 |
| Nimmo |
“Tyger Tyger, burning bright,/In the forests of the
night . . .” Yes, as poet William
Blake knew, tigers are big, beautiful cats. And in their natural habitat, they are fierce hunters.
But doesn’t their vivid striped orange beauty make
them conspicuous to prey animals, who might see them “burning bright” in time
to get away? There’s a good reason for why tigers don’t miss too may meals (explained and illustrated in the March ’22
newsletter from the Performing Animal Welfare Society [PAWS]).
Tigers’ prey animals see them very differently from
how we do. Humans and many other animals
(including great apes and marsupials) have “trichromatic” color vision, so we
and they can see blue, green and red, and those three colors in combinations.
However, most mammals – including tigers and their
prey – have “dichromatic” vision that lets them see only two colors, blue and
green. So prey animals see tigers’
orange coloring as shades of green in the forest, making tigers well
camouflaged and harder to detect.
Dinner is served. https://tinyurl.com/54zztave
Watch your words!
Our word choices can help determine whether a dog or
cat outside alone with no owner around will be taken to an animal shelter or
reunited with her owner. That’s because “lost”
and “stray” can suggest different meanings to people.
When people think of an animal as being “lost,” they’re
more likely to assume he lives locally and take steps to help find his home
than to take him to a shelter. But when an
animal’s described as “stray,” people are less likely to work at re-unifiying her
with her owner, and take her to an animal shelter instead.
The problem is that for many reasons, once in a
shelter an animal has little chance of being reunified with his owner. And that’s a real shame because the great
majority of animals brought to shelters are lost — they belong to
somebody.
Still another good reason for reunifying lost animals
with owners: that’s the #1 way to reduce animal
shelter populations. https://tinyurl.com/y4r2nbjp
Oh, my deer
Lately, it seems, deer have become a
popular discussion and argument topic for a wide variety of people – from activists
who want to protect them, through environmentalists who rue the plant life that
deer destroy, to hunters, who want license to kill them wherever and whenever
possible.
Since last November, I’ve held onto a New
Yorker magazine article studded with surprising info about deer and
how people have regarded them so differently over time – capitalizing on them, sterilizing
and hunting them, protecting them. One
key sentence sums it all up pretty well:
Many of our ideas about animals – which
we eat, which we keep as pets, which we vilify or protect – are changeable with
time and context and culture.
Opening with a narrative about a 2016 deer-sterilization
project on Staten Island, the writer moves on to other issues involving both deer
and human inconsistency toward them. One
big surprise for me was learning about synanthropes: “a tiny minority of wild
animals – not livestock or pets – that have adapted to thrive in the places
that humans like and are forever building more of.” These include city pigeons, rats, coyotes,
Canada geese . . . and deer.
“Today,” the author says, “there are an
estimated thirty million white-tailed deer in the U.S., a hundred times more
than there were in 1900.”
#
You’re invited to comment at 1moreonce.blogspot.com.