again we would give birth, to care, to teach and hunt
With more beloved children of the lion,
until
We too became old golden mothers.

In that time the children of the lions
are the ones we are dependent upon,
Dependent upon their hunts,
Their care.
We, with teeth now worn, weary eyes, loose bellies
and creaking backs,
Walk within the family with new golden fathers,
New tumbling children of the lions on endless plains.

Like a great setting golden sun
We too reached our own farthest horizon
and
Life slips away
Leaving golden forms to be consumed,
To give life to others of the African plain,
and those of the sky blue--and exchange of life.
Simple.
We, the old golden ones, would leave behind
Our living, tumbling, hunting, caring, copulating,
Fighting, feasting legacy.
We would be content golden ghosts of endless plains
Remembered by our ancestors in heaven.

Today the pads of our feet no longer walk
Forever endless plains, mountain range wide.
We live in pockets of land, no longer free spirits.
Like many of the old wilds, we now live in twilight times.
We are born in the twilight of the life of lions--
Our life is much altered.

Some of we children of the lion
Die before we are born into that twilight.
A bullet may crash into golden mother's head,
Then another into where we lie within her--unborn.
Men then appear, gloat and stand above golden mother's
body,
Us, within her, dying unborn,
And with sweaty faces, the men smile.

We die as wire traps encircle our necks.
The wire tightens, we fight.
The wire eats into our golden fur
Then into red flesh, choking us.
The light turns to red, blood red,
Then before our eyes there is only
Black.

Man will again appear as our
Spirits watch from secret shadows,
Us watching our dead, crumpled, gold
Forms.
Man then strips our gold from our bodies
And then we are left,
Our spirits watching the grotesque red
Forms, us.
The bloated eyes, protruding, but unseeing. Us.

Children of the lion tumble on restricted plains
When golden mother falls dead after the crash,
Another bullet, another death.
Children of the lion run terrified to nowhere,
Then wait for their mother's return
Only she never returns.

The children of the lion no longer tumble but lie
forlorn,
Now less their golden mothers,
And wait and wait till we, the bone jutting, tawny
Children of the lion
die,
Here, there, almost everywhere
Where lions can still walk upon pockets of plain,
Forest depths, mountain range.

We lions die living, die eating.
We kill a cow, the cow kills us.
Its flesh will be anointed by man with poison.
We feast, our stomachs writhe like snakes in pits of coals.
We vomit, we defecate, retching, shitting,
Then die with our excrement around us, on us.
Others come to eat--the chain of life
needs to continue.
But
The links are eroded by the poison.

The jackal moves away from the circles of excrement
Around us,
and
Vomits and shits.
The vulture rises into the sky to feel the thermals,
Then sinks, madly flapping, flapping in its madness
Before hitting the ground.
It shits, vomits
and dies.

The hyeana by night lopes forward,
Biting and swallowing what he finds,
Then slinks away to rest.
The raging thirst begins, then the raging madness
Of pain.
He dies alone on the plain.

Children of the lion are today in
Some places bred by man,
And man delionises the children, humiliates
The children to make them perform feats in
Front of crowds and crowds of watching,
Laughing, squealing, shouting people.

After the tricks, the children are prodded
into small cages to await the next time.
What misery, what despair as the children of the
Lion stare with unblinking amber eyes
Out into a changed world,
Head resting on paw, cramped within a cage.
Now sad, a sad, sad facsimile of his proud ancesters
of endless plains, forest depths, mountain range.

Man has taken our land.
He has destroyed what we are dependent upon--
The other old ones, the denizens of a shrinking,
Ancient world,
Those of stripes, those with horns, those we must kill
To enable ourselves to live.

Man will kill us with mad malevolence
Lusting particularly to kill the golden fathers
with their fine heads.
We, the family, shout our anger
After man shoots the golden father dead.
As droplets of his rich blood drip onto sand, leaf or stone,
We flee.
Without our golden father, the security he gave,
We flee.

Domestication: Real, Myth, or Syndrome?

2011-02-28T14:38:00.002-05:00

There is an utterly ridiculous article in the current National Geographic magazine. In short, the article says that any "wild" animal can be made into a "domesticated" animal by selective breeding; that "domestication" is determined by genes.

The writer goes so far as to use Biblical terminology to describe man's creation of domesticated species. And we are told that there is a domestication gene in humans that makes us so special.

The whole article is so ridiculous that I have a hard time keeping myself from accusing National Geographic of deliberate misinformation.

I will promise you this: If you have anything to do with animals and you don't want to be hurt or killed, you need to forget the myths of "wild" and "domestic" and think in terms of "socialized" and "non-socialized".

The article deals with animals in terms of stereotypes, apparently ignorant of real life. In real life, more people are killed by horses (a "domestic" animal) than by pet tigers, a stereotypically "wild" animal--and that's on a per-animal basis (you can't just use raw numbers since there are so many more horses). Cows, stereotypically not merely "domesticated" but downright docile, also kill large numbers of people. I can point out any number of dogs you wouldn't want to go near.

On the other side of the coin are the many so-called "wild" animals that people have as pets, that they have properly socialized and live happily with. Even foxes, the central example of the magazine article.

A key flaw in the "domestication is all in the genes" argument is actually pointed out during the course of the article: In comparing wolf and dog genomes, there appeared to be a link to a gene called WBSCR17, which in humans causes Williams-Beuren syndrome, characterized by "elfin features" (ties in with the author's statement that "domestic animals are cuter than wild animals") and "exceptional gregariousness—its sufferers are often overly friendly and trusting of strangers."

Note that humans with this syndrome are called "sufferers" while at the same time we are told this is something we can breed for in animals.

Anyone with any animal experience knows of the chronic medical problems that some breeds have because of selective breeding for various traits. Now they are going to go after other animals and alter their mental states.

If you want a good relationship with an animal, you have to work to establish that relationship. You don't go about it by warping its brain.

The NatGeo article centers around a breeding program that has produced foxes that cry for companionship. Is that domestication or a personality disorder? It sounds to me like something humans would get psychotropic medications to treat. Here's a story of a family that took in a baby fox and get along with her very well, even though she was "wild".

The Eyes of a Wolf

2011-02-25T12:38:00.003-05:00

When Bruce Weide was growing up, he considered wolves a menace. He was told a wolf once tried to kill his grandfather, and was convinced wolves regularly ate people. To him, it seemed only natural that Alaska would offer a bounty on dead wolves, and killing a wolf was a service to his community.

When he was a teenager, he went moose hunting with his father and friends. While searching for moose, Weide spotted a wolf a hundred yards away. As Weide sighted the wolf in the scope of his rifle, the wolf turned his head.

"The wolf's amber-green eyes stared at me.... I felt as if the wolf's eyes peered into my soul. I felt exposed and naked before a primal and enduring force.... The eyes reflected an intelligence that I couldn't come close to comprehending at the time."

Weide could not bring himself to shoot that wolf.

For years Weide felt foolish and did not speak of the incident. But he pondered it continuously and he changed from wolf hater to wolf protector. Years later, he would make a film titled The Wolf: Real or Imagined? that looks at how stories about wolves shape our attitudes and perceptions. He and his wife, wildlife biologist Pat Tucker, founded Wild Sentry: The Northern Rockies Ambassador Wolf Program, an educational organization dedicated to correcting misperceptions about wolves.

And it all started by looking into a wolf's eyes. I mean, really looking and paying attention.

You can read more about Weide's ambassador wolf here.

(Most of this post is paraphrased from the introduction to Chris Palmer's book, Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom.)

Totally Silly

2011-02-18T08:03:00.002-05:00

Here is a music video/cartoon. Sometimes just plain silliness is a good thing.

Breaking Points

2011-02-13T14:27:00.005-05:00

I received the following story in an email a couple of weeks ago. I don't think I could summarize the story any better, so I will quote what I was told. It refers to an incident at Palmetto Ridge High School in Florida on January 24:

On Monday of this week a 14 year old student killed a 16 year old during a fight when they got off the bus. Stabbed the older boy some six times after being hit in the face and gut at least four times. Why he retaliated as he did is now coming out. The older, and much bigger, boy had been bullying the other kid all school year, including beating on him a whole lot. It wasn't a secret either; other students as well as the 14-year-old had told the school authorities, who, of course, did nothing. Even the bus driver had reported attacks, and nothing was done. The younger kid's parents knew, they reported it, nothing was done. Seems the bully was a BMOC, important jock, and his parents didn't want anything done. So, nothing was done. The 14-year-old even tried to not go to school, but because of Florida law his parents had to get him there or they'd be jailed. Two weeks ago the savagely bullied kid refused to go, the cops were called, they took him to school in cuffs. That afternoon the bully hammered on him again. All this was in the reports, all of which were ignored studiously by the school authorities. Then came Monday.

BTW, all of the management of that high school are now in deep doo-doo. There will be changes over there. From what I've heard some 95% of the student body are very happy about that.

Now, what has that got to do with the general topic at hand here? It seems to me that there are definite parallels between that story, and the story of Tatiana, the tiger at the San Francisco Zoo that the world heard about in December 2007.

The main question surrounding Tatiana was whether she was provoked by the three people she attacked. A couple of weeks ago I took the author of the book "Fear of the Animal Planet" to task for not presenting a convincing overview of Tatiana's story--anyone researching the story would be knee-deep in conflicting accounts. Now, the Associated Press has provided a key piece to the puzzle. It took a Freedom of Information Act request to get this piece of information, because it had been stricken from the official record. As reported in today's Washington Post:

"With my knowledge of tiger behavior, I cannot imagine a tiger trying to jump out of its enclosure unless it was provoked," Laurie Gage, a tiger expert who investigated the incident for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, wrote in a Dec. 27, 2007, draft of her report.

The documents, provided to AP three years after a Freedom of Information Act request, offer the first public glimpse into the findings of the federal investigation. Whether the tiger was provoked has long been a point of contention.

Gage's statement about provocation was stricken from the final version of the report because it was "irrelevant from an Animal Welfare Act enforcement standpoint," said David Sacks, a spokesman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the nation's zoos.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier has more to the story. The tiger killed one of the tormentors, then,

After sitting with its prey for a short time, Gage wrote that Tatiana likely followed the Dhaliwals' blood trail for about 300 yards to where it resumed attacks. Photographs show blood-smeared asphalt where the tiger apparently dragged Sousa's body.

"After a kill, I find it interesting the tiger would leave a kill to go after something else unless there were a compelling reason," Gage wrote. "The tiger passed exhibits with warthogs which it ignored as it followed [the blood trail] of the two brothers to the Terrace Cafe outside the dining area."

USDA's investigators said they found "some sticks, foreign to the exhibit, and at least one pine cone inside the tiger exhibit indicating that someone may have thrown these items into the enclosure at the tigers."

So, the evidence is now clearer to support author Jason Hribal's contention that the tiger was provoked into action and that her actions were directed and focused. Not mysterious and random ("Keep in mind these are animals: Who knows why they do anything?" said one of the 'victims' attorneys).

Sympathy runs high for the boy in the first story, who was provoked past his breaking point. He will receive a fair trial. In supposedly less enlightened times, Tatiana would have been given similar consideration.

Thick as Sheep

2011-02-11T14:39:00.001-05:00

Most people would probably say that sheep are stupid. Nothing but a herd instinct with wool on.

But the people who study sheep are finding that they are very intelligent, even able to master tests that are used to measure human intelligence.

Sheep can not only recognize different plants, they can generalize about them and categorize them by family. This represents thinking beyond the "here and now" that we're told dominates animal thought.

Sheep have been shown to recognize and remember many dozens of faces not only of other sheep, but of humans, too. Watch any animal-themed movie that uses multiple stand-ins for the star and you realize that most people can't distinguish between the faces of different animals.

Sheep can also memorize the routes through mazes (an ability that has many real-life benefits). And while rams fighting with each other may make for good video, they actually form long-term friendships and help their friends in fights. This article in New Scientist magazine also describes how sheep can master a test that it was previously thought only humans and primates could master, a test that requires such complex thinking that it is used to detect the onset of dementia.

What I would like to see, though, is proof of the reports that sheep have learned to lie down and roll over cattle grids that are meant to keep them fenced in. This would be a brilliant maneuver, but there's no video or photo of such a thing. Sheep can jump over 5 foot fences or even squeeze through gaps as small as 8 inches wide, but think what a YouTube sensation it would be if someone could record this rolling maneuver. I'm not saying it's impossible, but seeing it would remove any doubt.

Until that video shows up, here's one smart individual:

History lesson, and a review of the book it came from.

2011-02-03T14:53:00.004-05:00

It is still being taught in universities that animals have no mind, no consciousness. Rene Descartes' despicable, insane notion that animals are nothing but "biological machines" has that deep a hold on our society.

What's interesting, though, is that if you look back before Descartes, back to early colonial America or Medieval Europe or before, you find that people not only believed that animals were conscious beings, they should be considered members of the community. This is most obviously evidenced by judicial trials in which animals, from termites to bears, were accused of committing crimes, from trespassing to murder. They were accorded equal rights under the law, and humans and animals could even be tried together as co-conspirators. Animals were assigned public defenders for these trials.

Underlying all this was the assumption that animals possessed rationality, free will, moral agency, motivation, and emotions.

Then came the "great" philosophers. Descartes took away animals' souls and minds. John Calvin declared that God made the world and its animals for the benefit of humans. John Locke declared animals were "perfect machines". The separation of man from the rest of the world became an unchallenged notion in our society.

Since you are reading this blog, I assume you know how wrong that notion of separateness is. I thought it was interesting to look back in time to when society at large did not have that idea. That history lesson comes from an essay by Jeffrey St. Clair that serves as the introduction to a new book called "Fear of the Animal Planet", by Jason Hribal.

The premise of Hribal's book is that when an animal "attack" makes the news, we should look for and consider the circumstances that led the animal to do that, that the animal was provoked in some way. I don't disagree with that idea; I already held it long before this book appeared.

The book itself is, unfortunately, not going to persuade anyone who doesn't already have that opinion. Most of the book is little more than a listing of various incidents at zoos and theme parks. Hribal doesn't provide the necessary details of what led up to each incident. He needed to provide definite sources and evidence, and he does not. This hurts his effort a great deal. He seems to work on the assumption that ALL zoos, and ALL theme parks, and ALL animal handlers are necessarily and inherently evil; and with this view, providing details becomes unnecessary. This is not the way to get people interested and involved.

The book overall is a slapdash production, which will also put people off. Besides missing details, wrong dates are given, the author rambles off in odd directions, and even falls into incoherency at times. A good editor would need more than one red pencil to take on this book.

Animal attacks make news. The idea that the animal was acting in self-defense or was goaded into such action does not make the news. Bringing the idea of animals as intelligent emotional creatures to the forefront of our societal thinking is a very vital necessity for them and for us. This would be a major paradigm shift, and it's going to take a better effort than what was put into this book.

The first three-quarters of Jeffrey St. Clair's introduction is actually the most compelling part of the book. Maybe he should take on the job of producing a second edition.

Bear Society

2011-02-01T19:10:00.002-05:00

Ben Kilham has a knack for bears. North American black bears, specifically. He loves them, he understands them, he spends many days with them each year, he has raised orphan cubs. Most importantly, he pays close attention to them.

By paying attention, he has come to know, and has described, bear society. Bears are social animals, he says, and have a complex society based on altruistic sharing of food. He knows at least some of their language and he has observed their interactions.

But while Ben Kilham may have a knack for bears, he does not have "scientific" credentials. So, those who do have such credentials feel free to ignore him and what he says. Never mind that what he says makes sense. Never mind that his observations are so thorough and astute that he discovered something that no scientist ever knew before: that bears have an olfactory organ in the roof of their mouths (similar to the Jacob's Organ in cats, for example).

What's incredible to me is that scientists cling to their conclusion that bears do not interact socially; that they are solitary animals. This is based on nothing more than the fact that no scientist has observed bears closely enough to notice their society. Anyone with any interest in logical thought knows that lack of evidence is not proof of anything. Science has jumped to a conclusion about bears' behavior based on lack of evidence.

Ben Kilham has the first-hand evidence, and it makes sense. Science tells us that many different animals live solitary lives, but I believe that if these animals were really and truly observed it would be discovered that they actually have complex societies. Take tigers. "Everybody knows" that they live solitary lives in the wild. But they are extremely difficult to observe in the wild and of necessity have extremely large ranges. They have a complex vocal language, they get along well with each other in captivity--why should anyone conclude that they do not naturally have their own society?

Thankfully, Ben Kilham is not daunted. He is willing to give lectures on what he has learned about bears. He continues to observe, and film, and write about them. He's doing what he can to improve the world's knowledge of bears. Let's hope science one day will decide to pay attention.

Ben Kilham has his own site at benkilham.com.

Fox Hunting

2011-01-16T19:59:00.003-05:00

The Reuters news agency reported that in the Republic of Belarus, a wounded fox shot its would-be killer. The man tried to finish off the fox by beating it with the butt of his rifle, but the fox managed to pull the trigger, wounding the man in the leg. The hunter was hospitalized. No word on whether the fox sought treatment.

(Belarus is a country bordered by Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.)

The Born Free Legacy

2011-01-12T09:53:00.004-05:00

If you have any interest at all in PBS's "Elsa's Legacy" (part of their "Nature" series), then you owe it to yourself to forget all about it and watch the BBC version of the same show, which is titled "The BORN FREE Legacy". The difference is beyond belief. Fortunately, some very nice person has placed the BBC version on YouTube, and I have placed all 4 parts of it below. The BBC got it right, and they even live up to the "legacy" aspect of the title. So far, only 339 people have watched it all the way through on YouTube; but this is the version of the show we should have been shown on PBS. Please watch and recommend this BBC show to everyone you know.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Elsa's Legacy

2011-01-10T16:16:00.006-05:00

PBS is running a show this week (the exact day depends on where you live) called "Elsa's Legacy", Elsa being the lion made famous by "Born Free".

I can't go on without giving a too-brief critique of the show. I have serious doubts about whether whoever wrote the script of the show (there is no writer credit given) ever saw the movie or read the book. Over and over, "Born Free" is referred to as a "fairy tale" and a "myth". Why? The writer seems to be of the opinion that "Born Free" presented some phony view of Elsa and the whole process she and the Adamsons went through in teaching her how to live in the African bush. The examples used to illustrate this point were, in actuality, all dealt with in both book and movie. I don't understand the cluelessness of the narration. (And very laughable was the picture used to illustrate the dangers of wild lions when they encounter an intruder: two lions mating.) They also mixed pictures of the lion Christian (ca. 1971) in with the recounting of the making of the movie "Born Free" (ca. 1965)--but I suppose one lion is interchangeable with any other to most people. This is all the more a shame since one of the points they hammer home is that "Born Free" was the first time anyone considered that animals were all individuals with unique personalities.

Naturally, it wasn't the first time anyone had that idea, but it may be that the movie "Born Free" brought that idea to more people than anything that came before. The show ends by asking the question, can we rekindle the passion for lions that the movie instilled in people?

Strangely, given the show's title, they never really explore Elsa's legacy. And it is a great legacy. Not merely the Born Free Foundation but also the George Adamson Wild Animal Protection Trust (which was not mentioned). Many people are carrying on George Adamson's work in rehabilitating animals to a natural life, and not just lions. And there is the story of Christian the lion, which set the world on fire just a couple of years ago, and which would have turned out very, very differently had it not been for Elsa.

Elsa and the Adamsons have made a change in the world, and all for the better. The reaction to Christian's story shows that people can get passionate about lions, and "wild" animals, thus continuing the good that Elsa started.

People need more opportunities to see more animals as they actually are, and observe their natures for themselves. I believe the passions will then arise naturally.

Life, and Consciousness, and Equivalency

2011-01-05T09:14:00.002-05:00

I got to thinking about the physical sciences and our ingrained worldviews.

Physical sciences tell us that all there is is matter and energy (and Einstein told us that the two are actually the same).

Take carbon: Coal - Graphite - Diamonds - Whatever its appearance, no one will tell you that it is alive. Nor is oxygen. Carbon and oxygen do not willfully combine to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide, or anything else. The same things can be said for hydrogen, nitrogen, or whatever element you choose.

These elements are not alive, but put them together in the right combination and you get Life.

How does Life happen? There is no physical answer for that. But we know what Life is; we recognize when something is alive. Alive means consuming, growing, reacting, reproducing. And we have no problem allowing that a butterfly is just as alive as a human.

We also know what "consciousness" is (never mind philosophical attempts to obfuscate the idea). You know you are conscious, or else you wouldn't be translating the pixels on your screen into words and those words into concepts that I'm trying to communicate.

But for some reason society, and science, and religions all want to put a fence around consciousness, and not allow it to any other life, just humans. All those defining forces of our lives constantly beat this idea into our heads, that only humans have conscious intellect.

Yet, those people who have first-hand experience with animals know differently. They know that the animals they interact with are just as capable of thinking, feeling, and loving as they are. And yet the concept of a barrier between conscious and non-conscious life is so ingrained that it doesn't usually disappear completely, even for such people. The barrier gets stretched, pushed outward, to allow some animals in, but not all of them.

In his book Kinship with All Life, J. Allen Boone describes how he established a relationship with a house fly. He and the fly had a real responsive relationship. No one can reasonably deny that this is true--to do so would be to deny this man his own experiences when he gives no evidence of being other than intelligent, reasonable, and articulate. So to deny what he says about the fly and its ability to have a relationship with him would be to say that you know more about his life than he himself did, which is simply ridiculous.

So if the barrier that allows consciousness can be stretched so far as to allow house flies into the exalted realm, surely by that point it must be stretched so thin as to fall apart completely.

In the light of all the experiential evidence that exists, would it not be more logical to assume that all forms of life have consciousness than to assume they don't?

Then why is the idea of the separateness of humans from the rest of nature so very difficult to shed?

A Most Divisive Animal

2010-12-29T11:08:00.002-05:00

Name anything in the world, and you can find people that like it, and people that don't, but passions generally wouldn't run high. Not so with pigeons, however. For every person that is devoted to them, there seems to one who hates them with a passion, and such people seem to feel perfectly righteous in their hatred.

Probably the reason for such strong reactions is that pigeons are so very intelligent. And their intelligence allows them to adapt well to life in close proximity to humans.

Scientists are discovering just how intelligent pigeons are. Thanks to miniature GPS equipment, they can track the actions of a homing pigeon. The ability of a pigeon to find its way home has long been attributed to that magical catch-all, "instinct". But it has been observed that pigeons "scope out" the area in which they are released, so as to get their bearings and form a mental map. They find their way home by navigating according to landmarks, and if they are sent between the same two points repeatedly, they refine their route into the most efficient path home.

This explanation of pigeons mapping out their route is supported by tests that show that pigeons have a very good and long visual memory. Other senses are surely involved as well, but those are more difficult to measure. But it is obvious that real intelligence is involved, not some mythical "instinct".

Pigeons also have demonstrated real problem solving ability:

What I don't understand is the blind hatred of them. There's even a Facebook page for people who actively hate pigeons. It makes no sense.

A Merry Christmas to All

2010-12-27T13:41:00.001-05:00

I hope you had as much fun this holiday season as these guys did:

A Lioness and Her Cubs, and Their Friend

2010-12-15T10:01:00.007-05:00

Time for another look in at Kevin Richardson, this time with some really tiny lion cubs:

This video is a joy from beginning to end. Not only are the cubs adorable:

but you can see how touchy-feely lions are. They love physical contact.

For the benefit of the cubs, mama comes with a toy: the tuft on the end of her tail:

And there's more scenes of happy quiet times together:

Happy is the lion family that snoozes together:

This is higher learning?

2010-11-28T20:47:00.002-05:00

The media were abuzz this week with the "news" that a new study from Oxford University "proved" that dogs are smarter than cats.

But what is the truth of the matter?

Let's start with the actual abstract of the article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:

Encephalization is not a universal macroevolutionary phenomenon in mammals but is associated with sociality
by Susanne Shultz and Robin Dunbar
Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Evolutionary encephalization, or increasing brain size relative to body size, is assumed to be a general phenomenon in mammals. However, despite extensive evidence for variation in both absolute and relative brain size in extant species, there have been no explicit tests of patterns of brain size change over evolutionary time. Instead, allometric relationships between brain size and body size have been used as a proxy for evolutionary change, despite the validity of this approach being widely questioned. Here we relate brain size to appearance time for 511 fossil and extant mammalian species to test for temporal changes in relative brain size over time. We show that there is wide variation across groups in encephalization slopes across groups and that encephalization is not universal in mammals. We also find that temporal changes in brain size are not associated with allometric relationships between brain and body size. Furthermore, encephalization trends are associated with sociality in extant species. These findings test a major underlying assumption about the pattern and process of mammalian brain evolution and highlight the role sociality may play in driving the evolution of large brains.

Now, let's analyze this.

The Oxford University web site clarifies the fact that the research team "examined the growth rates of the brain size relative to body size to see if there were any changes in the proportions over time. The growth rates of each mammal group were compared with other mammal groups to see what patterns emerged."

Thus, the study perpetuates the concept of measuring intelligence by "brain size relative to body size". My question is, how in the world would the relative sizes correspond to actual intelligence? How is that supposed to mean anything? Does it mean that a tall or fat human is not as intelligent as a short or thin human?

(If you want a physical measure to "prove" intelligence, what about the fact that cats have 300 million neurons in their cerebral cortex [the "thinking" part of the brain] and dogs have only 160 million neurons? Not that I'm about to support the idea that actual intelligence derives from such physical measures, but scientists do it all the time, so maybe one of them could try to explain why "brain size relative to body size" could be a better measure of intelligence than the number of actual neurons in the brain.)

This study also tracks relative increases in brain size in various species on an evolutionary time scale. At Care2.com, Jake Richardson makes a good point:

For this study, the focus on physical brain measurements depends upon the assumption that an increase in brain size on a evolutionary time scale indicates dogs are smarter than cats. However, there is another assumption involved — that dogs and cats started off with equal intelligence, and dogs increased. Even if dogs and cats millions of years ago had the same size brains, does that mean they were of equal intelligence? It’s possible cats were smarter then, and still smarter now, but have smaller, more efficient brains. What is more likely given that evolution seems to reward creatures with adaptability and diverse skill sets, is that dog and cat intelligences are different, and comparing them is much more complex than simply measuring physical brain size.

There's another factor that needs to be questioned in this study. The study correlates increase in brain size over centuries with "sociality", which is defined in a somewhat circular manner as 'The state or quality of being sociable'. The trouble here is double: how do you define 'being sociable' in terms of behavior in different species, and how do you objectively measure it?

There is no question that dogs have social interactions in ways that are compatible with human perceptions. Cats behave differently, and people are societally trained to believe that cats are aloof, independent, and loners. But careful observation of cats will reveal that they are very sociable animals. Any veterinarian should be able to tell you that in multi-cat households, the cats form their own societal structure. They can be very affectionate toward each other as well as toward humans. I have observed cats comfort a sick cat, and mourn the death of another cat. I have two cats who will each bring me a toy to initiate a game of fetch or some other game.

No one will ever convince me that cats are not social animals, because that would require me to deny years of experience. Just as no one will ever convince me that intelligence is dependent on brain size.

I'm with Mr. Richardson on this one: each species has its own unique way of expressing its intelligence. Unfortunately, the mass media like the easy headline. It's a shame the easy headline has to originate from an institution of higher learning.

The Search for Intelligent Life...

2010-11-07T12:30:00.002-05:00

In today's Washington Post we learn that 19 radio telescope observatories and other facilities in 13 countries worked in coordination with each other to search for intelligent life on other planets.

They didn't find it and they won't find it.

I'm not saying that there can't be life on other planets. Simple mathematic probability says there must be. But it's not going to be more humans, or even humans with cute cosmetic differences like pointy ears or walnut shells on their foreheads. They will be completely different forms of life, with completely different forms of communication that will go completely unrecognized.

Much like the communication methods of the numerous animal societies that share our own planet with us.

I know, I have reported on breakthroughs in recognizing animal languages in past posts. But research in this area is still in its primitive stages. Considering how long we've had to observe our fellow creatures, this state of affairs is... well, discouraging, but promising, even if progress seems too slow.

There are even many in the "scientific" community that actively resist the notions of animal intelligence and languages.

And at the same time millions of dollars are wasted looking for human communication coming from unattainable other planets.

Does this make sense to anyone?

If We Could Talk to the Animals...

2010-10-28T13:56:00.002-04:00

A little music for a Thursday...

Something interesting about that song is that it consistently refers to talking in each animal's own language: "Can you speak rhinocerous? Of courcerous!" It's pretty cool that a song writer would have that perspective when so often researchers aim to get animals speaking in a human language.

One well-documented example of the latter was the project involving Vicki, "the talking chimp". After much training, the researchers were able to get Vicki to approximate three words: Mama, Papa, and Cup. She did this with great difficulty and signs of stress, and had to use her hands to help her mouth form the "p" sound. The results were akin to getting a dog to say "I love you" or "mama"--you could imagine that the words were being said, but it does take imagination.

The failure to get the chimp to talk led to the myth of the "language instinct", that supposedly only humans have. But while a chimp can't speak English, it is plain that chimps can comprehend a spoken human language. This comprehension reveals that the animals do have language abilities. The inability to speak in a human language is the result of different physical aspects of their bodies, not underdeveloped minds.

More enlightened researchers, such as primatologist Dr Katja Liebal, believe that chimps have their own complex system of communication, and it is up to us to try to understand. Liebal is compiling a dictionary of the chimpanzee language, which uses gestures, facial expressions, and physical displays. She says that chimpanzees have a complex communicative system--even though they can't speak English.

Still, people prefer sameness. Earlier this year, much was made of a short film showing a bonobo chimp shaking her head to indicate "no". I was surprised at this, because I didn't think this was a great revelation. Even my cats will shake their heads to indicate "no". I suppose I should set up a camera and send a video of the cats to the BBC...

Chickens on Thursday

2010-10-21T16:27:00.003-04:00

A few fun and interesting videos for a Thursday...

It seems that it's not all that uncommon for brooding chickens to 'babysit' kittens. Here's a chicken with two eggs and two kittens in her nest:

The maker of this video says that the momma cat put her kittens in the chicken's box so she (the cat) could take a break:

There's also a photo of the kittens finally asleep with the chicken here.

In this video, two chickens seem to be intent on preventing two rabbits from fighting:

And finally, for now, a little look at a motion-feedback stabilization system (aka, a chicken):

A Voice for the Big Cats

2010-10-19T11:12:00.006-04:00

Alan Rabinowitz is a naturalist who, as a child who stuttered so severely that he couldn't speak at all, made a pledge to an aging jaguar at the Bronx Zoo to become a voice for all the world's big cats.

With no professional help available for his stuttering, he discovered he could talk to animals, and he would sequester himself in his bedroom closet with apartment-compatible pets, and talk to them. "The animals didn't judge me. The animals had no expectations. The animals just let me be who I was." And their inability to talk to him made him feel closer to them. "They didn't have a voice, either."

At the zoo, Rabinowitz gravitated to the big cats. He remembers a tiger, locked in a cage the way he felt locked in his own head. And an old female jaguar who looked sad and broken, the way he felt.

"I swore to the animals that if I could ever find my voice, I would be their voice." he recalled. He reasoned that if animals could make themselves understood, people would treat them a whole lot better than they do.

Rabinowitz did learn to conquer his stutter, and he did remember his promise.

He is now president and CEO of Panthera, an organization active in preserving all wild cats. Rabinowitz takes an extremely wise, long-range approach to preservation: seeking ways for humans and big cats to co-exist in the same areas.

Rabinowitz tells his story and more in this interview with professional smart-ass Stephen Colbert:

The Colbert Report
Alan Rabinowitz

A Challenge to See "White Lion..."

2010-10-15T07:57:00.002-04:00

This one will be tough, but undoubtedly worth it. Kevin Richardson's movie, "White Lion... Home is a Journey" opens today (October 15) in just 3 cities in the US: Memphis, St. Louis, and Louisville.

Professional movie reviewers are giving it a middling reaction, saying that it's not action-filled enough, but at the same time they say that it is a beautiful movie and emotionally powerful. That means more to me than overblown action sequences.

The story is told from the perspective of an old man recounting the tale of the young Shangaan boy, Gisani, and his adventures protecting a rare white lion, a messenger of the gods in his cultural lore.

We then see the story of the white lion, Letsatsi, unfold with remarkable close-ups of the lions that portray him and the other animals he encounters. Letatsi is forced from his pride, learns to hunt, and returns to his territory fully grown and ready to claim his due — all the while being stalked by hunters eager to bag such a rare trophy.

Kevin Richardson is depending on this movie's success to support the animals at his Kingdom of the White Lion in Africa. So, every ticket you buy will support the animals you see in the film.

One reviewer made this puzzling statement, without any explanation: Not recommended if you can recall Kimba the White Lion? I wonder what that means? I have been looking forward to this movie since I first heard about it. The trade magazine Variety predicts that this movie will not get a general theatrical release in the US. I hope they're wrong (in 1977, no one thought Star Wars was worth a wide theatrical release). Grab the chance to see it when you can.

What Does It Take to Change People's Perceptions?

2010-10-14T14:27:00.006-04:00

As part of its campaign to raise awareness and funds for gibbon conservation, the International Primate Protection League (UK), together with naturalist Bill Oddie, is re-releasing The Goodies’ hit 1975 single "The Funky Gibbon". The track has been re-mastered to include real gibbon sounds.

The music video to accompany the song was only just filmed on October 21. When it is released, I will include it or link to it here.

Since the music video isn't released yet, the clip below is obviously old. But it will give you an idea of the song. The Goodies (Bill Oddie, Tim Brooke-Taylor, and Graham Garden) were an amazingly funny comedy team and, of the dozens of songs they recorded, "The Funky Gibbon" was their biggest chart success. I'm sure the re-released version will do well, but will it make people think, or care, about real gibbons?

More Myths, and Their Outcomes

2010-10-13T13:32:00.005-04:00

Here's an interesting little fact: Animal control officers across the country have told the ASPCA that when they alert the media to a dog attack, news outlets respond that they have no interest in reporting on the incident unless it involved a pit bull.

Now, if every time you hear of a dog attack, it involves a pit bull dog, what does that do to your perception of pit bulls?

And in Denver Colorado, this perception has led to a long-standing complete ban on the breed. This ban has survived numerous legal challenges.

Apparently no one ever told the lawmakers or the judges that the breed most responsible for dog bites in Colorado is the Labrador. (And apparently none of those people in power ever bothered to research the issue.)

Mixed up in this mess is the emerging tendency (also reported by the ASPCA) for all short-haired, stocky dogs to be called pit bulls.

Amelia Glynn points out (in her Tails of the City blog) that "nearly every time a pit-bull-attack story appears in the news, it ignites new fervor for breed-specific legislation. However, the mass banning of specific breeds has been shown to be ineffectual when it comes to dog-bite prevention."

BUT... Once you get one breed-specific law on the books, it becomes incredibly easy to add new breeds to the ban.

AND... Certain very powerful and very active so-called "animal rights" organizations have stated that it is their goal to end ALL pet ownership...

Not By Instinct

2010-10-12T14:32:00.003-04:00

So much of any animal's mental life and social life goes unrecognized that the myth of instinct was created to explain animal behavior. The myth is such a powerful and convenient replacement for reality that it is going to take a long, long time to replace it with real observations.

Here is one good place to start: What could be more "instinctual" than swinging from a tree branch, for an ape? But look at the orangutans at Ouwehands Dierenpark Rhenen, a zoo in The Netherlands. They had been kept in a low, simple cage that allowed no such activity as swinging from a branch. And when the zoo upgraded their enclosure, they didn't know how to do this quintessential ape maneuver.

So the zoo hired an Olympic gymnast, Epke Zonderland, to teach the orangutans how to swing from branches.

In their natural homes, orangutans rarely are found on the ground, but these had been forced to live on the ground in their old cage. When the zoo moved them to the new enclosure, with 30-foot-high trees, they seemed to not only not know what to do, they even seemed a bit afraid of the trees.

When this story was reported elsewhere, some labeled the orangutans as "lazy". But in reality this shows just how much of what can seem to be "instinctive" in an animal really depends on socialization--learning behavior from others.

Two Additional Points

2010-10-11T11:50:00.002-04:00

An article in yesterday's Washington Post brought up two points I should have included in my previous post about The Lost Dogs...

1.
Both the Humane Society of the United States and PETA called for Vick's dogs to be killed. Not rescued. Not rehabilitated. Killed. Always remember those two names, and what they really want to do.

2.
Most of the dogs were gentle but suffering from second-hand trauma--that is, they were aware of what was happening to other dogs, and it scared the hell out of them. Further proof of animals' intelligence and emotional sensitivity.

Michael Vick's Dogs

2010-10-06T10:28:00.003-04:00

People are constantly posing the question, "what separates humans from other animals?" I think one of the answers has to be "torture".

But I'm not here to dwell on Michael Vick.

The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption by Jim Gorant tells the stories of the 51 dogs seized from Vick's dog fighting ring.

Like, "Jonny Rotten" a litle black-and-white dog who couldn't navigate stairs, couldn't climb onto a couch, and ran from any sudden noise. He had been locked up, away from people and other dogs, all his life, and had no socialization skills. Other dogs had been so traumatized that they flattened themselves on the ground and trembled whenever people approached them.

Thanks to US District Court Judge henry E. Hudson, Vick was ordered to pay for the rescue and rehabilitation of as many of the dogs as possible. The results show the intelligence of the dogs, as well as the benefits of proper socialization of an animal. Also fortunately for the dogs, the rescuers knew that each dog should be individually assessed and treated according to his individual needs.

Each animal is indeed an individual, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

The results are spectacular. Jonny Rotten now wears a vest that says "Therapy Dog" and works in a program that helps children improve their reading. And he's not the only one that is now a therapy dog.

And there are many other success stories, of dogs that can now live happy lives in normal families, with other dogs and cats.

You can read some of their stories on the Parade Magazine web site (if you can deal with all the ads).

The Pit Bull breed has such a horrible reputation, due to horrible treatment, that it is wonderful to know that people are willing to approach such dogs, even ones with serious problems, as the individuals that they are.

Soul of a Lion

2010-09-28T11:27:00.004-04:00

When I picked up the new book, Soul of a Lion, I was hoping that it would at least have a metaphysical slant to it. No such luck. Aside from one timid reference to the subject ("Each [animal] has a personality, and along with that, most volunteers who have worked and played with them agree that each has a soul.") the book is a biography of Marieta van der Merwe, creator and matriarch of the Harnas Wildlife Foundation, a huge wildlife sanctuary in Namibia.

But we do get hints of the metaphysical in the comments made by some of the volunteers who have worked at that sanctuary.

One volunteer said, "My soul has been laid bare. The routine and materialism that control my daily life at home feel like chains hanging on my heart.... I am rediscovering who I am and what is really important... Through spending precious moments with the animals, I am learning the art of silent communication and embracing the power of mutual trust and respect."

And another volunteer: "You can't put up a false front. We end up stripped and showing what we're really made of.... Everything comes out, whether you want it to or not. I feel like I'm naked--but everyone is naked. It's too bad that when I go home, I'll have to put up a wall again in order to survive in that world."

And one more: "...Animals don't judge you for your appearance. You just become your real self. You lose the other, fake part.... I want to stay this person. It's so much better than the person I was before."

These ideas and emotions come from connecting on a deep level with the animals at the sanctuary. I have said in an earlier post that looking into the eyes of an animal and truly seeing the person that is there can make you feel laid bare like no other experience; you know you are seen for who you are, there can be no pretenses.

Such connections would not be possible for those volunteers if the sanctuary was not a safe and loving environment. So, these testimonies about the outcome of her work tell the truest story of the person that is Marieta van der Merwe, much more than the telling of the tragedies in her life.

And here's something I found interesting: I thought the best possible illustration for the title of this site, "Intelligent Life Is All Around Us", would be the eyes of many different animals. At the top of the Harnas Wildlife Foundation web site, they have pictures of eyes of many different animals.

A trip to Namibia may be in order.

Devotion and Understanding

2010-09-27T09:28:00.005-04:00

Once upon a time--1923, actually, since this is a true story--a professor at Tokyo University, Dr. Eizaburo Ueno, got an Akita Inu puppy and named him Hachi.

Dr. Ueno was quite a dog lover, and Hachi returned the affection. Dr. Ueno shared his meals with Hachi, and Hachi would go to the train station to see Dr. Ueno off in the morning and greet him in the evening.

One day, a couple of years later, Dr. Uneo went off to the university as usual, but he died suddenly during the day and never came home.

Hachi, who had no way of knowing about Dr. Ueno's death, went to meet Dr. Ueno as usual and waited there until dark for his friend who never returned. Every day from then on, Hachi went to the station in the evening, and waited.

Even when Hachi was given to one Ueno' relatives in another town, he ran the eight kilometers back to wait for Dr. Ueno every evening. This went on for a year until finally the family gave Hachi to a friend who lived near Dr. Ueno's former residence. Hachi continued his nightly vigil for Dr. Ueno, every day, without fail.

For ten years after Dr. Ueno's death, Hachi waited at the train station for him, every evening, until he died in 1935.

Hachi became something of a celebrity in Japan, and there is even a statue of him at the station. While some people try to come up with mundane reasons for Hachi's behavior, most see him as the epitome of devotion and faithfulness.

Hachi's story also points out how hard it is to accept the mysterious disappearance of a loved one. If Hachi had been allowed to see Dr. Ueno's body, he would have understood what happened. Animals do understand about death, but no one thought to give Hachi the chance to know what happened to his beloved Dr. Ueno.

I wrote a while back about how, when one of our cats dies, we hold a viewing for the benefit of the other cats. I believe this is especially important when the cat didn't die at home. Watching the cats' behavior as they see their departed friend one last time leaves me with no doubt that they understand.

If only Hachi could have been given the chance to understand... When my time comes, I hope that my cats are given the chance.

With the thought that art imitates life, I offer the following video. It's only a cartoon, but it will move you.

Eyes

2010-09-15T15:37:00.002-04:00

So now there is yet another "what exactly it means to be human" book (Almost Chimpanzee) in which author Jon Cohen seeks understanding through focusing on how humans are different from other animals, specifically chimpanzees in this case.

Now you know, if you've read previous things I've written, that I am going to disagree with that approach. The key to understanding is not to focus on what makes us different. People already are utterly convinced that they are different, separate, and as a result somewhat lonely (yes, lonely--why else would they look for extraterrestrial humans?).

But it's when you can begin to see the similarities between all species of life that whole new vistas open up to you. I can tell you that the same spirit enlivens any species. When you understand that each animal has the same basic desires and needs, that all can experience love, then you can feel a kinship with any creature.

There is an interesting idea in the book, though: that "humanness" derives from the fact that human babies, unlike their ape counterparts, can lie flat on their backs, which allows them to gaze into their mothers' eyes.

I'm not sure I get the reasoning behind that statement. Surely ape babies have just as much opportunity to look into their mothers' eyes as human babies. But underlying the statement is the significance of eye contact. And this is indeed a very significant thing.

When Ace Bourke recently posted a picture of Christian, my immediate reaction was, look at his eyes! It's so easy to see the love in them.

Eye contact is essential in understanding any animal. That's why I made the collage at the top of this page--look at the intelligence in those eyes of a dog, cat, owl, and other animals. Use the search box at the right and see how often the subject of "eyes" comes up.

Dolphin advocate Ric O'Barry's life was changed when he looked into the eyes of the dolphin (Kathy) he had trained for the TV series "Flipper" and recognized what he now calls "captive dolphin depression syndrome". It was an epiphany that changed his life, as he realized just how similar dolphins' and humans' psyches are.

Izumi Ishii had a similar epiphany when he looked into a dolphin's eyes. The sudden realization changed his life, from dolphin hunter to dolphin protector.

The phenomenon of truly recognizing a fellow creature through eye contact is not unknown; it even made for a very effective scene in the fictional movie Fierce Creatures. But how often do people give themselves the chance to make contact? And how often are they held back by only seeing what they expect to see, and not seeing what is really there?

The eye of the tiger. Or the dolphin. Or the chimp. The window to the soul.

Lower Life Forms?

2010-08-31T08:34:00.003-04:00

Here is a nice little video rebuttal to anyone who uses the phrase "lower life forms", anyone who says animals can't think, or can't visualize another's perspective, or aren't altruistic, or any of that crap...

Healer Cat Gets Team Support

2010-08-23T09:43:00.003-04:00

The San Jose, California, Mercury News recently had an article about a cat who has taken it upon himself to help other cats.

Christopher was found on the side of a road unable to stand because his pelvis was fractured. He was taken to the Nine Lives Foundation's Feline Well-Care Clinic, where he was tended to and recuperated. He now lives at the clinic. Now, he will go to the cage of a sick cat and sit until someone lets him in, whereupon he comforts the cat inside.

Even more remarkably, he asked to be let in with a couple of feral kittens that were unapproachable and within a couple of weeks he had them completely socialized.

The newspaper article uses the word "tame", but what he did was socialize the kittens, so that they knew how to act with humans. This is the very definition of society, the passing of learned behavior from one generation to the next.

Going beyond even this, Christopher helped save the life of a tiny black kitten that needed an immediate blood transfusion. The doctor could not even get enough blood from the kitten to determine the blood type.

But then Christopher started rubbing on the doctor and nuzzling the kitten in a way that made the doctor think to use Christopher's blood for the transfusion. As it turns out, both the kitten and Christopher have the same rare blood type. Christopher was the perfect donor, and the kitten recovered.

Dr. Thompson said that if she hadn't paid attention to Christopher, the kitten would have died.

And that's another remarkable thing about Christopher's story. Not only does he want to help the cats at the clinic, the people there are alert and aware enough to pay that much attention to him.

Christopher and the people of the clinic make a wonderful team. You can read the whole article about Christopher at the newspaper's site.

The Nine Lives Foundation Shelter is at 3016 Rolison Road, Redwood City, California.

The Feline Well-Care Clinic is at 1683 Broadway, Redwood City, California

This is not the lion I'm looking for...

2010-08-19T14:26:00.003-04:00

...because obviously this is a staged scene. But it's still pretty cool.

The lion story I'm looking for is, I believe, a true story. I wrote what I could remember about it here.

Anyway, in this scene, Fagan the lion is looking for his owner, when he happens to hear his favorite song...

Is this what that movie is about?

2010-08-17T09:14:00.003-04:00

eat pray love

Remembering Christian

2010-08-12T08:03:00.003-04:00

In remembrance of Christian's birthday (August 12, 1969), Ace Bourke has posted a wonderful picture on his blog. He's even been kind enough to post a very high resolution version of it; you can get it if you go to his blog and click on the picture.

All I can say is, look at Christian's eyes. LOOK AT THOSE EYES! Ace says the picture makes him want to cry, and I can understand that. It makes me want to cry, too. You can see his love in his eyes. Christian always seemed so connected to the people around him; he always seemed to me to be so very able to get people to think differently about animals. And it seems to me he still is able to do that, even though he left us so long ago.

Thank you, Ace, for sharing this "new" picture with us.

Simple Pleasures

2010-08-05T21:23:00.001-04:00

While humans wrestle with the question of legalizing marijuana, cats just wrestle with catnip...

Things Half-Remembered...

2010-07-28T15:18:00.003-04:00

I need a bit of help tracking down a story I read about 10 years ago... It was supposed to be a true story, which is why I think it's worth tracking down. I can't seem to find it anywhere.

It involved a man who went on safari in Africa on more than one occasion. This probably was 70 or 80 years ago. At night he had the habit of playing records on a portable phonograph. When he was in one particular location, a lion would walk to the edge of his camp and sit and listen to the music. When the man stopped playing records, the lion left.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Return of the White Lion

2010-07-21T09:18:00.002-04:00

Just in time to give some perspective on Linda Tucker's book, Mystery of the White Lions, the Nat Geo Wild channel re-ran (and will again on July 27) a one-hour program about Linda Tucker's Global White Lion Protection Trust and the efforts to re-introduce white lions to the Timbavati region of South Africa.

The key to the success of the project is obtaining governmental protection for the white lions. The main obstacle to this is money. Shooting white lions, either in the bush or in a tiny escape-proof enclosure (canned hunting) is big, big business -- idiots of the world will pay as much as $150,000 for the privilege of hanging a dead white lion's head on their wall.

(In Tucker's book, she quotes an African saying that says, kill a white lion and you lose your soul. In my opinion, such a person didn't have one to begin with. But I digress.)

Official objections come in the form of "why just white lions? all lions need protection", and this is certainly true as stated. But--and the objectors surely know this--the white lion makes a good poster animal for the project, and once protection for them can be secured, it will be easier to expand protection to all lions. After all, regular-colored lions can be carriers of the white gene.

It is perfectly logical to focus on the re-introduction and protection of white lions since people have been focusing on their destruction for decades. People's fascination with them is a perfect stepping stone to getting attention focused on all lions, which are not protected in any way even though their population is being exterminated rapidly. Not just for trophies, but for such things as satiating China's craving for tiger bone wine--tigers are protected, lions are not, so lion-bone wine is used as a substitute.

One scientist pooh-poohs one of the project's hopes -- getting white lions classified as a sub-species -- calling the concept of sub-species "arbitrary and artificial". But so is the whole classification system. Take any definition of "species" that you want, and you can find officially-recognized examples that don't fit it.

As presented in the TV show, the White Lion Trust seems to be worthwhile, well-planned, and thorough. I can't help but wonder what's currently going on with it, however, since the show was produced in 2008 and their web site mostly has not been updated since 2008.

In the previous post in which I critcized Tucker's book, I was reacting to the book's emphasis on so-called "new-age" spiritual concepts and her failure to present them in a convincing, coherent manner. In her exploration of the white lions' history, Tucker talks about extraterrestrials, unknown underground rivers, prehistoric gold refineries, pyramids, constellations, symmetry between northern and southern Africa, transmigration of souls, and more, in a manner that I found more confusing than enlightening. And I wanted to be enlightened, especially since at least one of the topics (transmigration) is near and dear to me.

But the White Lion Trust appears to be a very impressive endeavor and worthy of success. They need to get the word out to the public about their mission and the several very beautiful lions they are working with.

Mystery of Mystery of the White Lions

2010-07-15T10:03:00.004-04:00

The title of this post is not a typo. I have just finished reading Mystery of the White Lions by Linda Tucker, and I don't know what to make of it. The basic premise of the book is that white lions have a long and sacred history in Africa, and their recent reappearance in the wild signifies earth-changing events to come.

Perhaps my confusion comes from my hope, that the book would be revelatory, conflicting with my impression, that the writing is sloppy and dense, not to mention finding it to be downright wrong in places.

The worst offense, in my opinion, is Tucker's repeated references to her "near-death experience" which consisted of sitting in a disabled Land Rover with a bunch of other people in the African bush while some lions were close by. Not one of the people, Tucker included, suffered so much as a scratch on that occasion. No matter how frightening it may have been to her at the time, this is NOT a "near-death experience" as she repeatedly calls it, and to call it such not only perpetuates the ignorant corruption of the term that has seeped into popular culture, it does a great disservice to those who have had true near-death experiences. It also seriously undermines Tucker's quest to be one who bridges the scientific and spiritual communities. A true near-death experience involves a person flatlining, having a deeply profound and meaningful spiritual experience, and being revived. True NDEs DO bridge the physical and spiritual, they are enlightening and life-changing, and are far more significant than merely being scared. This apparent lack of knowledge of a true spiritual experience reported by millions of people really makes me doubt Tucker's sincerity in probing both the scientific and spiritual realms, especially since a true NDE is not really all that far removed from what some of what she claims to have researched and experienced herself.

Another seemingly telling slip is a one-time reference to white tigers as Siberian tigers, another misconception that is widespread among the uneducated public. Anyone with real interest in such animals knows that white tigers are Bengals, not Siberians. I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent so much time researching white lions and their genetics could not have come across such basic information about their close cousins. Add to this the fact that Tucker said she spent significant time with Siegfried and Roy, and this mistake just blows me away.

These are gaffes related to Tucker's main subject matter on such a basic level that I cannot help but be skeptical about the rest of her book.

Adding to my doubts is Tucker's web site, WhiteLions.org. The book begins with an excerpt from an eloquent "Plea for Africa" by Credo Mutwa (more about him in a minute). The book says the complete essay is on the web site. It is not. The entire web site gives the impression of abandonment and decay, since it has very little content newer than 2008, broken links (interestingly, in the section about buying the book), and a contact form that doesn't work.

The vast majority of the book is devoted to African shaman Credo Mutwa, a famous person but unknown to me until now. I shall have to research him carefully before I can come to any conclusions. But already I have come up with an interesting question: If we are to believe everything he is quoted as saying in this book, should we also believe his statement (not in this book) from January of this year, that half the world's population will not see the year 2011 because of oil...?

Kingdom United Against Brutality -- I Hope...

2010-07-11T13:47:00.002-04:00

Hey, England! Here are some videos of the animals your "landed gentry" want the right to literally, physically tear to bloody shreds:

That's right, now that there's been a change in government in England, the rich folk want the fox hunting ban repealed. They call the ban "class warfare". I suggest that they get their heads out of their castes and wake up to the fact that they are the ones committing brutal, senseless warfare against intelligent beings with feelings and a family life probably more advanced than their attackers'.

To think that in this 21st century, there are large numbers of people who consider it their right to be barbarians while calling themselves elite... The fox hunt ban not only needs to stand, it needs to have some real teeth put into it.

Technical Difficulties

2010-07-07T11:32:00.002-04:00

On several older posts, I included audio recordings that were important to the post. Well, it seems Google has stopped supporting their player that I used, so I have switched to a player supported by Yahoo. So, if you read an older post and found a blank white space instead of an audio player, that's now been fixed. I hope.

Here is a list of such posts:
Advances in Language Study
More Cat Language
Calling All Lion Fans
The Christian the Lion Guys on the Radio
Another Lion Reunion, or, I Will Always Love You
Guest Speaker

Since each post had to be fixed individually, I probably missed one. If you find a post that is supposed to have playable sound but doesn't, please leave a comment on that post and I will fix it. Thank you.

De-Natured

2010-06-30T14:45:00.003-04:00

Western Man has come to believe that he is the master of all living things, and that nature is there to be tamed at best; despised, broken, and destroyed at worst. This has led to a very dangerous situation: the belief that human beings can build a shining technological future without animals, and trees, and other life forms. Until this attitude is combated and erased from the human mind, Westernized human beings will be a danger to all earthly life, including themselves.

I say we must take a great spiritual leap backward. We must embrace the original view of creation: that everything around us is part of one great and interconnected whole. We must change this habit of regarding ourselves as superior or special creatures. This misconception has led us to the very brink of destruction.

We have become denatured. In old Africa, we believed that human beings could not exist without animals, birds, and fishes or trees. We believed that the universe was not only all around us, but also within us. For this reason, many African gods were depicted as part animal and part human.

If your God had the body of a man and the head of a lion, would you shoot lions for sport, or commercial reasons?

--shaman Credo Mutwa,
as quoted by Linda Tucker in Mystery of the White Lions.
(emphasis mine)

Not Off-Topic

2010-06-21T07:09:00.005-04:00

This may seem to be off-topic, but really "Intelligent Life is All Around Us" is about regard and respect for all life. And obviously we have a hell of a long way to go in that direction.

The video I've included below is, on one level, funny. It is an excellent song parody. But it is also very, very angry. And so am I. The direct link to this video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Z9W59Z5ZY

August 18, 2010 update: Never mind that unconvincing picture recently released by the White House; read what the Associated Press has to say about the current state of the Gulf of Mexico. Remember as you read it that it has already been established that far more oil dispersant was used than was authorized.

The Difference between Dogs and Cats…

2010-06-07T12:58:00.002-04:00

…in peoples' perception is too often composed of erroneous notions and baseless attitudes.

Heard just yesterday on a supposedly educational TV show, from the mouth of a supposed veterinarian: dogs have "playful energy" while cats exhibit "naughty behavior".

Why?

More than meets the eye.

2010-05-27T06:34:00.004-04:00

I'm going to go in a new direction with today's post. Up til now, I've dealt mostly with scientists, research, and observations that show animals are thinking, feeling, loving beings. But there is more to life than hard physical evidence; so much that people generally don't talk about.

All of the following comes from a newsletter sent by Global Psychics, Inc. The first paragraph was not signed, but the "me" is Danielle at that organization.

For me, there has never been any question that animals have a soul, and like us will reincarnate. Which also means that we can communicate with them, in spirit, and that the bonds of love do indeed cross the dimensions of time and space, even with our pets.

Hi, do animals have spirits as we humans have? I mean when they die do the come back as spirits or angels or guides? Can they listen to what we are tryinng to tell them or do they understand our emotions of pain? I want to know about my pet who crossed over, what shall I do? Plz help Ruhi

Most certainly animals have spirits – they are living beings just like us sweetheart.

Not only have I personally experienced the most undeniable return of a few of my own pets (as spirits), there have been countless reports of numerous people experiencing much of the same. Animal spirits behave much like they did when they were alive. And most definitely they do feel our emotions and thoughts in spirit just as much as they did when they were alive.

One thing a lot of people say is that animals couldn’t possibly feel the way that humans do. But as an animal communicator and a life long horse trainer and worker, I have to really stress that animals DO feel emotions just like we do. It is ignorance of the human race to believe such a thing that animals cannot feel as we can or do not have spirits as we do. They are God’s creatures just as we are. Animals feel pain. They get depressed. They miss loved ones or play mates. They feel lonely or scared.

My husband and I rescued over 20 horses from slaughter. As we worked with them we could see the depression in their eyes. They would refuse to eat. Refuse to be amongst the herd (which is very uncharacteristic of horses seeing as they are in fact herd animals). I have also seen first hand how dogs and cats for example can sense when their owner is about to have an epileptic seizure – they will sit beside them or even lay on top of them until the seizure passes. Same as when their owner is sad or depressed; I don’t know how many times my female yellow lab Sheba has come to me, put her head on my lap and just sat there with me trying to comfort me.

Whether they are alive or have passed on, our pets always understand our emotions, thoughts, and pain. Realize too that most pets are indeed telepathic – they can not only feel the energy surrounding their owners, they can also “read your heart.”

Ruhi, you yourself can feel your beloved pet if you were to quiet yourself, be still, be peaceful, and just listen and pay attention. You may feel that brush up against your leg or a nudge on your hand by a cool wet nose. I do strongly believe our pets are always with us in spirit and heart just like our human loved ones that have likewise crossed over. If you wish to ask specific questions of your pet, and you cannot hear or feel the responses, you could also most certainly contact an animal communicator that works with spirits of animals as well as the living (some animal communicators only communicate with live pets, while others, as in my case, can and will do both).

I do hope that this has answered some of your questions and has helped you out a little bit. Please take care, and please try to rest easy knowing that your pet has in fact crossed over peacefully, and you should NOT harbor any guilt any more.

Much love and brightest of blessings always, Lisa Caza

On Behalf of All Pets

2010-05-24T06:20:00.002-04:00

I've heard a couple of tragic pet stories lately, and they were too close to home for me to not feel the heartbreak. I don't think it would do any good to repeat those stories here, but they made me want to repeat something that has circulated a bit around the internet. This piece has gotten a bit mangled at times; the most common change is that instead of a writer credit, people say "author unknown". But it appears to have been written by "J.D.Ellis 2001, rottweilerdriver*aol.com", and yes, the email address is included at the author's request (although I couldn't stop myself from removing the @, hoping to stop at least a bit of spam).

Anyway, here is the important, thoughtful piece:

A Message from Max

My name is Max and I have a little something I'd like to whisper in your ear.

I know that you humans lead busy lives. Some have to work, some have children to raise. It always seems like you are running here and there, often much too fast, often never noticing the truly grand things in life.

Look down at me now, while you sit there at your computer. See they way my dark brown eyes look at yours? They are slightly cloudy now, that comes with age. The grey hairs are beginning to ring my soft muzzle.

You smile at me; I see love in your eyes. What do you see in mine? Do you see a spirit, a soul inside who loves you as no other could in the world? A spirit that would forgive all trespasses of prior wrong doing for just a simple moment of your time?

That is all I ask. To slow down if even for a few minutes to be with me. So many times you have been saddened by the words you read on that screen, of others of my kind, passing. Sometimes we die young and oh so quickly,sometimes so suddenly it wrenches your heart out of your throat. Sometimes we age so slowly before your eyes that you do not even seem to know, until the very end, when we look at you with grizzled muzzles and cataract clouded eyes. Still the love is always there, even when we take that long sleep, to run free in distant lands. I may not be here tomorrow; I may not be here next week. Someday you will shed the waters from your eyes, that humans have when deep grief fills their souls, and you will be angry at yourself that you did not have just "One more day" with me. Because I love you so, your sorrow touches my spirit and grieves me.

We have now, together. So come, sit down here next to me on the floor. And look deep into my eyes. What do you see? If you look hard and deep enough we will talk, you and I, heart to heart.

Come to me not as "alpha" or as a "trainer" or even a "Mom or Dad", come to me as a living soul and stroke my fur and let us look deep into one another's eyes, and talk. I may tell you something about the fun of chasing a tennis ball, or I may tell you something profound about myself, or even life in general.

You decided to have me in your life (I hope) because you wanted a soul to share just such things with. Someone very different from you, and here I am. I am a dog, but I am alive. I feel emotion, I feel physical senses, and I can revel in the differences of our spirits and souls. I do not think of you as a "Dog on two feet"--I know what you are. You are human, in all your quirkiness, and I love you still.

Now, come sit with me, on the floor. Enter my world, and let time slow down if even for only 15 minutes. Look deep in my eyes, and whisper to my ears. Speak with your heart, with your joy and I will know your true self. We may not have tomorrow, and life is oh so very short.

Birdsong

2010-05-05T08:59:00.002-04:00

Traditional thought tells us that birds sing to define their territory and to attract a mate. But as I was lying awake this morning, listening to the pre-dawn "chorus" of birds, it didn't sound to me like it was all purposeful. So, I wondered if any animal scientists have had the nerve to come out and say that birds sing for the fun of it.

As I checked various sources, besides the many references to territory and mates, I found that parent birds teach their baby birds the songs they sing. And baby birds will "babble" before they learn to sing their songs. "The parallels between human and bird language are indeed striking," said psychology professor Bob McMurray of the University of Iowa. While some birds learn to sing in a matter of days, the Australian Lyrebird takes on average six years to learn the song.

It's been known for some time that birds' songs vary with geographic regions; the equivalent of dialects. In noisy environments, birds alter their songs to be heard above the noise.

Recent studies have discovered actual bird conversations, as multiple microphones allowed the researches to follow responses through a flock.

They've shown that Banded Wrens are listening and responding to one another, sending out purposeful and dynamic messages to multiple neighbors.

But are they having fun? I found one person who was willing to allow that they were.

Luis Baptista, former curator of ornithology at the California Academy of Science, said they do sing for fun. "Sometimes birds sing just because they're happy, they've had a good meal, they've nothing to worry about. This is an expression, if you will, of well-being."

"If you will"? Of course I will. Why not?

Perspective

2010-03-09T12:41:00.002-05:00

I never completed my review of the 3-part PBS series The Human Spark. Truth is, the last episode was so unfocused that it was nearly incoherent. But the overall problem with the series was that they started with an incorrect idea (that humans are different, separate from, and superior to every other life form on the planet) and concocted seriously flawed "experiments" to "prove" this idea. (See Looking vs. Understanding)

(What strikes me as strange, given PBS's ban on religious programming on their member stations, is that idea behind their series seems to me to be rooted in religion. But that's another matter for another time.)

But while Alan Alda was trying to prove how stupid chimpanzees are, on another channel (Animal Planet) there was a show (Extraordinary Animals) that showed that chimpanzees can out-perform humans in a key area of intelligence: memory.

At the Primate Research Institute in Japan, it started with teaching a chimpanzee named Ai to use a touch-screen computer, then to count, and to read. (Videos here and here.)

Then Ai had a baby (named Ayumu), and she taught him to do the same things. (BTW, that is the definition of culture [a person's learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted]).

As the tests progressed, they went on to memory games and discovered that the chimpanzees possessed photographic memory. They could remember a sequence of numbers that was flashed on the screen for less than a quarter of a second--too fast for a human to even scan all the numbers.

In various tests, the chimpanzees vastly outperformed a world memory champion (yes, there are world championship memory games) at the institute's memory games.

Video of the chimpanzee and the memory game:

Here is some commentary on all this, from New Scientist magazine, December 3, 2007:

The finding challenges human assumptions about our uniqueness, and should make us think harder about ourselves in relation to other animals, says anthropologist Jill Pruetz of Iowa State University, Ames, US.

"Observing that other species can outperform us on tasks that we assume we excel at is a bit humbling," she says. "Rather than taking such findings as a rare example or a fluke, we should incorporate this knowledge into a mindset that acknowledges that chimpanzees - and probably other species - share aspects of what we think of as uniquely human intelligence."

The results are "absolutely incredible" says Frans de Waal, at the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, US. He says that chimp intelligence is chronically underestimated, and one reason is that experiments stack the deck against the chimps.

In the wild, this memory skill might be useful for memorising fruit locations at a glance, or making a quick map of all the branches and routes in a tree, he says.

Matsuzawa emphasises that the chimps in the study are by no means special - all chimps can perform like this, he says. "We underestimate chimpanzee intelligence," he says.

So, why the totally different perspectives from two supposedly reliable sources (PBS and PRI)? Well, for one thing, the PRI perspective derived from observation rather than preconceived notions.

And, in my opinion, the real "human spark" that tends to separate us from all other life is not only the ability to distort reality to suit our purposes (yes, I'm talking about the PBS series) but the desire to do so.

Quoting George Adamson

2010-01-26T15:57:00.003-05:00

A few words from George ("Born Free") Adamson, the "father of lions", from his book A Lifetime with Lions...

On making the movie, Born Free:

"Most of the people of the [filming] unit were extremely nice and friendly, but their way of life was not mine. There were too many dramas and 'goings-on' for my peace of mind. I felt safer with the lions."

On "enrichment" for captive animals:

"I am firmly convinced that it is the boredom and frustration of captivity which makes [captive] lions dangerous. One of their strongest senses is that of smell. To deprive them of the chance to exercise it is tantamount to depriving a human being of all reading matter."

Intelligence and Socialization

2010-01-17T14:18:00.003-05:00

The Animal Planet channel is currently running a series called "Extraordinary Animals". This is a highly interesting series and coincidentally, it's about the exact opposite of that Human Spark series on PBS. While PBS is working with ancient notions and trying to prove the non-existence of animal intelligence, each episode of Extraordinary Animals focuses on one particular research study that shows just how intelligent animals really are.

This week, they showed an episode about Azy, an orangutan at the Great Ape Trust of Iowa. The researchers there have taught Azy a language based on abstract symbols (sort of like hieroglyphics), and also demonstrated that orangutans have long-term memories of companions (just as Christian the lion demonstrated) as well as self-recognition, all qualities that others have denied possible in animals.

The following describes some of what was shown on Extraordinary Animals, and is partially adapted from the Great Ape Trust web site:

Scientists at Great Ape Trust are exploring the abilities of orangutans to use symbols and syntax to express their thoughts. The orangutans are learning to use a symbol-based language that is presented on a computer monitor. The touch-screen monitor has large "buttons" that are big enough for orangutan fingers.

This symbolic language contains about 70 "words". All the symbols are abstract and have no visual relation to what they represent. There are seven categories, each containing ten individual symbols. The categories are: foods, non-food objects, proper names of people, proper names of orangutans, verbs, adjectives and numbers.

There is a logic to these symbols. Each category has its own unique exterior shape. For example, a rectangle means "food" and a circle means "non-food object." Individually, the interior components of each symbol are meaningless. It's the arrangement within the exterior shape that gives each symbol a specific meaning. In addition to the major categories, there are symbols that mean "send," "clear," "yes/good," and "no/wrong." The dictionary can be expanded as the orangutans learn more symbols.

Using this system, Azy is able to identify objects, ask questions, and even give commands.

The self-recognition test involves surreptitiously placing a mark on the subject's head, then seeing if he reaches for his own head when he sees the mark in a mirror. Sounds simple enough, but the test can disprove the old notion that animals have no idea of "self" and "other" (as they contend over on PBS).

Mirror self-recognition (MSR) has been a controversial topic in the field of comparative psychology since it was first reported by Gordon Gallup in 1970. He provided behavioral evidence that chimpanzees were able to understand the nature of their mirror image, meaning that they recognized themselves in the mirror. Consider the phenomenon. A mirror image is a representation of the world, like a picture or a photograph but unlike a still image, it is dynamic and mimics the behavior of the viewer. An ape who demonstrates MSR must understand that the mirror image is an actual representation of herself in both time and space, and that it is not simply another ape looking back at her.

Again, it sounds too simple, but children under 3 fail the test.

I have seen only 4 episodes of Extraordinary Animals so far, but there is a pattern emerging, that explains why on Animal Planet they are showing us that animals are smarter than they are generally given credit for, while on PBS they are mired in old and untrue notions.

The animal experiments shown in The Human Spark are very rigid, very lab-sterile, and (as I pointed out in my last article) do not take into account the socialization of the animal. A chimp living in a zoo environment with other chimps is not going to be attuned to human society and so is not going to act according to human society's ways--a requirement demanded by the way those experiments are set up.

The animals shown in Extraordinary Animals are treated as individuals and the ones I've seen so far have all been hand-raised from infancy. This means they are socialized in human ways and thus are more likely give reactions in ways that we recognize.

What I'm saying is that interpreting an animal's actions means understanding the way the animal has been taught to act--this is not a reflection on intelligence; it is social training. When an animal has been brought up with close contact with human society, it will react in ways that are more recognizable to humans, thus revealing the intelligence that is always there, even in an animal that reacts according to a different society's teachings.

Looking vs. Understanding

2010-01-14T10:00:00.005-05:00

On last night's "The Human Spark", an experiment was set up to prove that chimpanzees can't think in terms of abstract concepts, like "heavy" vs. "light".

Alan Alda brought a box into a room by himself, tossing it around to demonstrate that it was light. Then, 5 people brought in another box, struggling with it to demonstrate that it was heavy. A piece of fruit was placed on top of each box, and a rope was fastened to each box and then positioned so that a chimp could reach through a partition, grab a rope, and pull the box closer to grab the fruit.

The chimpanzee had one chance. The film showed him grabbing the rope on the heavy box, which he could not move, so he got no fruit.

Stupid chimpanzee -- doesn't know what heavy and light are.

But... what if the chimpanzee has a different view of things? What if (and this is not unreasonable, based on chimpanzee society) he sees the fact that 5 people clustered around one box, all grabbing it and manipulating it, means that the box is better than the one that only one person handled? Five people were all interested in that heavy box at the same time; only one bothered with the light box. Why wouldn't the chimpanzee go for the more interesting box first?

In my opinion, the experiment proved more about preconceived notions, than learning how things really are.

Looking for Humans

2010-01-13T11:16:00.004-05:00

I have, occasionally in the past, made disparaging remarks about SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence project. It's not that I contend there can't be intelligent life "out there", it's that the people are looking for other humans, communicating in human ways. Hoping to find that on a distant and completely separate planet is just ridiculous.

The same sort of thinking gets in the way of people's understanding of animals. "Why don't they act like humans?" is the repeated question. But why should they? They're not humans--but that doesn't mean they don't have equivalently rich lives.

One of the main aspects of the search for humanness in animals is language. Why don't animals speak like humans do?

Back in December, in the New York Times, there was an article describing how a Scottish group of scientists had managed to decipher words and syntax in the spoken language of Campbell's monkeys (that's one in the picture), thus giving them credit for at least a little human equivalency.

But a month later, the same writer in the NYT reports on some other, more pessimistic scientists, who contend that even these monkeys cannot have a rich language because they cannot conceive of the idea that another animal has a mind similar to their own; therefore they have no need to communicate.

I don't know why it is that so many scientists take a completely stupid course when it comes to their inability to understand animals. These pessimists will contend that an animal can't do this, or can't think that, or can't relate to another. They forget one fact that makes their arguments invalid:

You cannot prove the non-existence of something.

No one can prove that monkey x has no idea that monkey y has a mind. Each monkey may not perform exactly as expected or hoped, but that only shows that a human's preconception of how a situation must be handled did not hold true.

Careful observation always proves these pessimists wrong. Why would a cat, for example, have a way to say, "I'm sorry" --which they do-- if there was no inkling that another cat or person had a mind of its own? So why should anyone assume that a social animal like a monkey would not be able to realize that?

The gist of the latest NYT article is that animals can't communicate in anything resembling a human language, and this must mean they don't think or understand.

But...

they're
not
human.

And so the conclusion is illogical.

The "Human" Spark?

2010-01-08T15:39:00.005-05:00

PBS is out to set our collective understanding of the world back by at least 100 years with a miniseries that started this week, called The Human Spark.

The aim of the show is to find out why humans are different from all other life, a very old fashioned idea and one that does not need exploration, since there is much more to learn about how other life is similar to humans.

They're using Alan Alda's star power to bring people to the show, and it is supposed to present "science" to support such proven-false ideas as,
empathy and cooperation are "characteristically human qualities" (their words),
humans are the only species to possess language,
humans are the only species to make and use tools,
humans are the only species to be concerned with social status,
and other things that are supposed to make us superior to all the rest of the living world.

Our society has suffered for far too long under such erroneous ideas that separate us from all other life. Animals' languages exist are are being deciphered by open-minded scientists. Animals make and use tools, as reported by scientists willing to observe clearly. And on and on; pick almost any article I've written here. To the careful, open-minded observer, there is a greater unity between ourselves and other living beings than outmoded, established science is willing to admit.

And the real problem here is, as history has shown, separation leads to unfamiliarity with the other, which gets transformed into the other being seen as inferior, which leads to the destruction of it.

Thus, all life on earth would benefit by exploring that which makes us one with all life. Spreading the fallacious idea of separation will lead to more extinction.

Unfortunately for us all, Alan Alda is prepared to tell us that we must believe in the dark-age philosophies. And because he is Alan Alda, an awful lot of people will not question what he says.

Thanks a lot, PBS.

The first of the series aired this week, but it focused on just one topic: Why homo sapiens is superior to what scientists have speculated about neanderthals (homo neanderthalensis). That's what it comes down to, speculation, because no one has ever observed neanderthals. They even created a wax bust showing how a neanderthal man was supposed to look different from modern man. The funny thing is, it reminded me of an actor from a few years ago.

Point not made, PBS.

The scenario they presented about how homo sapiens took over Europe from the neanderthals actually played out nearly exactly the same as how Europeans took over the Americas from the Native Americans. This suggests, then, it isn't genes, it isn't brain size, or any other physical attribute, but instead it's a societal thing. One society was better prepared to move in and take over from another society. There was no proof of any innate superiority or "human spark".

Future shows are scheduled to demonstrate why homo sapiens is superior to other species. I don't expect any proof there, either.

"Humans have always assumed that they are more intelligent than dolphins because they had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- whilst all dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But the dolphins have always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."

--Douglas Adams

Standard Operating Procedure 13

2009-12-28T09:35:00.002-05:00

While in our nortwestern states, the gray wolf fights for survival, a little-known subspecies, the Mexican Gray Wolf, fights a very desperate battle. As far as we know, there are only 52 Mexican Gray Wolves left in the wild.

There has been a re-introduction plan to help the species survive. But at the same time there was Standard Operating Procedure #13, which dictated that any wolf that is accused of killing any livestock three times must be shot.

Two and a half years ago, Alpha Female 924, one of only 3 breeding females in the entire Mexican Gray Wolf population, reached her third strike, and was killed.

Fortunately, outrage over that killing led to a change in procedure. Last month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took control and ruled that SOP13 will not be in force in the future.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is also coming up with new programs to help local ranchers to coexist with the wolves.

Alpha Male 923 and the pair's four offspring could not be reached for comment.

But this is definitely a step in the right direction.

More information can be found at BiologicalDiversity.org and the Washington Post, which also has a beautiful picture of a Mexican Gray Wolf.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T13:06:00.002-05:00

Here's a couple of videos for Christmas. Happy animals! I hope your Christmas is happy as well.

If you're reading this on Facebook, click here.

Playtime!

2009-12-03T08:26:00.004-05:00

There's probably a couple of things going on here that the cats like. I know that a couple of my cats really enjoy smooth textures; one goes for shiny hard plastic, another for nylon fabric. They'll just sit and paw at it, claws out, but their claws have no traction, and they enjoy the sensation very much.

In this video, the kittens have a huge amount of smooth plastic they can go at with all four feet. The smooth surface plus the challenge of beating gravity probably add up to one of the best cat play areas ever.

And it's just a darn cute video. This is the full unedited version, not tricked up with unnecessary cuts or repeats.

The Dark Side

2009-11-30T09:05:00.002-05:00

My goal in writing this blog is to inform anyone I can about the intelligence and loving nature of the animals whose societies surround us everywhere. I want to be positive and uplifting.

Sometimes I can't help but look at the dark side. I rail against such blind myths as "wild" and "domesticated" and the damage they do to our perceptions of animals, but I try to balance that by showing what really paying attention and truly observing animals can reveal.

Sometimes the dark side overwhelms me. Tigers are being killed to extinction because of the crazy belief in magic--tiger penises are supposed to have mad crazy aphrodisiac powers. This is a closed circle of insane beliefs, because if you believe something will have an effect on you, in an aspect that is largely psychologically-controlled, then it will. The tiger has no magical powers, but it is the victim of a self-perpetuating circle of insanity.

And my current trip into the dark side is the result of a similar story in the news about belief in "magic" in Africa: Albino people are supposed to bring disaster wherever they go, but a dead albino person can be carved up and sold for $75,000 because their body parts are believed to have magical powers. So these people have little refuge while alive and plenty of people trying to kill them. All because of unexamined, insane myths.

But if people are willing to do that to other people in their own towns, how can I hope that people will ever examine and discard their myths about other species?

OK... I'm sorry. I promise to return soon with a more uplifting post.

Playing with a Polar Bear

2009-11-18T09:10:00.000-05:00

Polar bears have a bad reputation. Everybody knows they are one of the most fearsome species on earth. So what happens when a hungry polar bear comes across some Husky dogs that are chained up and can't run away?

This story is on YouTube in several different versions, but I think the one above is the best, simply showing what happened without a lot of extraneous nonsense.

Simple Fun

2009-11-14T14:31:00.000-05:00

Simple things are the best...

Part of the Pride

2009-11-11T14:38:00.005-05:00

Kevin Richardson has a new book out now called Part of the Pride, a memoir in which he tells how he came to be "The Lion Whisperer".

Here's a short quote from early in the book, when Richardson was just being introduced to the lions at the Lion Park:

...We came to another enclosure containing two older cubs. At 6 or 7 months, they had reached an age where they could no longer be petted by visitors to the park, and they were big--much bigger than I had expected. One was called Napoleon and the other, which had yet to be christened, had the most incredible clear eyes.

Conventional wisdom--or perhaps superstition--among lion keepers, I later learned, was that one should never trust a lion with clear eyes. Like a lot of things people told me about lions over the years to come, and like conventional wisdom in general, that little gem turned out to be bullshit.

Oh, yes -- I'm going to like this book.

Here are some other rules about lions that Richardson was told:

Don't look them in the eye.
Don't turn your back on them.
Don't crouch or kneel or they will climb up on your back.
Don't run.
Don't make any sudden movements.
Don't scream. Talk quietly.

I can tell you right off that "don't look them in the eye" is bullshit. Every captive lion or tiger I've seen--that hasn't had his spirit broken or hasn't given up trying to make contact with humans--wants you to look them in the eye. They want you to recognize that there is a person in that fur. That sort of contact is the solid foundation of a good relationship with the animal.

Besides, lions, like cats, use the 'slow blink' as a means of letting you know everything is cool with them. You can't exchange this signal if you don't look them in the eye.

As for never crouching in the presence of a lion, click here to read what I learned from a very endearing lion.

I was so glad to see Richardson dismiss silly "conventional wisdom" as bullshit. So much of it is. He has learned through first hand experience how to treat animals, and he has been rewarded with some of the most wonderful animal friendships, even with animals others wouldn't go near.

I will definitely be reporting more from this book. Below is a short video of Kevin Richardson with some of his animals.

Words vs. Thinking

2009-11-05T09:43:00.003-05:00

I haven't posted for a while; part of the reason was the flu, the other part is that I've gotten bogged down in other people's words while trying to research new articles. I'll try to break free by limiting my own words in this new post.

Bog 1: Tom Regan spends a lot of time philosophizing in his The Case for Animal Rights, but too many words can serve to hide the truth more than examine it. And if he can say that humans have a higher life quality than any other animal, he must not realize that such a statement is only a little bit different than Descartes' "biological machines" view of animals.

Bog 2: Some scientists do recognize that animals have societies and cultures of their own. But they're afraid of going all the way with this idea. That leads to a lot of roundabout language. Still, this article is interesting, about male dolphins bringing a bouquet to a prospective mate: Dolphins Use Weeds to Get Girls.

And here's an earlier article about whale culture: Culture Shock

There. I hope that ends my writer's block.

Advances in Language Study

2009-10-27T10:16:00.004-04:00

Often I am reminded of the damage being done to people's awareness by some of our colleges and universities. Ridiculous ideas like, animals are mere biological machines (Descartes), animals' actions are merely conditioned reflexes (Skinner), and language appears to be a uniquely human phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world (Chomsky) are religiously clung to and promoted, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary available to any true observer.

Fortunately, there are people who are willing to observe and learn.

A study of starlings, led by Timothy Gentner of the University of California (San Diego), shows that these birds not only have a language of their own, this language includes complicated sentence structure. Although the scientists did not actually decipher the birds' language, they created an artificual grammar from recorded starling songs and found that the birds were able to understand what is called recursive sentence structure, such as changing "the bird sang" to "the bird the cat chased sang".

From the article on the UCSD web site:

Gentner says, "The more closely we understand what nonhuman animals are capable of, the richer our world becomes. Fifty years ago, it was taboo to even talk about animal cognition. Now, there are [TV shows] on the subject and no one doubts that animals have complex and vibrant mental lives. This study is a powerful statement about what even birds can do: Look at what they’re learning."

I'm glad that Gentner can believe that "no one doubts" these things. I wish that philosophy were true in all schools.

Cruel to be Kind?

2009-10-18T13:06:00.002-04:00

In today's New York Daily News, Stephen Budiansky writes that when people pamper their dogs, they don't necessarily give the dogs what they really need to be happy.

And, just like when I read Budiansky's book "If a Lion Could Talk", I think he has a point, but he goes about making that point in the wrong way.

In today's article, he ridicules such things as doggie day care centers, designer pet foods, and people who refer to themselves as "pet parents".

While I would agree that there are plenty of useless (or worse) excesses for people to waste their money on, I would like to give the "pet parents" the benefit of the doubt and hope that they actually want what's best for their dog. What they need is education along that line, not ridicule. Reducing such education to a glib line like 'you must be crueler to be kind' is not helpful or even correct.

Budiansky argues that a dog needs to know its proper place in the family structure. Of course, this is true. It's true for any animal (or human) that has a relationship with any other animal (or human). A clear idea of one's role in any society, no matter how microcosmic, is of key importance to one's psychological well-being.

That Budiansky credits this need to a mythical wolf-social-structure gene that 'all dogs still carry' is a red herring and gets in the way of the education all animal "parents" need. Any decent tiger handler will tell you pretty much the same thing I said in the previous paragraph; that you need to establish for the tiger what the family or society structure is, for the well-being of all involved. And I defy anyone to find the "wolf-social-structure" gene in a tiger.

What I'm saying is that Budiansky needs to leave the ridicule and false science behind and concentrate on the education that dog owners (and all animal owners) need: your animal needs to have a clear picture of his role in your family. The entire value of Budiansky's article is found in the last paragraph. You have to be firm; you have to be consistent; you have to take on the role of a true parent. You have to pay attention to your animal. There is nothing "cruel" about any of this. It's what any social animal needs to be happy and a good family member.

More from Shaun Ellis

2009-10-15T09:30:00.003-04:00

I have received a great deal of encouraging comments about what I've written about wolves and especially about the previous article with a true story from Shaun Ellis (whose book, The Man Who Lives with Wolves, will be available this coming Tuesday).

Because of these positive reactions, I would like to offer another passage from Mr. Ellis' book:

Once upon a time wolves and men lived alongside one another, each respecting and benefiting from the other's way of life. Sadly, those days are gone and I believe that we are the poorer for that. The natural balance in nature that they promoted has been whittled away and several species, including our own, have been allowed to go unchecked and become diseased--in the truest sense of the word.

This may be a little fanciful but I believe that as well as healing the natural world and restoring its balance, human society could benefit from having wolves roaming the forests once more. We could learn a lot from the loyalty they display to family members, the way they educate and discipline their young, the way they look after their own, and the circumstances in which they use their considerable weaponry to kill.

The world is not ready for that, but I like to think that in some small way my work of the last twenty years might have begun the process.

I share those feelings and hopes. And the positive responses I'm getting give me hope that maybe the world is ready for that.

For more about Mr. Ellis and wolves, check out his web site, WolfPackManagement.com.

The Saddam Hussein of the Animal World?

2009-10-13T09:42:00.012-04:00

In case you don't get the reference in the title of this post, I've included a picture of a poster that's frequently used by people who want to exterminate all wolves from North America. It's just part of the propaganda that people (inexplicably, to me) deliberately perpetuate.

Turning from propaganda to truth, next week a new book will be published called The Man Who Lives with Wolves. The man is Shaun Ellis, who has been on TV in the show Living With The Wolfman. Ellis is an expert on wolf behavior as a result of many years of living with wolves and paying close attention to them.

The following is condensed from the Preface of this new book. Mr. Ellis says,

I was helping out at a wildlife center in Hertfordshire, just north of London. A man appeared outside the wolf enclosure one day, pushing a child in an old-fashioned wheelchair with a large tray on the front of it. He told me that he and his son, who may have been 13 or 14 and who, I could see at a glance, was severely disabled, had driven 500 miles from Scotland. He had heard that we allowed members of the public to interact with wolves and he wanted his son to meet one.

I was surprised that this man had gone to such lengths to show his son a wolf. The child didn't look as though he would get anything out of the encounter. He sat immobile, silent, staring into space, and I doubted that he would even be able to stroke the animal's fur. Normally, I loved this part of the job. Children arrived with such preconceptions. They pulled back when the wolf came near, convinced by all the stories they'd read and the cartoons they'd watched, that wolves were sly, vicious creatures that ate grandmothers, blew down the houses of little pigs, and ripped the throats out of little girls. I had grown up with exactly the same terror. It had taken me many years to discover that wolves are actually shy, intelligent animals with a very sophisticated social structure, whose bloodthirsty reputation is not deserved. I found nothing more gratifying than watching children touch the wolves and listen to what I had to say, and watch their prejudice and ignorance fade away.

I felt almost evangelical about this. I thought that if children could feel wolves' coats and look them in the eye, they could make up their own minds about them so that in time, future generations will be ready to give back to wolves the place in the world that is rightfully theirs.

Whenever I introduced a child to the wolves, it was vital that the child not become frightened. I had to watch their reaction carefully so that I didn't do more harm with this exercise than good. This boy didn't speak. His disabilities were clearly mental as well as physical. I asked the father, as tactfully as I could, whether the child would be able to indicate when he no longer wanted to be near the wolf. "He won't be able to," said the man, bluntly. "He has never spoken, and never reacted in any way to anything. And he has never expressed an emotion in his life."

Common sense was screaming at me to tell this man to turn around and take his poor child back to Scotland. But for reasons I can't explain, and a few I can, I agreed to go ahead.

We had a young wolf called Zarnesti who had been hand-reared and was not nervous around humans. His jaw had been crushed soon after he was born, and he looked a bit like Goofy in the Mickey Mouse cartoons.

I went into the enclosure and came out carrying Zarnesti. He was about three months old, the size of a spaniel, and a wriggling, struggling bundle of energy. It was all I could do to hold him; he was almost flying out of my arms as I put him down on the tray of the wheelchair, in front of the boy. I had the pup in a vise-like grip, but something miraculous happened. The moment Zarnesti saw the child he became still. He looked into the boy's eyes and they stared at each other. Then the pup settled down with his back legs tucked under him and his front legs stretched out in front. I took one hand off him and realized very quickly that I could take the other hand away, too. After a few moments, still looking into the boy's eyes, the cub reached forward and started to lick the boy's face. I lunged to intercept him, afraid that Zarnesti would nip the boy's mouth, which is what cubs do to adult wolves when they want them to regurgitate food. But Zarnesti didn't nip; he just licked, very gently.

The scene was electrifying. As I looked at the boy I saw one single tear welling up in his right eye, then trickle slowly down his cheek. Guessing that this had never happened before, I turned to his father. This big strong Scotsman was watching what was unfolding in front of him with tears streaming down his face.

In a matter of seconds, the wolf cub had gotten through to this boy in a way that no human had managed to do in fourteen years.

Get Real

2009-10-10T10:26:00.003-04:00

Everybody knows about Michael Vick, the guy who made dogfighting--not only unconscionably cruel but illegal in all 50 states--into a misdemeanor that nobody cares about as long as people involved in it can play football. Now, dogfighting is in the news again as the Supreme Court tries to decide whether to strike down the law that makes it illegal to sell videos of dog fights.

One of the justices said that they have to consider the rights of people who like dogfighting, who like cockfighting, and so on. The arguments extended to the right to sell snuff films and to establish a "human sacrifice channel" on cable.

All this centers on the First Amendment and the right of free speech. None of it considers the suffering of the animals involved. None of it considers the depravity involved--although the Supreme Court is reserving the right of the government to squelch things relating to sex and obscenity.

Obviously, since they are operating in a world where logic and reason do not apply, the answer to the problem will not come from lawyers and courts. The answer will come from eliminating the need some people feel for these inexcusable things.

I want to help move things in that direction. That's the basic impetus for what I write here. I don't know how to speed up the process. Things like the popularity of the Christian the lion video give me hope. The Supreme Court doesn't.

Thursday funnies...

2009-10-08T11:48:00.003-04:00

Another Interspecies Friendship

2009-10-05T08:59:00.006-04:00

This is a story about just one of my own cats. They're all unique personalities, but this one was a standout. He was the happiest cat in the world.

He was gray--the purest gray you have ever seen on an animal. And he had a white chest, to give him the classification of a tuxedo cat, plus a splash of white on his nose and chin.

We found him at the county animal shelter. He was one year old at the time. His previous owners had given him up because someone in their family was allergic to him. It was definitely their loss and our gain.

We took him home in a canvas bag that the shelter volunteer had assured us was escape-proof. Five seconds into the car ride, he popped out of the bag. All cats must earn their names, and this one had quickly earned his: Houdini.

When we arrived home, our other cat, a pure black cat named Lucky, was sleeping on the couch. Violating all known wisdom about how to introduce a new cat to a household, we threw Houdini onto the couch next to Luck. Luck reacted about how you'd expect, and ran upstairs. For three days Luck expressed suspicion, distrust, and general displeasure at this invasion of his house, during which time Houdini always responded in a way that obviously said, "I'm happy, why aren't you?" Houdini won. Houdini always won. The two cats became the best of friends.

That pattern was to be repeated by Houdini all his life. He would burst into a room, spring onto your lap, or sometimes just jump straight up in the sure faith that you'd catch him in your arms, and then assuage whatever adrenaline he'd caused to flow with a loud purr that never stopped. He loved life and loved everyone, and he just naturally assumed that everyone loved him. I never once saw him angry. He never got upset at other animals in the vicinity, even other cats. Everyone was a potential friend to him--cats, dogs, squirrels, people. He was no fool; even at an advanced age he outdistanced a dog that jumped into our yard with evil intentions. But everywhere he went, even at the veterinarian's office, he perked up at the sight of other animals and was eager to meet them. The vet never could hear his heartbeat because Houdini was always purring.

And Houdini loved to watch people work. Houdini's world was already perfect, and it was just so wonderful to him to watch people make it more perfect. When I constructed book shelves, he was there to make sure every measurement was exact, every screw driven in straight. And purring his approval all the time.

When my wife would work in the garden, Houdini would be there. You could see his double enjoyment of sitting in the warm sun and watching my wife work. Anyone could just immediately tell this was a happy cat. Houdini even made friends with the squirrels who lived in our trees. It was a remarkable sight to see Houdini and a squirrel sitting close together on the grass, apparently having a conversation that we were not privy to.

As much as I wish that a life force like Houdini could exist forever, old age snuck up on Houdini like I suppose it does on anyone. Oh, there had been signs--like, lately you had to bend over to catch him when he jumped straight up to your arms. But he still was always the same Houdini, always happy, always purring.

Houdini had had a history of infections in his mouth. Some antibiotics and a lot of struggling to get them into him always had put him right. But the time inevitably came when even the antibiotics couldn't kick-start his aging immune system any more. It was such an infection that would take Houdini from us soon.

Despite our best efforts, Houdini got weaker and weaker. One day, toward the end of March, we were having an unusually warm spell, so I took Houdini outside to enjoy some time in the sun. I placed him on the little landing outside our kitchen door, about 5 feet high off the ground, and I stood on the ground next to him, to protect him. In his current condition he was weak and unsteady on his feet.

As he was lying there with me standing guard, I was startled by a loud rustling sound at the back of our yard. I quickly realized the sound was made by a squirrel, who was charging full speed up the yard, directly at me! Never had any of the squirrels allowed me to come within 20 feet of them, so all sorts of scary thoughts, of rabies and such, raced through my mind. But something told me to do nothing, even as the squirrel ran up to me, right up to my feet, and then ran past me and up a tree stump directly across from the kitchen landing--and the same height as the landing. The squirrel just sat there, looking intently at Houdini. Houdini was too ill to return the look, but I can only conclude that the two friends could still carry on one last wordless conversation. After all, something had told me not to fear the charging squirrel. I felt privileged to be a witness to the event, and grateful for the sun and warm weather that had prompted the occasion. Houdini's squirrel friend stayed and watched Houdini with me for quite some time. But as the sun moved, Houdini was left in the too-cool shade. Houdini meowed softly to be taken back in to the warm house. The squirrel watched me pick up Houdini and carry him into the house.

Whether you believe animals communicate telepathically, or just enjoy each other's company, I was impressed by this obvious display of friendship, and I was glad the two friends had one last chance to see each other.

Houdini died peacefully on our couch a few days later. Friend to everyone that wanted him for a friend, he was definitely a life force that cannot be forgotten.

Animals + Live TV for Thursday Lite

2009-10-01T07:02:00.001-04:00

A couple of videos for Thursday Lite... First, Freud the myna bird performs on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show:

Then, Hernandez the beagle finds Ed McMahon a bit scary:

Calling All Lion Fans

2009-09-30T06:54:00.007-04:00

I am repeating my call for anyone who may have a copy of the TV show "Jack Paar and His Lions". This was a wonderful show showing many different lions interacting with the people who loved them.

I know someone out there has saved a copy; probably on 16mm film, but any way to get the visuals for this wonderful show will be greatly appreciated (I have the soundtrack only).

The audio player here will play for you a short excerpt from the show. It would be great to see the cubs as well as hear them...

(Picture colorized by White Lion Restorations.)

Pointing the Finger

2009-09-29T09:49:00.010-04:00

There is a very flawed article in the September 21 issue of Time magazine; the article's title is The Secrets Inside Your Dog's Mind, written by Carl Zimmer.

The gist of the article is that dogs understand what it means when you point to something, and other animals don't.

Along the way to making an evolutionary argument for why this is, Zimmer gets many things wrong.

Zimmer uses now-debunked myths about wolves and their social bonds to make some of his points. But in reality, the hierarchy of a wolf pack is not all that complex, and there is not a constant struggle for the role of alpha male. A natural wolf pack is a family unit. This is according to one of the world's leading experts on wolves, who deeply regrets his old role in perpetuating such myths. See "Everybody Knows..."

The next problem in the article seems to come from the research scientists: the idea that humans are fundamentally different from all other animals. That brings me back to one of my all-time favorite quotes, from Gareth Patterson, an expert on lions:

We are not much different in fact to many other forms of animal life; and it is because of subtle human conditioning -- not the actual facts -- that we are raised to believe there is a wide gap between what is human and what is animal.

Starting from an erroneous point of view is going to lead to erroneous conclusions, unless these research scientists can be very honest with themselves about their biases.

Zimmer then says dogs' behavior is determined by their evolutionary origins, giving as an example the idea that if your dog licks your face when you come home, this is because wolves will lick a pack member's mouth when he returns from a hunt, to induce him to regurgitate some food.

OK, then why do my cats greet me when I come home, and appear to be satisfied with a pat on the head or even just a "hello"?

I don't know what to make of the next example in the article: A dog will act guilty when scolded after the dog did something wrong, AND act guilty when scolded for no reason. This is supposed to show that dogs don't have a sense of right and wrong. But come on now, think back to when you were a little kid--wouldn't you do the same sort of thing? I know I did.

Zimmer also says that while dogs may recognize a word like "Frisbee", they can't use it in a sentence. OK, he didn't put it exactly that way, but that's the gist of it. But how much attention have people actually given to dogs' language skills? It is now known that prairie dogs have a spoken language, with nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and that they put these words together in meaningful ways. How long until other animals are allowed into the language club?

I have to leave my analysis there for now; my final word is that we should be very wary when a writer presents guesses at what happened thousands of years ago as plain fact. And if you watch the video that's linked in the Time article, see if you don't agree with me that the tests they are using on the dogs are also very flawed--the dogs have a number of ways to find the treat, not just by following a person's pointed finger.

People Need Animals

2009-09-26T10:35:00.002-04:00

One of the reasons I wish to increase understanding of animals is that people need animals in their lives. A life without animals is seriously empty.

In Japan, many entrepreneurs are using this fact to their advantage. They are opening cafes where you can pay to pet and play with an animal. People say that doing so greatly relieves their stress levels.

Here's a brief video about a bunny cafe:

Drunk

2009-09-24T09:17:00.002-04:00

I'm probably going to get hate mail about this, but the video's owner insists that the squirrel in the video was OK later. And animals all over the world do get drunk on fermented fruit all the time; a lot of them actively seek it. Plenty of people can relate to that, I'm sure.

More Interspecies Friendships

2009-09-23T08:20:00.004-04:00

Since I mentioned interspecies friendships, and since the ASPCA web site is always worth a plug, they have a page called Best Buddies, where people send in their own pictures of animals that are friends. One of the best such pictures is the one seen here, Geronimo the cat and Bhupen the hamster, owned by Bhuvana Lagasse. You can read their story on the Best Buddies page.

Lion and Duck

2009-09-22T13:44:00.004-04:00

The photo above was taken at the Valley of the Kings animal sanctuary in Wisconsin.

I'll just ask one question: Do you suppose the duck is calm because of the fence, or do you suppose the two of them are enjoying each other's company?

There have been a lot of inter-species friendships reported. Here's one about a cat and a crow.

You can see the full-size photo at djedfre's photo blog.

Real Wolves

2009-09-21T13:16:00.005-04:00

As the wolf hunting continues in Idaho and Montana, and as the pro-hunting forces continue their propaganda that is so ridiculous that even one pro-hunting person called it "embarrassing", it's time to hear from someone who actually knows wolves, who works with them every day.

On the PBS site is an interview with Sausha Seus, a wolf trainer with Wasatch Rocky Mountain Wildlife, an animal training service based in Heber City, Utah. That link above will take you to the full interview; here are significant highlights:

What was it like the first time you came face to face with a wolf?
The first time I came face to face with a wolf I was five. It felt like looking into another universe. The same is true today, 26 years later. The eyes of a wolf pierce your soul.

Have you ever been frightened by one of your wolves?
No.

What can humans learn from wolves?
The sense of utter and complete devotion to family. An alpha male wolf will hunt and bring back food in this “belly basket” and regurgitate it for his mate and pups. The alpha male will starve himself in the process if necessary. The bond of a wolf is about loyalty, and it is unbreakable.

Also on the PBS site is a brief comic-book version of the story of Ernest Thomson Seton, the naturalist who started out as a wolf hunter. It's an interesting story, although the focus of the comic-book version is askew: The most significant words in the story make up only a portion of only one page.

Those words are: "He looked into the eyes of the wolf he had hunted for so long...and what he saw was not a killer, but a creature of dignity: courageous, loyal and loving."

As I have said before, the truth about animals can be found by listening to those who have actually paid attention to them.

Monkeys Will Pay to See Porn

2009-09-19T13:05:00.002-04:00

Apparently, there's not enough to do at Duke University, because a bunch of the guys at the Medical Center did a study that proves monkeys will pay for porn. The porn in this case involves pictures of "sexually receptive" female monkeys. (Gotta love that scientific terminology.) And no, I'm not posting a picture with this story.

The monkeys "pay" by giving up rations of cherry juice. Those monkeys love their cherry juice, but not as much as purient pictures.

The monkeys will also pay, but not as much, to see pictures of other monkeys of "high social rank"; this is equivalent to our gossip magazines, like People.

So... what's the news we can use here? That animals will pay for porn? Or that people aren't as far removed from monkeys as they thought?

(As reported in Scientific American, based on a paper published in Current Biology.)

How to Keep Your Dog Sane

2009-09-15T10:03:00.004-04:00

A dog is not a burglar alarm. Don't leave him out in the yard unattended, "for protection". If you need a burglar alarm, call ADT.

If you want a dog "for the kids", make sure your kids actually want a dog and are up to the on-going job of owning a dog.

Realize that a dog has a mind. You must establish a real, mutually respectful relationship with the dog. This is for your sake, the dog's sake, and the sake of everyone around you.

Make sure your dog gets some real exercise every day. One-on-one play is necessary for a social animal like a dog. Physical exercise keeps the dog healthy physically, social interaction keeps the dog healthy mentally.

Teach your dog where your property boundaries are. This will not only make your dog a better neighbor, it will make him more secure in his own territory.

Pay attention to the dog. If he is barking, find out why.

A dog that is ignored, confused, or has no real connection with his family will gradually go insane. I've seen it happen more than once.

A healthy and happy dog will reward you with more hours of happiness and love than you thought possible. But remember that when you take on a dog you take on the roles of caretaker, teacher, parent, and playmate for the life of the dog.

Cats Have Claws

2009-09-14T10:30:00.004-04:00

The act of declawing a cat is banned in 25 countries and one US city. Why? Well, put your hand on the table, palm down. Look at your hand, and imagine someone chopping off the end of each finger, below the base of the fingernail. That's what declawing does to a cat.

San Francisco is considering a law to also ban the procedure. Amazingly, the San Francisco ASPCA and the California Veterinary Medical Association OPPOSE the law. They say if people can't declaw their cats, they will abandon them. There is no evidence to support this claim.

It seems to me to be a simple anti-cruelty issue. Declawing is cruel. If a person can't stand to have an animal around without mutilating it, they shouldn't have an animal. Cats have claws. If you don't like that idea, don't get a cat.

Dealing responsibly with a cat includes trimming their claws regularly, either by learning to do it yourself or having a pro do it. But it's not that hard to do. Tip: If your cat struggles while you're trimming his claws, pick a time of day when your cat is sleepy. He'll put up with it much better.

Dealing with a cat's claws on a day-to-day basis is easy, too. Even our youngest cat, who is full of energy and loves to play (and play rough) knows to ease up when playing with me and almost never scratches me. Yes, "almost". Accidents happen, and you have to be an adult and deal with them. She learned to ease up quite easily: If she hurt me while playing, I said "OW!" and stopped playing. All my cats understand "OW!". If it was an accident that drew blood, I show them the blood immediately. They invariably give the eye blink response, indicating they didn't mean to do that. And they remember the next time we play.

It comes down to this: Your pet can think and learn. If you establish a mutually respectful relationship, life is better for everyone.

Book Review: If A Lion Could Talk

2009-09-13T15:40:00.002-04:00

Here at "Intelligent Life is All Around Us", I often point out how research scientists must leave logic behind to desperately hang on to the notion that any and every non-human species of animal does not have any consciousness. This erroneous notion from the bad old days of Descartes is religiously clung to, and is still taught in our colleges and universities. Such an ability to deny reality gave the world such things as dissection of live, unanesthetized dogs--after all, those cries they made could not possibly represent pain, since dogs are not conscious and cannot feel pain.

On the other hand, I probably will spend the rest of my life collecting and presenting evidence that animals are capable of thinking, feeling, and loving just as much as you or me.

Stephen Budiansky ostensibly campaigns for a philosophical middle ground, saying that we can't know what goes on in an animal's mind, or if it has one, and that we should not think of an animal in human terms; that if a lion could talk it would no longer be a lion. He fails to manage this balancing act, and ends up falling on the wrong side of the fence. He contends that professional biologists are too sentimental, that any study that shows that any animal can have emotions, intellect, and/or consciousness *must* be flawed and biased.

However, such studies and conclusions are slowly on the increase, and I contend that the scientific world is slowly catching up with reality because of it.

To prove his point about flawed studies, Budiansky must trot out the 100-year-old story of Clever Hans, the horse that was supposed to be able to do arithmetic. It turned out that the horse could not do arithmetic -- and why should a horse spontaneously show arithmetic abilities? This horse was actually intelligent enough to learn and notice body language in his owner that nearly every other human did not see. And so the story of Clever Hans proves... what? That a horse didn't know arithmetic? So the people involved were silly for believing that a horse could spontaneously do sums--big deal. What has that got to do with the bigger questions at hand?

If Budiansky were better able to support his idea that we should not try to see animals as equals, but instead respect them as separate and unequal coinhabitants of Earth, he would have a worthwhile book. After all, thinking of animals solely in terms of human society is not valid either. Human behavior is driven by any number of societally-induced rules and assumptions. One cannot expect a horse or a rabbit to have identical motivations as a human--even I will show you that a rabbit does not think the same things as a human, but that does not mean that a rabbit doesn't think. And even among humans one cannot expect a believer in one religion, for example, to have the same motivations as a different believer. Where Budiansky falls on his face is in denying consciousness to all nonhumans. Language is the reason, he says. But in reality, other species do have language, although maybe not in ways that fit Budiansky's carefully convoluted definition of language.

Budiansky will allow that all nonhuman vertebrates are equally intelligent. What he cannot properly explain is why the word "nonhuman" is necessary in that sentence. He will allow that differences in each species' bodies results in differing perceptions and differing observed reactions to stimuli. But he cannot come up with a convincing argument why humans should not be part of the same continuum, or even why humans should not try to understand other species in terms that humans understand. I will agree that total anthropomorphism is not the answer, but anthropomorphism is a step toward understanding animals by relating our own experiences to theirs.

There is a practical problem with the separate-and-unequal idea as well: it does not take into account human nature. "Separate and unequal" always ends up being transformed into "inferior" and therefore unimportant, and therefore disposable. This leads to the destruction of other species.

The full quote referenced in the title of this book is, "If a lion could talk, we would not understand him." I know that if a Russian or a Greek talked to me (in his native language) I wouldn't understand him, either. That doesn't mean those people don't talk. And I will tell you that lions and other animals do talk, in their native languages, and it takes keen observation to begin to understand them. (I could teach you to say a word in tiger language, a very handy word should you ever find yourself face to face with a tiger...)

Given the proven biological similarities between humans and other animals, is it not a leap of illogic to *presume* that other animals do not have mental lives similar to ours? (It *is* only a presumption; no one has proved that they don't.)

Given the experiences of people who actually spend a great deal of time with animals, how can a thinking person presume that they don't? Recognizing emotions in animals is something that happens whenever anyone who is truly observant spends some actual time with animals. Fortunately for animals and humans alike, we can also vicariously observe the intelligence and emotions of animals--take the worldwide sensation of Christian the Lion for example, which surely will have long-lasting effects on overall perceptions of animals.

Budiansky says, "To understand what we truly can about how animal minds work inescapably means to abandon any real hope of penetrating their thoughts, or of translating their thoughts into human terms." But in what other terms _can_ we understand them? To say that Christian the lion loved John Rendall and Ace Bourke may be anthropomorphizing, but it does convey an accurate understanding of his actions, his body language, and the realities of his life with those two men. You could say that we do not know exactly what was going on inside the lion's mind, but then I seriously doubt that even you and I have exactly the same definition of what love is.

In the end, I think Budiansky's "separate and unequal" approach to animals has good intentions at its roots but is ultimately indefensible. I believe a "different but equal" approach is more realistic and in the long run beneficial to all life.

Thursday Cute

2009-09-10T07:05:00.000-04:00

"Too much" cuteness for Thursday Lite:

Followed by lions and doggies and cats, oh my:

And Kevin Richardson in a "lion sandwich:"

Nature or Nurture?

2009-09-08T09:03:00.007-04:00

A story on NPR last week says that 10-month-old babies and dogs make the same 'mistake' in a test devised by child psychologist Jean Piaget. 1-year-old babies and wolves raised by humans do not make the mistake.

The test involves placing a toy behind one of two partitions. If the younger babies or the dogs see the toy put in place A repeatedly, they will look there first even if they have seen the toy moved to place B. (You can see an example of this test on YouTube.)

Psychologists cannot agree on why young babies make this error. Nevertheless, Adam Miklosi of Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary, decided he could use this test to make some guesses at the evolution of dogs.

It turns out that dogs make the same mistake as the younger babies, while wolves, like the older babies, will head straight to place B when they've seen the toy moved there.

Miklosi came to the conclusion that dogs trust people more than their own senses and that this is an evolutionarily-inspired trait that was part of the domestication of dogs--and, conversely, wolves do not have the "domestication genes".

There's a couple of problems with this conclusion. For one, it relies solely on only one of the possible explanations of why babies act the way they do. Also, it does not explain why dogs do not grow out of that behavior and act the way the wolves do, while babies will do so quite quickly.

Now, consider this: some have said that our pet dogs are like "perpetual puppies"; that the way they are raised keeps them in a baby-like state because that is the way people want them to behave. I think this idea brings us closer to understanding the results of Miklosi's experiment.

Miklosi's conclusions are rooted in the idea that "domestication" is a genetic trait that arose through evolution. I still contend that "domestication" is a myth and that the proper way to look at animals' interaction with humans is in terms of socialization, and that there is much evidence for this. Look at Christian the lion or the many lions George Adamson worked with. These animals were well socialized, not domesticated. Look at the wolf in the Mission: Wolf video I posted yesterday, in which the animal is in the process of becoming socialized to humans. On the other hand, look at feral dogs or feral cats. If "domestication" is supposed to be an intrinsic trait, what happened to their domestication genes?

The NPR story also quotes Clive Wynne, who studies dog cognition at the University of Florida: "It's a very thought-provoking experiment. I think like a lot of good studies, it doesn't lead so instantly to conclusions. It leads to new questions."

Thank you, Mr. Wynne. Keep those questions coming.

Mission: Wolf

2009-09-06T22:37:00.002-04:00

A little south of the insanity I've been writing about this week is a place called Mission: Wolf Sanctuary, in Colorado. Here's an interesting and informative video from them:

Note they use the word "(un)socialized" as opposed to "wild/tame" or "domesticated".

The Attractive Lie

2009-09-05T13:20:00.003-04:00

The age-old question is, what characteristic separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom? No one has ever come up with an answer that stands up to actual observation. "Using tools" was a popular answer for a long time. It's not true. Lots of animals have been observed using tools, even tool that they made themselves. "Language" was another popular answer, and this one held up for a long time because if you don't understand a language, it's easy to believe there is no language being used. But more and more animal languages are being observed, and scientists have even gotten down to such things as deciphering individual words and syntax used by prairie dogs.

Other, weaker answers have been proposed to that age-old question; all have been proven wrong.

I have an answer to propose, assuming the question itself is even valid--What separates humanity from animals? The ability and the desire to deny reality. I'm not saying that humans are the only animals that lie or deceive--any predator tries to deceive its prey, up to a certain point anyway--but I don't know of any other animal that wants to believe the lie.

There was a perfect example of this just this week--the story of the 2 wolves, one healthy, one suffering from a gunshot wound, who (we are told) killed 120 rams (and only rams from the mixed herd, because the wolves knew that the rams were the more valuable animals in the herd), and then the two wolves piled the bodies in a corner of the pasture. This utterly fantastical story is being used as justification for the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. Those who want justification for their actions have no desire to think about this story or question it. They don't ask what sort of atomic-powered wolves these must be to have achieved a kill like that. They don't wonder what method the wolves used to pile the bodies--did the wolves drive a forklift, or did they use their atomic power to just casually toss the bodies through the air into the corner? An unquestioned lie is perfectly good justification for what they want to do.

This desire to deny reality is in every aspect of our society. Recently, it seemed like every web site in the country featured the picture of the man who cheated on his wife and had to stand on a street corner wearing a sign as his punishment. But it turns out that the whole thing was a hoax, a publicity stunt by a radio station. But how many web sites featured the truth about the story just as prominently as they had featured the lie? After all, an attractive lie brings in more people than a boring truth.

And now I return to what I referred to above: Is the question of what separates man from animal even a valid question? Every person I know of who works closely with animals and observes them carefully will say that it is not a valid question. One of my favorite quotes is from Garreth Patterson, sometimes called the Lion Man of Africa:

We are not much different in fact to many other forms of animal life;
and it is because of subtle human conditioning
-- not the actual facts --
that we are raised to believe there is a wide gap between
what is human and what is animal.