Zoo · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with Zoo

Eco-Hunk: David Suzuki

by Katie Kish · 02/27/08

David Suzuki is a Canadian hero, one of our top 10 Canadians even. He is best known for his television show The Nature Of Things airing across the world. He is a scientists and avid environmentalist. In 1990 he founded the David Suzuki Foundation which as the mission of finding a balance in the environment around us in our everyday lives.

Dr. Suzuki has his PhD in Zoology from the University of Chicago. He worked as a professor at the University of British Columbia for over 40 years until his retirement, but can still be found doing a packed lecture every now and then. He has been awarded 22 honorary degrees. Due to his love for the environment he isn’t found in too many different places. Although he purchases carbon credits his touring puts him tonnes over his carbon footprint. Thus he has stopped vacationing and attempts to appear by video conference as often as possible. His university tour of 2008 comprised of UBC and McGill.

He has been a very vocal in the fight against climate change. He has claimed that Canada should be international outlaws for reneging on Kyoto and that scientists who deny climate change are funded by big corporations. Suzuki is disgusted by these scientists who are funded from inappropriate sources because it is these skeptics and deniers that aren’t allowing the public to be convinced that climate change is an extremely pressing issue of our days.

Suzuki’s most recent big news campaign is his Nature Challenge, which I urge you all to take a look at and join. What is the challenge? It’s all pretty simple. The way you travel, what you eat, the energy you use and public action. Way to implement the challenge into your life are outlined here. Most of the thing are things that a lot of us will already do – but it’s good to reevaluate your life and see where you can improve. I for one and shutting the computer off at night, and turning the heat in the house down a couple degrees. Sure – it takes longer for me to check my email in the morning because the CP isn’t just on, and I’m slightly colder but it’s not doing me any harm.

Check the nature challenge out! David Suzuki is someone I look up to so much. He has devoted his entire life to spreading the word about climate change. He lived a hard life as a prisoner of war in Canada, but has moved on to become one of the greatest environmentalists of our time. Love!

car, carbon, carbon footprint, climate change, corporations, Eco-Chick, Energy, News, travel, video, Vote, Zoo

Infanticide and Vera's Cub: Why Some Mothers Eat Their Young

3 Comments

by Olivia Zaleski · 01/14/08

Post copied from Living Now section of the Huffington Post.

I want this baby polar bear! Well, on second thought, I want this baby polar bear for just a few weeks–before it gets teeth. In a year, that cub will look at me and say, “Hmmm, I bet you’d make a good meal!”

Carnivorous predator or not, I think I speak for the masses when I say “awwwwwwww . . . ” Not convinced? Just watch this video and make sure you turn the volume up, to hear the little tyke snoring. Aside from the ear-wrenching temper tantrum, this is a truly delightful little creature. Smitten, I fear I may break into Marc Anthony’s song, “I Want To Spend My Lifetime Loving You.”

In case you don’t know the story of this little cub, zookeepers at the Nuremberg City Zoo have been busy suckling it–wait, that sounds funny. Rather, zookeepers are feeding the cub by bottle after deciding to remove it from its mother, Vera. Like many postnatal females, Vera was showing intense signs of great distress and confusion.

Earlier in the week, the Nuremberg City Zoo’s other female polar bear, Vilma, had eaten her two offspring. The zoo feared Vera would do the same. According to a profile report from National Geographic, it is not uncommon for polar bears, among the most violent of predators, to eat or maul their young.

LiveScience.com writer Andrew Thompson, says “zoologists have observed filial cannibalism, the act of eating one’s offspring, in many different types of animals.” Lions hippos, bears, wolves, hyenas, herring gulls and more than 15 types of primates, other than man, have been known to engage in infanticide.

Yet, the question remains, “Why would any mother want to eat its child?” Parents of teenagers might have an idea, but scientists haven’t settled on a single explanation for infanticide. It is a curious topic, as it seems difficult for such an opposing behavior to evolve–let alone coexist. Could there be some evolutionary benefit to the practice?

A report published by Oxford University Zoologist Dr. Michael Bonsall and Hope Klug from the University of Florida says females may commit infanticide to gain increased access to physical resources (food or space), bias the sex ratio of the litter, or eradicate further problems if the baby is sick or refuses to feed. By killing ill pups, the mother may then allocate her precious resources to those pups more likely to survive.

Animal behaviorist Dr. Anne Hanson says “mothers may also kill entire litters when they are stressed.” According to Hanson’s study, History of the Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus): Rat Behavior and Biology, “the mother may perceive the environment as too hostile for the pup’s survival, or she perceives herself as unable to rear the litter successfully, so she recuperates some of her energetic investment by consuming the young. Malnourished mothers, and mothers who have an abnormal birth experience, may also become infanticidal.”

I would assume that these two mother polar bears had abnormal birth experiences–they did give birth in a zoo, not their native glacier. Or perhaps, the little polar bears were so cute that their mothers just wanted to “eat them up.” Whatever the reason, one of the pups is safe and sound in zoological intensive care. As you can see from the video above, the cub is healthy, happy and very, very cute. Despite the occasional ear-wrenching tantrum, the cub is reported to spend most of it’s time sleeping–thank God for our ears!

For more from Olivia Zaleski visit her weekly column on the Huffington Post.

Animal Behavior, Animals, baby polar bear, bears, German Polar Bear, German Zoo Polar Bear, infanticide, Mrs. Knut, Nuremberg City Zoo, Nuremberg Polar Bear, Nuremberg Zoo, Olivia Zalesk, Olivia Zaleski, Polar Bear Cub, polar bears, Vera Polar Bear, Vera's Cub, Zoo, Zoo Deaths

For a Fun Night Call….360 Vodka!

3 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 08/21/07

As those who know and love me are aware, I love vodka. And though I:

-eat organic, local food (except for my unfortunate pineapple habit, which I’m twelve-stepping my way through….did you know to get 1 lb. of pineapple to our plates, it takes 40 lbs of CO2! Serious bummer.)

-don’t drink bottled water unless there’s an emergency (I love my Sigg bottle!)

-never, ever throw my cigarette butts in the street (I know, smoking’s a disgusting habit, but I only smoke 4-5 a week)

-keep my house at near-freezing levels in the winter to conserve energy

So even though I do all these things, and more, I’ve been slow to buy organic spirits. But once I tried 360 vodka, I vowed to change my ways. Not only is it excellent both chilled straight up, but it make a fabulous mixer. And it wears it’s eco-friendliness on its sleeve, literally:

(Click here to see a blown up version of the label)

I brought my bottle over to my good friend (and vegan chef extraordinaire) Pauline’s house and we made gingery cocktails (see recipe below) from the 360, and enjoyed an awesome meal of hummous and fresh bread, arugula, pear and almond salad, summer zucchini risotto with fresh tomato tapenade, with a hand-picked blueberry turnover for dessert. Talk about enjoying the harvest!

Pauline’s Ginger Limey

1.5 shots vodka
1/4 cup organic limeade
1/3 bottle ginger beer
Fresh lime wedge

Pour ingredients in glass with plenty of ice, mix with finger, garnish with lime wedge.

For more cocktail ideas, check this page out.

Yes, our glasses are very empty in this picture…

Many thanks to my friend Pauline Dean, dedicated vegan animal LOVER, Willie Nelson devotee, and polka-dot popularizer.

bottled water, cocktails, Eco-Chick, Energy, farm, Food, local, local food, Organic, plates, recipe, sigg, summer, vegan, Vote, water, Zoo

The Hand that Rocks the Gorilla's Cradle

No Comments

by Danelle Brown · 12/22/06

When do we humans go too far? Today it was reported that an experiment was conducted and concluded in which a southwest England zoo had given fertility drugs to a western lowland gorilla. I find myself asking the question, why should people be allowed to give animals fertility drugs? If it is the point as to be a resolution for a dwindling species, then I feel that we should concentrate on the conservation of gorilla’s and any other endangered species’ ecosystem.

How is this a positive achievement? To me it appears as both a cover up generated by the guilt of being an extended cause to gorilla’s captivity as well as a disturbing desire to have control over all of nature. Nature works in her own way. Maybe there is a reason why older gorillas aren’t meant to have more babies, maybe it is the same reason why an average 50+ year old human is not naturally suppose to conceive a child.

If they do replicate this procedure, as they as hope to do around the world, where are all of the new born Gorilla’s suppose to go? Is it fair that they most likely will be raised in captivity? Would we inject women in shelters with hormone therapy so that they can have a child all the while where they don’t have their own home to go to? What’s your take?

Animals, babies, conservation, Eco-Chick, Home, NYTimes, skin, spa, style, women, Zoo

The Avoided Topic

8 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 11/12/06

Original illustration for Eco Chick by Gregory Grigoriou of I See Dots

The Problem

This month, one of E/ The Environmental Magazine’s feature stories is about the the myth of the population dearth, the idea that we’re not replacing ourselves at quite the rate we have during the heights of human population growth, which occurred in the 1960′s. The doom and gloom predictions of economists that there won’t be enough young people to sustain economies in the future might have families considering a 3rd or 4th child. But look at the statistics and you’ll see that the Earth’s population is still zooming straight up. While it’s true that most of that growth is coming from people in developing nations, everyone plays a part:

Let’s look at the accelerating momentum of population growth. In the year 1000, there were an estimated 254 to 345 million people on the planet, mostly living agrarian lives. World population grew very slowly in those days. In 1200, 200 years later, there were still only 360 to 450 million people. Move all the way up to the relatively modern world, in 1700, and there were still only 600 to 679 million people sharing the planet.
The first billion was reached, probably, in 1802. But after that we really took off as a species. It took just 125 years to add the second billion, in 1927, and only 34 years to get to three billion, in 1961. Four billion (1974) took just 13 years, and five billion (1987) another 13. We crossed the six billion threshold in 1999, after only 12 years. When will we get to seven billion? How does 2012, just six years away, sound?

Americans, especially, are a more significant part of the continued population growth than people in most other Western nations. I’m sure you all saw the heralding of the 300 millionth American a few weeks ago, and it won’t be long before we get to 400 million:

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation with significant population growth, and a new report sees those burgeoning numbers as a factor in our unparalleled impact on the environment.
While Europe shrinks, U.S. population grows by just under one percent a year, which translates to 8,000 people a day, or three million per year. The 300 millionth American will either be born here (or move here) sometime this fall. According to Victoria Markham, executive director of the Connecticut-based Center for Environment and Population (CEP), the growth is magnified by a very high rate of resource consumption. “The U.S. has the largest per-capita environmental impact in the world,” she says, “not only in terms of resource use, but also the pollution and waste associated with it.”
The U.S. uses three times more water than the world average per capita, and (despite being only five percent of world population) consumes a quarter of its energy. Americans buy and use a lot of stuff, Markham says, but there’s more to it than that. Baby boomers, despite their relatively high level of environmental awareness, are also enjoying an unprecedented amount of wealth, living in larger houses on more land than any other generation in U.S. history. What’s more, she says, the nation’s number of households is also increasing dramatically as families fragment. (Average household size dropped from 3.1 persons in 1970 to 2.6 in 2000, according to U.S. Census figures.)

The Solution

For us all to live as healthfully as we can, while still leaving places for nature to be nature, there have to be fewer people. This is the only way I can see for human beings to continue into the future without using up all the resources on Earth. And I’m not talking about cutting population in developing countries (though I’m certainly not opposed to supporting birth control and family planning for those places), but starting at home. The only people you can really change are you and your friends and family.

You’re not just using a lifetime’s worth of resources when you have a baby in this country, you are using an American’s lifetime’s worth of resources. Think about that, and your one baby might as well be triplets. I’m not suggesting that we legislate the number of children people have, but I think we should question this whole idea that it’s ‘OK’ or responsible in some way to have 2 or 3 kids. Because when those 2 or 3 children are Americans, they will be consuming much more than their peers throughout the rest of the world.