Toothy Tyrant Behind the Scenes: Why Canada should keep the Beaver as its National Emblem

This post concerns a recent suggestion by conservative senator Nicole Elton that the national emblem of Canada (currently, the beaver, whom Ms. Elton bluntly dismissed as a "dentally defective rat") should be replaced by the "stately" polar bear. This is my take on why Canada should keep the beaver as its national emblem, using an ecological argument (yes, you read right, a biology driven argument) as well as I why I think the ecological significance of the beaver should best represent Canadians. 


Word(s) you might want to know:
Ecosystem Engineer: A species that influences its community by creating, modifying, or maintaining physical habitat for itself and other species
Keystone Species: A strong interactor that has an effect on energy flow and community structure that is disproportionate to its abundance or biomass (community as in biotic community, meaning the living part of the ecosystem)
Biomass: The mass of living organisms, usually expressed per unit of area

Biodiversity: The diversity of important ecological entities that span multiple spatial scales, from genes to species to communities



definitions provided by Ecology (2nd ed.) by Cain et.al. (2011) (<-- e.g. my ecology textbook =w=") too lazy to cite properly...

One sometimes wonder why Canada should choose the beaver as its national emblem. The United States has the beautiful bald eagle (although they came dangerously close to the turkey, it would be horribly inconvenient to kill your national symbol for thanksgiving and Christmas every year), England has the proud lion (which if I remember correctly, does not exist in England?)... why the beaver? 
This is one question posed as of late from Nicole Elton, conservative senator. Referring to the beaver as a "dentally defective rat", she proposes that the time has come for the beaver to step aside or at least, share the honor of Canada's emblem with the polar bear, whom she hails as strong, majestic and brave. From the National Post (for link, see below):


 “A country’s symbols are not constant and can change over time as long as they reflect the ethos of the people and the spirit of the nation”. 


On that one, I do agree with Ms. Elton. And the beaver is very suitable for reflecting our ethos and spirit! 
Before I continue with the argument, a mini background on the ecology of the beaver. 


The Ecology of the Beaver
In the ecological terms, the beaver is known as an ecosystem engineer (definition above) for their damming behavior. As we all know very well, the beaver fells trees to build their dams, in which they use for their defense. However, not everyone will know of the secondary effects of this: flooding. In a human context, this obviously isn't good news, however, for the vegetation and animals that depend on marshes and wetlands for survival, this is great news. The pictures below are examples of such beaver ponds. 

By reducing the flow rate of water in the stream, the lands turn into marshy wetland. Depending on the area, the plants that must have these ponds to survive will live, while fish and herbivores that feed on these plants will too thrive. And beavers don't come in only one, neither does each make only one dam. Therefore, an area can be transformed from only forested area, to a mosaic of wetlands. 
By increasing the number of species that can survive in the area, biodiversity of that area increases, and thus, the area has grown richer in the number of species too. A greater biodiversity is typically an indication of a healthy ecosystem. Due to the beaver's great effects on the ecosystem despite relatively small biomass, the beaver is also a keystone species.


What happens when the beaver is removed? 
We can see this in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962). During the late 1950's, insecticides and pesticides were applied to an area rich with sage, willows, beavers, moose, trout etc... The plan was to remove the sage. Unfortunately, the willow trees came within the line of fire, and were destroyed. The beaver and moose, which had depended on them, were also destroyed. With the beaver removed, the wetlands were gone, and so the trout that depended on them, the waterfowl that were attracted to the area, also disappeared. "The living world was shattered" (Carson, 1962, p. 68). 

So Your Point? 
You, dear reader, must be dying to know this. Okay, great, beavers are great, nice story, I get it. So what's your point?
Please see 2 pixels below =]. 


Why Beavers best represent Canadians
Canadians themselves couldn't deny this basic fact: in terms of land mass, we're huge, in terms of worldly population, we're close to insignificant. Mexico's capital alone practically outnumber's us. 
It's no wonder that on the worldly stage, we can sometimes be overpowered by other stronger voices. On the news, I saw a woman, when interviewed about the polar bear and beaver debate, say, "well people sometimes see Canadians as wimpy... so... go polar bear!" And indeed, my parents are sometimes exasperated that Canada is so "behind" and "non-driven". How it lags behind many on the worldly stage in terms of economics, military power, success on the world market (my parents are from Hong Kong).
But I argue no. 
Is success determined by power? Is success determined by our ability to overpower our enemies, turn the world upside down with the flick of a finger? Is success represented by the eagle or lion, that kills to survive? Or are there other types of success?
Should we model ourselves after animals that kill for survival (such as the polar bear), or should we model ourselves after the beaver, whose actions facilitate the survival of many species that depend on the wetlands and contribute to biodiversity, and therefore, overall health of the ecosystem? My very biased paragraph here tells you my thoughts =). 
These are the Canadians I'd like to see and am already observing. 
We Canadians may not be center of the world stage, we may not be very strong, we may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer either. But it doesn't matter, for our actions are not aimed at gripping the power to the world, but at seeing that the world is a better place to live. We are the peacemakers, when the world needs a hand, we will give it.
We shall be like the beaver: silently, he goes about his business, benefiting those around him, lending a helping hand. He might not get a lot of credit for it, he might still be laughed at for being a "dentally defective rat", wimpy... but our satisfaction stems not from gaining acceptance, but by doing what we know to be right and witnessing our own work toward a positive future, credit or no credit. 
These are the ethos and spirit of Canada.  

And of course, I couldn't help but add this one...

The Polar bear fail..."YaaaaaaAAAAHHHHhhhhhhhh!"

References


Here's the News article...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/28/polar-bear-should-replace-beaver-as-canadian-national-emblem-senator-nicole-eaton/

Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York. Mariner Books 

And I'm a little too lazy to cite my Ecology textbook but hey it's just a blog post right =P

                         

One Boring Essay Coming up!

To anyone who knows me well already knows well enough, I'm an environmentalist. It's pretty darn frustrating when you're trying to tell people why they should do things differently and your speech abilities are way behind your ideas =w=". Writing is a different story.

This essay concerns environmentalism. The essay topic is roughly as follows:


“Humans seemed to have gained a high degree of independence from the natural world...humanity appears to have very nearly lost a sense of deep connectedness to nature” (Searle, 2000, p.33) Do you agree or disagree?
What to Searle (2000) is natural human induced change?


This is probably the best essay I've ever written in my life thus far and it sums up a good portion of my ideas about human and Nature. If you're an environmentalist too or if you just like reading essays for whatever reason, please do take the time to read it. I don't mind if you disagree, I like hearing opinions! =) And I definitely won't be offended if you don't read it at all. It's pretty...looooooong. 


Note: The excerpt above was taken from Searle's influential writing Phantom Parks, concerning Canada's National Parks. Human Dimensions is a branch of management that's really new and that you've probably never heard of. You don't really need to know about it to understand this essay. Oh and any opinions in here are the sole yadi yadi yada of my thoughts and does not reflect... Oh whatever who cares just read it! 
   

“Death by a Thousand Cuts”- Have Humans lost Connection with Nature?

Conservation 200 Essay #2

“Humans seemed to have gained a high degree of independence from the natural world...humanity appears to have very nearly lost a sense of deep connectedness to nature” (Searle, 2000, p.33). What Searle (2000) writes in his book, Phantom Parks is very thought-provoking indeed, and it leaves much to ponder. Firstly, what does he mean by “independence”? Secondly, what does he mean by “connectedness” to Nature, and how have we as humans lost it? Searle (2000) further one of the results of this loss of connectedness to Nature is “unnatural” human-induced changes, such as genetically altered life-forms, clear cutting...So what, to Searle, is natural human-induced change?

           
First, I must say that I do not agree with Searle’s claim that humans have gained a high degree of independence from the natural world. Searle himself writes: “genetically altered life forms, space stations and thermal clothing all contribute to the illusion of being able to escape the limitations imposed by Nature” (Searle, 2000, p.33). “Independence” from Nature would imply that Humans and Nature are separate entities of each other. In other words, one can easily exist without the other, albeit perhaps at the price of inconvenience. As far as I can see, this is not the case at all. Although it is likely Nature can run its course with the complete absence of our species, as it did for 3.5 billion years before humans existed, the same is not true of humans. Much as we would like to believe we have grown independent of Nature’s imposed limits, we are undeniably still bound by the same laws. Most basically, no one human can possibly deny himself/herself air, water or food for any lengthy period of time. No one human could possibly tread on the ice of Antarctica without thermal clothing, and certainly no sane space explorer would ever think to try to survive in space without his protective space suit. Is this independence? I argue otherwise. Furthermore, the first principles of Human Dimensions, “Human and Ecosystem interactions are natural and depend on one another” (Cordell et.al., 1999, p.7), asserts there is a two way dependence: that humans depend on Natures bounties for survival and health and Nature in turn depends on human management so we do not to overuse Nature’s resources. He further states “[humans] not only depend upon natural systems for material needs and wants, we also depend on them for inspiration, relaxation, fun, renewal and a sense of belonging” (Cordell et.al., 1999, p. 7).

           
Searle also mentions the “loss of a deep sense of connectedness to nature” and that one result of this disconnect is human induced change to the ecosystem (Searle, 2000, p.33). What does it mean to be connected to nature? Searle’s use of the word “loss” implies that this connection was once to be had. His claim that a result of this disconnect is “unnatural” human induced change to the ecosystem leads to me to believe that this connection is the realization of the relationship/interdependence between humans and Nature. In other words, it requires realizing human actions and their consequences on Nature’s well-being and thus in turn, our own well-being. This connectedness will, of course, vary across both cultures and time. In the past, when in general humans must live close to or within the vicinities of Nature, they were forced to acknowledge the relationship/interdependence of humans with Nature. With the advent of technology however, individual humans may not be exposed to Nature as much as before and thus, their everyday lives may not be Nature related. As may be seen today in urban environments, our daily lives not governed by Nature-related choices, individuals may make choices without Nature’s interests in mind and thus, “unnatural” changes are made, causing a certain disconnect from Nature. I hesitate to extrapolate our Western urban environment to the rest of Humanity, but I believe this general trend will continue if we do not consider how to “reconnect” humans to Nature.

           
I believe it is necessary here to clarify what Searle terms “natural” human-induced change. Searle asserts human induced change is only “natural to the degree that it respects the inherent worth of all other species and remains within the limits set by planetary and local ecosystems” (Searle, 2000, p.34). He further states, “The essence of nature is that it is a system of relationships in which no part takes precedence” (Searle, 2000, p.33). Therefore, in order for a change to be natural, humans must accept that human wants and needs are not above those of any other creatures and therefore, our actions must have impacts only to the point where all other species needs are taken into account. Today, where human demands can easily pass this point, reconnection to Nature is more critical than ever before.


To have a sense of connectedness to nature, one must recognize the interdependence of humans and Nature. Times have long changed and today, this connectedness requires many fields of knowledge, including ecology to understand the interconnectedness of Nature; Human Dimensions to incorporate human actions as a part of ecosystem management; recreation to provide feasible ways for urban people to enjoy Nature and thus, reconnect to Nature; finally, a recognition of the key role of humans today in ecosystems: sound and responsible management (Cordell et.al., 1999, p.8).    

            
Although Searle (2000) states humans appear to have gained a sense of independence from Nature and lost a sense of connectedness, I argue that not only have humans not gained independence, but to gain independence from Nature’s limits is physiologically impossible. Even if physiological limits were not taken into account, our health and well being is still tied to Nature’s (Cordell et.al., 2000, p.7). In fact, the first principle of Human Dimensions is based on recognizing the interdependence between Nature and humans (Cordell et.al., 1999, p.7). Humans may never be able to gain independence from Nature, but forgetting this relationship can lead to disconnectedness from Nature, as is observed in Western urban society today. Because our (urban) environment tends to segregate the natural environment from urban environment, our everyday lives often do not concern Nature. Therefore, we are more likely to impose impacts on Nature without seeing the consequences, leading to what Searle terms “unnatural” human induced changes, in which “natural” human induced change “respects the inherent worth of all other species and planetary and local ecosystem limits”. “Unnatural” change can hence, be avoided by fostering human connection to nature by acknowledging our relationship with Nature through scientific understanding, holistic management, recreation and recognizing our responsibility to apply sound management.    

REFERENCES

Cordell, H.K., A.P., Hoover, G.R. Super., C.H., Manning. 1999. Adding human dimensions to ecosystem-based

management of natural resources. In H.K. Cordell and J.C. Bergstrom (Eds.), Integrating Social Sciences with

Ecosystem Management: Human Dimensions in assessment, policy and management (pp. 1-12). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.  

           

Searle, R. 2000. Death by a thousand cuts. In Phantom Parks: The struggle to save Canada’s national parks (pp. 27-44).

Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books Ltd.  

Live Life with Meaning?

I've always speculated on the meaning of life (yes, that's what I do in my spare time obviously!). 

 So I find myself asking these questions...

Just a pic I thought would go nice with this post

• What are we doing here?
• So... I'm going to die eventually, what do I do before then? 
• Do they have rotini in cream sauce in the afterlife?

But most of all...

• How do I live my life now so that when I leave I'll have no regrets? 

That's a WAY harder question to answer. And as I speculate, everyone will have their own opinion on that. Here's mine. 

HOW NOT TO DO IT

Some lost souls will dedicate their entire life to riches, luxury and fame. Their names will be remembered. They would've enjoyed all of life's luxuries. What else to hope for? 

But for them, I imagine at the end of the road, when they look back at their life, they might find that riches cannot be carried with them to death's door, and neither do the luxury in their lives matter any longer. 

In fact, under Buddhist teachings, one of the greatest contributors to unhappiness is desire. A life consumed by riches, by fame, is the basis of desire. No happiness to be found here. (Btw, desire is not to be confused with necessity) 

So basically, one who yearns for the above might find that they've spent half their lives wanting more and never quite enjoying how much more they already have. Or thinking about the people who don't have it and could use with a share.

Something that they want you to think you need.

I'm obviously being very general here, and there are bound to be great exceptions. But hey! Let's continue!

SO WHAT TO DO?

So the obvious lesson to take away from the above would be instead of concentrating on what you DON'T HAVE to appreciate what you DO HAVE. 

Guaranteed to make you happier by the second or your crabbiness back. 

Whenever I get the chance to, I always say this phrase that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. 

The Only Way to Live Life is to Give it.

Once life is done and over with, and you look back on your years gone by, there are bound to be landmark moments that will be remembered forever. Maybe when your child was born, maybe marriage, maybe when you met a very good friend. But I think, when I go, I'll want to see also, the moments that I made a difference. Something positive. 

Maybe I volunteered for a great cause, maybe I saw someone through hardship, maybe I made my parents real happy, maybe I adopted someone who needed love. Maybe I changed somebody's life in a positive way.  

That's something I'll die real happy knowing I did with my life.

Because to be able to help another means I have something to help others with, and that, in itself, is a great luxury. 

Not everyone has the means to help. I'd feel real lucky to be able to. 

The Beggar

The weather was sickening. 
Hong Kong, not known for good weather as much as being the spurring metropolis it is, is not so fun once we're outside the indoors. Hot is an understatement, the air so humid, sweat refuses to evaporate. 

In just such weather, I was lugging myself through the streets, picturing the blissful air-conditioning of the subway station I was heading towards. My aunt led the way. 

The station was in sight. But out of the corner of my eyes, I caught the sight of a man, sitting on the side of the road. It was a common sight in Hong Kong. Just as common as men in fancy (and unnecessary) cars, in ironed suits carrying brand name suitcases. As common as women dressed in tight dresses, shining 4 inch high heels and LV bags. 

The man was like any homeless man. How exactly he looked, escapes my mind, but I remembered pulling out my pockets, clawing through my bag to find a bit of money. Quickening my pace ahead of my aunt, I dropped the coins with the man, who seemed grateful. I then proudly hopped back to my aunt: "look auntie! I did a good deed!" 

My aunt didn't look too impressed though. Gently pulling me in until her mouth was by my ear, said she, "Ah, Silly Girl! Didn't you know? That might have been a main-lander dressed up as a beggar! You probably got your money tricked off of you!" 


I blinked. 


And so I probably did get my money, the measly 1 dollar HKD of it, tricked off of me. But something didn't seem right about not giving the money. Something seemed off about walking past a poor man and not giving anything simply because I speculated he might be cheating it off of me. 


When I told my family this, they half-teased, half-yea-this-is-Vivian-for-you, said, "Oh, so you'd rather get robbed than to not have given?"


THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION


And yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do. So what if that was a cheater? I figured the logic of the situation (for the sake of being logical) goes as follows:  


If he was a cheating scandal and I gave him a dollar, he probably has a stash of cash somewhere else. So what difference will my dollar make to him?


If that indeed was a man in need, a dollar will bring him that much closer to having food for the night, so that he might have something to eat. So what difference will my dollar make to him?


Me on the other hand, have a dollar to spare. I wasn't betting my fortune on this man's liability. It was a spare change dollar in my pocket. 


So I completely understand that if I give my money to the VERY wrong people, than I could be encouraging something VERY bad. Like...

• Drug Abuse
• Some children on the side of the streets are in fact, kidnapped to beg for money. That's, needless to say, bad and should probably be reported right away.
• They may be able to work, but refuses to

All of these points discourage giving, sometimes, to those who are very much in need. 

A lovely solution (I think anyway), if awkward, is to not give in money, but to give in necessity. 

A loaf of bread will mean little to pretenders, while meaning a lifeline for those truly in need. 


And between an old person who doesn't look as if they could support themselves vs. a young man who still looks fit and strong, an old man may be more in need.  


Win-win situation? 
If I am to support my "rather get robbed than to not have given" ideologies, I figured I might as well try to do it cleverly. That, I still need work on.  

   

"We Humans Are Above Nature!" A Chilling Case.

So in my last post, "Are we Above Nature?" I dove straight into trying to prove that Humans are not above nature, and that on the contrary, nature governs us. 

The Main Point
Relating back to my previous post, what I find most frightening is not to think that Nature is indomitable to us, but that some of us (although I'm sure not most) would fathom that this weren't true.

Spix's Macaw: 85 left (2010), all in captivity

Because when one underestimates our dependence on nature and overestimates nature's ability to conserve and replenish its resources, the same result can occur: 

We could destroy it without knowing.

Let's get a couple examples.


Spix's Macaw: (critically endangered) As of 2010, there are 85 left. All of them are held in captivity in four separate facilities. 76 of them are involved in breeding programs, carefully monitored in an effort to recover the species. Thought to be extinct in the wild. Decline in numbers attributed to capture, destruction of habitat, introduction of the Africanized Bee (killer bees) that kill nesting individuals and compete for habitat. Depends completely on Caraibeira (Tabebuia aurea) tree for nesting.

Buffalo: (bison bison) also known as the American Bison (current conservation status: near threatened). Once numbering in tens of millions, they were lessened to less than 300 little more than a century ago with Western settlement. Fortunately, conservational efforts worked to restore the population. They now number in the tens of thousands, although nowhere near the population it once was, it is unlikely it will ever face extinction ever again. 

American Bison (Bison bison)

 
  Pinta Island Tortoise: (Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni) One subspecies of Galapagos tortoises (current conservation status: extinct in wild) It is represented by a single individual, known as Lonesome George (possibly by a second individual at Prague Zoo, called "Tony"). 
Decline of the species has been linked to the introduction of feral goats, to the Islands, where the tortoises reside. They were abandoned by whalers, pirates etc. in order to ensure meat supply when they returned. 

Lonesome George, could probably care less that he's very possibly the last of his kind...except for the lack of ladies.

Recently, the feral goat population has been exterminated, the health of the ecosystem is returning to a healthy state. Too late, it seems, for the Pinta Island Tortoises. 

SO IN CONCLUSION
The species above were reduced by many factors, but human intervention was a major one. A poor understanding of the ecosystem they set their shoes on, a subsequent overestimation of the providing power of nature, causes the devastation of species, reversal of ecosystems, destruction of biodiversity and ultimately, the destruction of the very Nature we love and depend on. 

A failure to understand the intricacy of every environment, the belief that humans are above nature, would lead to not only extinction of beloved species, but our own species. 

"We Humans Are Above Nature, we decide what lives and what dies!" 

The Pirates hundreds of years ago chose to introduce goats to Galapagos, it exterminated more than one tortoise species found nowhere else. Brazil wanted expansion of land, that means clear cutting. It reduced the Spix's Macaw to 85 individuals. Western settlers decided they wanted buffalo. It reduced the species to less than 300. That's millions of buffalo dead. 

Yup, we definitely have the firepower to determine what dies. I suspect we could exterminate almost every species on the planet if we tried. But in doing so, we certainly don't decide what lives. Which is nothing short of reckless, dangerous, and, frankly, a pity. 

And I suspect, if we tried hard enough, we might manage to exterminate ourselves too.  

 

Are We Above Nature?

So the other day, I came across a debate on-line regarding "live-feeding". Live feeding, usually applied to snakes and carnivorous pets, is when one feeds live prey to their pet. This could be a rabbit, a mouse, a rat, chickens, hamsters, guinea pigs...even...Goats?!?

This conversation I came across involves live snake feeding. 
Animal lovers alike flung insults across the net. Those who did not support it cried animal cruelty. Those who did argued that their pets did not eat dead prey (that's debatable, since I've seen my friend's snake eat dead prey. But, eh, what do I know?) and, let's face it, they aren't about to turn vegan either. One comment, however, struck me SMACK in the face and left a mark on it...  

Here's how it goes: 
"We humans are above nature! We determine who lives and who dies!"
This comment chilled me to the bones. To say the least.


We're above nature? Really?

To me, to say that implies a few things...

• We are in total control of Nature
• Nature can't hurt us
• Nature needs us
• We don't need nature

We are in Total Control of Nature
Do I need to say anything to prove that wrong? Hopefully not. If we were in control of nature, we wouldn't need to abide by its laws. Laws such as, Winter comes after fall, that comes after summer, that comes after spring and the cycle begins again. 
Or that when you build a dam over a river, your fish stock will be affected and you may have less fish to eat. 
When you over fish, then you can't have more fish in the next year. 
If you plant a seed in winter, it probably won't grow.
If you cut down a forest, it will take longer than you live to grow back, if it does at all.
And most of all. The central dogma of nature:
FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS A REACTION. 

You take one fish and eat it, there will be less fish next year, but still more than enough. You take a tonne of fish, then the reaction is larger and there may be not enough fish to spawn successfully next year. Other species that feed on that fish species may starve because of the lack of fish. Eagles that eat the fish that eat that fish that you fished will also be affected because their food is dying. 

You can only live by the laws of nature, or suffer the consequences, such as death. That doesn't sound like control to me. 

 
Nature Can't Hurt Us
Oh really? 

Nope! Can't hurt us at all! ^w^

I'm skeptical...



















Nature Needs Us; We Don't Need Nature
Some smart cookie will look at this and say, "But this is a paradox unto itself!"

And, because I want to be a smart cookie too, I would agree with them. Why would I?


Can we argue we are a part of Nature?


We evolved from Nature, we depend on what Nature gives us. The food, the clothes we wear, every last bit of material in your room, the computer screen you are reading off from, the books you read, the pen you write with... everything came from Nature. The minerals from its grounds fuel our lives (*cough* oil); the food it produces fuels our bodies...


There is no doubt about it. We NEED nature!
On the other hand, how much does Nature need us? 
I'm not even talking about the amount of damage we had supposedly done to it. Global warming, destruction of rainforests and pollution of waterways... 


The Earth has seen (and survived) more than we could ever damage (before we kill ourselves). It's that the Earth, 6 million years ago, had never seen the footprint of man. And (according to studies), the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. Of course, life didn't pop up for another half a billion year. But during these times, the Earth saw 5 major mass extinctions (the most recent of which is the famed death of the dinosaurs). Not to mention ice ages, changes in the composition of the atmosphere, splitting of the continents ... humans? How much of a threat are we?

Nature certainly does not depend on humans, nor does it almost any single species. 

So are we above nature? Can we control it in anyway? Can we dominate it? 
Like my biology professor LOVED to put it... You tell me!  

Hello Followers!

Hello new followers! I haven't had the time to say hi to you guys =D. 

Hello Sara Michelle! I think I know you from someplace =). 

And Hello Violet Feral. I'm not sure I know you well, but thanks for joining! 

And I may as well say Hi to Brandon while I'm at it xD. Hi Brandon, how goes Life, as it happens? (<-- lame pun)

Anyway, thanks guys for joining~! My audience may be small, but I feel like I have one. Gives me the motivation to blog~ =) 
You're all my heroes ^^. 

The Prettiest Hand Heart I could Google Up

African Grey Parrots (A Note)

For the full blog post on African Greys typical needs, and the responsibilities etc, please read post below. 

African Grey Parrot (in natural environment)

Here I wanted to make note of something that I failed to mention in my previous post.  






African Greys are wild animals.


Wait what? 


How do we define domestic animals? Dictionary.com: an animal, as the horse or cat, that has been tamed and kept by humans as a work animal, food source, or pet, especially a member of those species that have, through selective breeding, become notably different from their wild ancestors.

The first domestic animal that might come to mind is the dog. Dogs, first descended from wolves, have lived in close companionship with humans for thousands of years. There appearance is notably removed from their wild counterparts. Human selective breeding has differentiated them greatly, from the chihuahua (my least favorite dog...=w=) to great danes. 

Dog and Wolf (note the differences!)

  So I was watching a documentary on studies done on wolves and dogs to differentiate them based on intelligence, obedience, cooperation, fierceness etc. Through a series of tests that I think I'll leave to a later post...


Conclusion? Thousands of lines of domestication has bred good-tempered dogs more likely to listen to a human, an in-born respect for the two legged primate. Wolves, not so much. I think I should also mention wolves aren't as fierce as one might think. They don't kill unless they're hungry. And they are probably as wary as you are of them. So as long as you don't look too much like lunch, you're probably fine.

That's why wolf-dog hybrids are a cause for concern. The poor animal is left with an identity crisis. But the details of that are for a later post. 


In the meantime, back to African Grey Parrots. 
Unlike dogs, or cats, or even horses and cows, African Greys have not seen thousands, or even hundreds of years of companionship with humans. 
This is what they look like in the wild. 



Notice how much difference there is between the one kept as pets and the ones in the wild. That's right: not that much. 


African Greys have been kept as pets by many over the thousands of years, but extensive breeding programs hasn't exactly happened. The result of that? When you bring home a Grey, you're essentially bringing home a wild animal. Although they can adapt well to a home environment given the time, too many owners have expected it of their Greys. 

Prospective owners, all too easily, bring home a Grey, excitedly planning all the words it will say, all the tricks it will learn, how cool it would be to have it ride around on their shoulder and have others gawk at them. I mean, how much work can this little bundle of grey and red take (see below post)?


While this isn't always the case of course, if one were to bring home a Grey with only those in mind, they're in for a rude awakening! 
They might find that their grey...

• Chews EVERYTHING
• Poops all over the place
• DOESN'T TALK 
• Needs LOADS of attention

And pretty soon, the bird is booted out to a sanctuary nearby. 
This isn't exactly doing the poor thing justice. A few things this failed owner failed to realize:

• Babies don't just come with their vocabulary at hand; neither do Greys, both have to pick it up from lots of interaction; on the other hand how much parrot do we speak?
• Greys chew, this is their natural behaviour
• They poop all over the place, because they need to be toilet trained
• If you notice the video above, greys don't ever get bored or too little attention with the whole flock. A Grey in home will need loads of attention! 

 

Pair of African Greys being fed

 Which is why it becomes all the more rewarding when your Grey actually wants to be with you, eat with you, sit with you, be cuddled by you... that feeling that a wild animal accepts you as a friend is like no other. It's all worth it at the end. 


A final note, and a very important note. Make sure that when you get your parrot, it is captive bred. 


What does captive bred mean? It means the parents of your to-be pet Grey was captive to begin with and not captured. 


Due to the recent rise in Grey popularity and therefore, the demand for Greys, wild capturing for the pet trade is also on the rise. The natural distribution of this species belongs in central west Africa. Due to destruction of its wild habitat and capturing, the wild population is getting smaller. 

Distribution of African Greys (and it's getting smaller)

 

 

 

Wild populations can't sustain the capturing of parrots for the trade. 


The conservation status of African Greys currently sits at near-threatened and the species is listed under appendix II. 

Appendix II is for the protection of species that, although not necessarily yet threatened with extinction, can be unless trade is prohibited or strictly regulated. Whether that will help the species has yet to be seen, however. 

A crate of Greys destined for USA. Some may die in the process.

It is crucial to note that as you may know, dear reader, African Greys are very long lived. That being said, because the pet trade most affect nestlings, wild population may see a sharp decline when the aging adults begin to die. 


Therefore, the conservation status near-threatened may  not be all that accurate. Let's hope we continue to see this in the future:

The way an African Grey should be seen.

Wanna Help? Here are links to some conservation groups and petitions aimed to protect this amazing species! 


http://www.parrots.org/ - The world parrot trust. 
http://www.parrots.org/index.php/ourwork/home/african_grey_parrot - fund specifically aimed toward the conservation of Greys
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/wild-caught-congo-african-grey-parrots/ - petition aimed at stopping this trade. At least read the little information thing that comes with it.