And I found a nice track:
I’ve put out some catnip to see if we can get some better photos of Lynx rufus.
And I found a nice track:
I’ve put out some catnip to see if we can get some better photos of Lynx rufus.
On the trail camera this week, I got two interesting animals:
An alien black cat:
And a striped skunk:
This is the first skunk I’ve been able to get on the trail camera, which adds one more carnivoran family to the list.
No. Skunks aren’t Mustelids anymore. Their family is Mephitidae, This family includes two Southeast Asian “stink badgers” and all the skunks of North and South America.
The most common species of skunk in West Virginia is the striped skunk, but in the very high Alleghenies there is a relict population of Eastern spotted skunks. Eastern spotted skunks are thought of as a “Southern” species, but in West Virginia, they are found only in the colder High Alleghenies.
I just hope that black cat stays away from white paint.
There are plenty of Pepe Le Pew cartoons that tell you what happens when a black cat gets a white stripe painted on it!
Nice bear track, complete with tufts of black fur.
They love to hang out in muddy trenches on logging roads.
These frogs are closely related to the American bullfrog, but for whatever reason, they are much more common here than bullfrogs are.
Of course a congregation of frogs will attract their predators!
I don’t think there is a raccoon anywhere that can pass up some frog legs. (Or the rest of the frog for that matter).
The story of Cecil the lion is one I’ve avoided. I absolutely abhor stories that involve one animal cause celebre, be it Marius the Danish giraffe or some abused dog.
I dislike animal cruelty. I dislike poachers even more.
So you will not be getting any defenses of Dr. Walter Palmer from me.
But we’ve been dealing with poaching in Africa for a long time now, and that is not the part of the story I find disturbing.
What I find disturbing is that social media has turned into a giant lynch mob.
When an American dentist named Walter Palmer killed a beloved lion named Cecil, the social media platforms that allowed outraged web users to spread the story also enabled them to do more than just fume. It gave them the power to act on their anger, to reach into Palmer’s life and punish him for what he’d done, without having to wait for the wheels of more formal justice to turn.
Web users uncovered Palmer’s personal information, including about his family, and published it online. They went after his business, a private dental practice, posting thousands of negative reviews on Yelp and other sites. The practice has since shut down. Users also went after professional websites that host his profile, leading the sites to remove his information. On Twitter and on his practice’s public Facebook page, people made threats of physical violence.
This should look familiar: It is the same set of tactics that has been used in online harassment campaigns such as the “Gamergate” movement that targeted women in technology, or the seemingly endless online harassment conducted against female journalists. It is a growing trend of internet mob justice, one that often bleeds into real-world harassment with real-world consequences.
It’s actually pretty similar to Gamergate.
This is the mob, and because the mob has projected onto Dr. Palmer the worst possible evil, it is totally okay to be an asshole to bring about justice.
Of course, this also gets mixed in with calls to ban all lion-hunting, and at the risk of getting the same treatment as Palmer, I’m going to say that this is a very short-sighted reaction.
Let’s get some facts on the table first.
Lions are not easy animals to live with. They are huge predators that have killed people, but they also do enjoy eating cattle.
If you’re a poor farmer in Sub-Saharan Africa, you are not going to like lions very much. You’re not going to be sitting by the campfire at night in awe of the roaring lions. You’re not going to be proud that all these Westerners love lions so much that they will raise an internet lynch mob to get someone who poached one.
Instead, you’re probably sitting by the fire with a gun or a spear, hoping that the damned things don’t show up an take a calf.
And you certainly hope they don’t kill your children while they sleep.
Most of the people engaging in the lynch mob who are also excoriating hunting have never lived anywhere near large carnivores. Even those of us who live near black bears in the East Coast honestly don’t have a clue. Black bears are timid creatures that have killed very few people in recorded history of this continent.
We have no clue what it’s like to live with large predators. Predators would be a constant worry for our ancestors living in hunter-gatherer camps, and even in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, predation by wolves was a constant worry.
Most Westerners live in cities, and the city has an insulating affect. Most people have never seen an animal kill anything, unless they see it on television.
And what most people see on television is pretty sanitize. Sir David Attenborough readily admitted that the most gory parts of predatory sequences had to be clipped from his documentaries.
Most Westerners think of lions as being really big cats.
Which is exactly what they are.
However, even a domestic cat can be a fierce predator to a mouse or a songbird.
And when you scale up a cat to the size of a lion, you are the mouse or the songbird.
We have a very distorted view of what lions are about. The Lion King posits that the lion cub gets presented by the mandrill on top of the big cliff and all the subject animals, which are mostly things that lions eat, are just elated to see their new prince.
In truth, most of these animals would be avoiding a lion with cubs, and in the case of African buffalo, they would be actively seeking out the cub to trample it to death.
It is certainly true that lion numbers have dropped in recent years.
In 1975, there were an estimated 250,000 lions in Africa. There are now 25-30,000.
Were those lions all killed by trophy hunters?
Even if we accept that some were, there is just no way there are that many trophy hunters in the world who would kill that many lions.
No, what really got the lions is that in many countries where they are found populations are on the rise, but the economies are not growing fast enough to keep up with the population growth. Millions of people are being forced to farm and raise stock in the last redoubts of lions, and the lions start to cause problems.
If your’e a poor person living in Africa, you have every reason to want lions dead. Lion poisoning is becoming quite common in Kenya and in other parts of Africa. Poisoning does in entire prides of lions, but it takes care of the problem from the perspective of the poor farmer.
If we Westerners truly value lions, then we have to think of ways to make the lives of people living in those regions better. One way to do this is to create some sort of economic value for lions, and the best way to do this is to allow some limited, managed hunting.
Now, hunting like this can be abused, and it is certainly true that a lot of the money spent on this kind of hunting doesn’t stay in the communities, but it is still enough of a payment to give people incentive to keep lions alive.
Managed hunting, by definition, is not the same kind of hunting that seeks to make animals extinct. It is a kind of hunting that we’d recognize in our own country, especially if we paid some attention to the conservation policies of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt began a conservation revolution in this country. Before his time, we saw wild animals as either commodities or nuisances. When we began to conserve them as game animals, they were seen as creatures with value that extended beyond that animal’s life.
Using this conservation tool, we’ve seen all sorts of species rebound from near extinction. The cougar that was wiped out in the East is making a strong comeback in the West, where it is still hounded with strictly regulated hunting (except in California, where the cougars carry off dogs on a pretty regular basis).
But the US is rich country, and most of Africa is not. Land and resources are being stretched.
If we do want lions to exist, we either say that the lives of Africans don’t matter or we say that we have to use trophy hunting as way of generating funds and adding value to the people who otherwise would be better off without them.
No country in Africa would ever set up such a draconian conservation policy that would deny people the right to graze their cattle on public lands or on private property. They might deny it in a park, but outside the park, they are much more likely to look the other way if a lion gets killed.
Westerners look upon the lion situation with self-righteous ignorance. We can’t be bothered to elect politicians who will actually do a thing about climate change, which is driving extinctions left and right, and we can’t be bothered to stop having children or curbing our rapacious desire for new stuff.
But we can tell the poor nations of Africa that they must save their lions– just don’t ask us to pay for it!
Cecil the lion was named for Cecil Rhodes. If that name doesn’t ring a bell, perhaps you’ve heard of the Rhodes Scholar program at Oxford that was funded through his estate. Rhodes was champion of British imperialism and a diamond magnate in Southern Africa. He was instrumental in getting a chunk of southeastern Africa added to the British Empire which were called “the Rhodesias”. Rhodes wound up ruling that region as a part of the British South Africa Company. Yes. It was essentially a corporate colony, which Rhodes as the CEO. The region of the Rhodesias became a land of white landowners with large numbers of landless native Africans working on the plantations and mines.Southern Rhodesia became independent under the racist regime of Ian Smith. Dylann Roof, the Charleston church shooter, would pose with two flags on his jacket. One of these was Ian Smith’s Rhodesian flag, and Rhodesia, Ian Smith, and Cecil Rhodes have long captured the imagination of white supremacists
So Westerners have named a lion in honor of a brutal imperialist.
The West has grown fat off of Africa. First with the slaves. Then with the gold and the ivory and the diamonds.
And now when the Africans try to live in basket-cases we’ve left behind, we excoriate them for killing lions. We excoriate them for poisoning them, and we excoriate them when they try to raise money for conservation by selling a few tags to trophy hunters.
The West has forgotten what it’s done to Africa.
And the West is now so far removed from that natural world and its processes that it cannot have a reasoned moral discussion about how to best save the African lion.
It’s all turpitude masquerading as morality.
Cecil the lion was a killer. He killed game animals to survive. When took over his pride, he killed his predecessor’s cubs in order to bring the lionesses into estrus again.
He was not Mufasa or Simba.
He was a great cat who lived by the tooth and the claw, and he was magnificent. He lived a life far better than most dogs in North America, who spend their days pacing behind closed fences. He lived, breathed, fought, and fucked.
A poacher killed him, but if a poacher had not, he probably would have been killed an in an even more horrific manner. Male lions don’t rule over their prides forever. Soon or later, another male lion or a coalition of males would have overthrown him, and he would have either been killed by them or died from his wounds. Or he would have starved to death as he tried to eke out an existence on the edge of pride territories.
He may have been already a victim of an overthrow, and maybe that was the reason he was so easily lured out of Hwange National Park so easily.
The poacher may have actually done the old boy a favor.
What irks me most, though, is that we now live in this bizarre world that combines ignorance of wildlife management issues with the disgusting behavior of a lynch mob.
It’s more sound and fury, but this does signify something.
Western man is a totally adrift in this world.
He will either burn us all up or blow us all up, because he’d rather be self-righteous than think critically.
And that scares the hell out of me.
My sister ran into this Hawaiian monk seal in Maui today!
There were three species of monk seal: the Hawaiian, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean. The Caribbean monk seal is now extinct, and the remaining two are pretty rare. The Hawaiian has some issues with an inbreeding depression, so it’s a pretty cool thing to run into.
Red foxes are currently the most widespread wild canid.
This is the same sort of fox that can be found in Egypt, England, and Virginia, and it has been introduced to Australia, where it has become a virulent invasive species, taking out scores and scores of endemic native wildlife.
For many years there was a debate about how to classify the red fox in North America. Unlike Australia, where there is no real case for calling it native wildlife, North America’s red fox population has been a bit controversial.
When the tobacco colonies along the Chesapeake created America’s first landed gentry, there was a move to import well-bred foxhounds for sporting purposes. At that time and in that part of the continent, there were no native red fox populations, so there were accounts English red foxes being introduced to the Virginia Tidewater and the Maryland plantations for sporting purposes. Red foxes were found in northern New England at the time, so I’ve often wondered why they didn’t just get their foxes from those colonies.
For a very long time, it was just assumed that red foxes living south of New York State were derived from English foxes that were brought over in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
After all, the Australian red foxes were definitely derived from introduced individuals, so it would make sense that there could be an introduced population in the Eastern US.
However, red foxes are found over much of the continental US and Canada, and there are Pleistocene records of red foxes in Virginia.
So red foxes definitely are native to this continent, but the question is whether those in the Eastern US are derived from native populations or from those English imports.
In the early twentieth century, virtually all red foxes in North America were classified as Vulpes fulva, rather than Vulpes vulpes.
But as time progressed, all North American red foxes became classified as Vulpes vulpes, and the Eastern and Midwestern population of red fox became Vulpes vulpes fulva.
Then two papers came out that examined the DNA of red foxes across the continent and in Europe.
In 2012, Stratham et al. found that their mtDNA of Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic red foxes was very similar to those in Eastern Canada and the Northeastern US, meaning those populations were indigenous North American foxes. They descended from foxes that came into that part of the continent during in the nineteenth century in much the same way coyotes invaded the East in the twentieth century.
Then, in another Stratham et al (2014) paper, it was revealed the Old World and New World red foxes have been reproductively isolated for 400,000 years. This paper also looked at the y-chromosomes and nuclear DNA of 1,000 red foxes from around the world, and it strongly suggests that there are actually two species of red fox. There was some evidence of Eurasian red foxes entering into the Alaskan red fox population 50,000 years ago, but other than that, these two animals might as well be separate species.
Now, I’m a little hesitant to consider that red foxes should be split in two in this fashion, but keep in mind, that in North America, there are two species of Urocyon fox, the mainland gray fox and the island fox. But analysis of mtDNA from both types of Urocyon revealed that the island population only split from the mainland species somewhere between 7,100 and 9,200 years ago.
The lower estimate of that split is at least half the time that dogs and wolves have been split.
And it’s nowhere near the time in which New World and Old World red foxes have diverged.
If we are so willing to have two species of Urocyon, then there is way that we can have just one species of red fox.
The case that these two types of red fox are different species is just so much stronger than the island fox’s taxonomic distinctiveness.
Of course, I actually do question the taxonomic validity of the island foxes. Some of these island fox populations are so inbred that they could stand to have mainland gray foxes introduced for genetic rescue purposes, but because they are a species in the eyes of the Fish and Wildlife Service, no one seriously considers the possibility.
But when it comes to red foxes, two things are clear:
They are native to this continent and are not English imports.
And they haven’t exchanged genes with the Old World red foxes in a very long time.
So there really is a strong case that our red foxes are Vulpes fulva and not Vulpes vulpes.
But there aren’t wide morphological differences between the two populations. Red foxes in Europe pretty much look like the red foxes of the Eastern US. In fact, North American and northern Eurasian red foxes look much more similar to each than either looks like the Middle Eastern and North African subspecies of red fox.
Red foxes in Eurasia and North America pretty much share the same niche as generalist mesopredators. Both types have successfully colonized suburban and even urban environments.
Those are the traits we see.
But their DNA says we’re looking at two quite distinct populations.
But it is strangely fascinating.