Bankrupt an atheist!

How often would you get this kind of opportunity?

A year ago, I reposted a comic from Calamities of Nature, created by Tony Piro, one that achieved a certain amount of notoriety (not due to my efforts by any stretch.) This wasn’t a humorous comic, nor did it involve exaggeration, misstatement, caricaturization, or many of the other things that people could take offense at if they, you know, had too many hangups to take humor as humor. Instead, it was an observation listing simple facts that was satirical in the usage of a pious scene from a well-known christmas special. Bringing facts into the matter always pisses off a lot of people – something to remember, by the way.

Anyway, the comic went around a lot, without proper attribution, with changes to the words, and so on. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, copyright violation, and intentional too – the proper attributions are embedded in the image, so they would have to be removed willingly for it to appear without them, not to mention that changing the words is simply stealing the artwork. As Tony points out:

My use of the Peanuts characters, in a comic that I drew and wrote myself, is allowed as a parody. But when people grab my art, change a few words, and label it as their own, it amounts to theft.

Quite simply, if anyone wanted to do their own parody, they could draw their own artwork. I’ll leave it to you to contemplate how many good religious folk were the ones stealing the image for other purposes. I’m sure it wasn’t many…

This year, in response to the various uses of the comic, Tony has a simple deal: Link to the original comic directly on his site, and he’ll donate $1 for every 500 page views to Doctors Without Borders.

So here’s the original, which is still quite appropriate and will remain so indefinitely.

If you’re one of them good christians, this is also my gift to you. Get enough of your friends together, and you can drive Tony into the poorhouse! It’s really okay, since it’s not about you being nasty, it’s god acting through you, and giving that heretic exactly what he deserves! [Did I nail those internal rationalizations down? Should I have used a different term than “nail”?]

Or draw your own comic, and give $2 per page view to Whining About Respect or some other. I’m sure there’s some organization that helps support the self-righteous when the real world intrudes into their fantasy. I mean, besides churches.

Otherwise, celebrate the holidays as you see fit, and have fun!

A reminder

As we approach an arbitrary dividing line that we call the end of the year, and I face the fact that I should have updated the calendar long ago, I offer a reminder to all of those reading who have digital images on their computer – and for that matter, even those that don’t: back up your system! Digital information is easy to damage, and every storage option available to us is failure prone. The only way to avoid losing stuff is to rotate backups and trust none of them. It’s the price we pay for resorting to this method of storing information.

If you don’t have an external drive, get one. If you haven’t fired it up in months, that’s too long. If at any point you have just one working copy of your information, you have a weak point. I lost an unknown number of images from Florida when an archive hard drive failed at a crucial point, while I was rebuilding my computer system and had just wiped the main drive. And I can’t tell you how many CDs and DVDs that I’ve had simply give up the ghost. If you need it or want it, copy it several times over.

And while I’m at it, here’s another item for those with digital images, especially those that edit them. Your images are going to look the best if you can see them accurately on your computer monitor, and I’ve now made a page to help you optimize this. Check it out, most especially the example images that I’ve linked to there, and ensure that you’re seeing the best images that you can from your monitor – it’ll help a lot, and some of your images may suddenly look much better. This is another thing that should be done routinely.

Of course, you should be taking plenty of pics too, so after you’ve done all this, go out and add some more to the drive ;-)

Is this supposed to be a eulogy?

As I was writing another post and remaining, surprisingly to some I think, unconnected from the world at large, I was notified that Christopher Hitchens died last night of his esophageal cancer, at the age of 62.

Now, I clarify things a little. Despite the strong sentiments expressed in his book God Is Not Great, Hitchens was not a high priest of atheism, even when ignoring the fact that we simply don’t have those. I personally identified with less than half of what he said at any given time, and was polarly opposed to his feelings on the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and George W. Bush – not to mention alcohol.

And that is, in part, what makes his death regrettable, to me and others. One of his defining traits was in speaking his mind, in open disregard for how this might be perceived. In this way, he trashed the sneaky tactics of political correctness and the Overton Window, blasting through a veneer of ‘proper’ discourse to state what was really on his mind. Another, perhaps his most defining, trait was his remarkable ability with words, an old-school British skill that allowed him to combine a classical education and manner with a gangsta’s attitude, demonstrating that speech can serve as a better weapon than most allow themselves to recognize. No one could match this ability, and being cut down by Hitchens still commanded the respect that he did it so gracefully and precisely, a gifted surgeon of conviction.

I also have to appreciate his approach to impending death, where he foiled the hopes of the pious that he would waver in his atheism while still being remarkably genial in his responses to them. Death was only a deadline, and he kept on with his pursuits as long as his physical ability allowed, at times appearing to actually defy such.

He wasn’t an idol, in some cases he was a twit, but he had some appreciable traits too, many more so than Steve Jobs. If there’s a legacy left at all, I hope that it’s the knowledge that being forthright and outspoken has much more merit than being agreeable, but maybe we can foster a little more ability to eloquently lambaste something, too.

The new lights keep buzzing

The weather got nice today and I was doing some other photos outside, when the persistent buzzing finally got me to look up and see what was going on. It seems this European honeybee (Apis mellifera) thought our holiday lights looked rather appealing, and checked out numerous bulbs along the string before flying off.

Knowing that bees are often guided by how much ultraviolet is reflected by flowers, I have to wonder if the bulbs somehow bounced back more UV than normal, whatever ‘normal’ is. The string was off for the day, so it has nothing to do with the LED output. I don’t think I’m likely to find out anytime soon, because while shooting in infrared isn’t too difficult, ultraviolet is another matter entirely, and pretty expensive to tackle.

Or perhaps the manufacturer just washed the ‘gems’ in pheromones. You never know…

So, why do people believe?

While I take pains not to let it come through in posts, overall, I’m a fairly cranky person, and I know at least a few other skeptics are as well. It would be easy to take this and extrapolate that being skeptical makes you cranky, which some people really do believe and which is an excellent example of failing to understand correlation and causation. For my part, I know where it comes from, and can only say that the same may be true for others as well. Basically, I find far too many people to be irrational and even fatuous, and when you’re immersed in such a culture, it’s hard to be upbeat, you know? Especially as election season comes around.

Which is, naturally, why so much of this blog deals with critical thinking; it is (part of) my own contribution towards correcting this, and an exercise in reaching people. Not to mention that critical thinking has also been remarkably informative, about nature, about behavior, and about how things work overall, so I find it pretty cool, actually. The crankiness is what led to skepticism, as I struggle to understand why people are so spastic sometimes. Belief in things without firm evidence is rampant in our society, and it does make you wonder why. Herewith, some of my musings on why this is so often seen, and how it works out that way.

Lend some character

A few months back, I shot this Tolkienesque scene on the side of the river nearby, actually on the same outing that I chased down this special assignment. To get this angle, I was flat on my belly on a rock at the edge of the river, with my legs extending behind me into the water, far enough that my shorts were getting wet. That’s the kind of extremes I go to in pursuit of my interests.

Okay, granted, it’s not exactly National Geographic caliber hardships, but I’m not getting paid what those photographers are, either, so there! In fact, now that it’s online this pic will probably get ripped off.

Anyway, aside from simply showing it off, the point I’m making is that interesting compositions sometimes require a vantage that many people don’t consider. Looking down on these roots at your feet wouldn’t be half as compelling, and have none of the depth that this shows. While a lot of nature photography (and many other genres) require finding a good subject to begin with, it’s also important to try and render it in a captivating or dramatic way. This does sometimes mean getting wet or dirty, or doing something awkward or uncomfortable, but a wet crotch until I got home was worth the resulting images. I tend to think people are way too neurotic about getting dirty anyway – we’ve gotten far too soft. Flop down and get the shot. As Calvin’s dad says, it builds character.

Still won’t make it art, though.

The exception proves to rule

This is another post inspired by Demon Haunted World, and if I find out that you haven’t read this book yet, I’m going to come to your house and smack you in the back of the head with a rolled up e-magazine…

Yet despite my promotion of this book, I’m going to highlight something that I find misleading within it. Sagan lists a quote from Ethan Allen, who said:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), then they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

This is something that I suspect everyone runs into from time to time, but of course it is especially known among skeptics. Or at least, we think we run into it; in truth, there’s often something else entirely at work, and it bears recognition because it seriously affects our approach.

When it comes right down to it, very few people argue against reason itself, at least as a principle, which is how Allen was referring to it. Virtually no one actually finds reason or rationality to be a bad thing, nor do they ever consider themselves to display irrational behavior at any time – the same may be said for ‘evil’. The conflict invariably comes in because different people have different standards of reason and rationality, and to argue that someone is being irrational will almost certainly be ineffective – it becomes nothing but an ad hominem attack and is quickly dismissed.

Let’s take, for example, those that believe many UFO reports are indications of visiting alien life forms. They did not pick this subject to champion at random, or because it seemed silly; they are convinced because of such factors as the large number of reports, the detailed descriptions, and even the likelihood of life having arisen on other planets, among perhaps many others. These are not irrational reasons in the slightest, and nothing to be dismissive of, if we’re being honest with ourselves. Using myself as an example, I fail to be convinced of alien visitations because of factors that counter those, such as the huge market for visitation stories, the complete lack of corroboration, the ability for people to drastically misjudge what they see, and the wanton disregard for physical laws. I might be considered irrational for placing more weight on these, but this is only because the standards of reasonable evidence are different from person to person.

For those who want to advocate critical thinking, this is important to recognize. We can’t arbitrarily decide who is rational and who isn’t, and the criteria should not include such concepts in the slightest. Instead, we have to make a case for the alternatives, and be able to demonstrate that such alternatives carry greater weight, or at the very least, throw some doubt into the mix. Eyewitness testimony is often considered highly reliable in regards to witnessing UFO activity, but not when it comes to fishing stories – why the double-standard? Our goal is to raise such questions and compare the evidence for popular or favored phenomena against the evidence for mundane explanations. It’s a little like a court case: if reasonable doubt exists, no firm conclusion can or should be reached, but reasonable doubt is not self-evident – it must be enumerated, patiently and without antagonism.

This is, most likely, what Phil Plait was trying to communicate with his infamous Don’t Be A Dick speech (it was the follow-through that sucked.) Active skeptics sometimes take for granted the mental process of comparing exceptions and alternative explanations, but too few people have even been exposed to such things, much less have adopted them as routine. While most disciplines of science require the examination, and ruling out, of alternative explanations before some new discovery can be considered valid, such rigor isn’t common in humanity overall. People tend to rely more on personal accounts and their instincts for what ‘feels right.’

One of the most difficult of factors to deal with in such claims is the emotional one. For whatever reason, any individual may find the idea of extraterrestrial life to be a fascinating concept, and it is this fascination which can, very often, affect just how much weight is given to any particular piece of evidence. The same might be said for government conspiracies, alternative medicine, religion, and so on. Emotionally favored ideas mean that once some factor in support of this favor is found, the individual generally stops looking, and certainly doesn’t consider if counter-evidence exists. We actually do this constantly throughout our lives – think of your favorite food. Is it rational to like it? Does it really do something good for you, or fulfill needs better than alternatives – or do you just like it for the taste? Is that really a good reason? Or, for that matter, a bad reason? That’s an example of emotional versus rational commitment. Countering this is sometimes pretty hard, and we should never expect it to happen quickly.

What we can do, however, is to offer the alternatives, the explanations, and the exceptions, to provide at the least the myriad reasons why some particular kind of evidence can be called into question. We can demonstrate what it is that makes us pause and question some conclusion, especially if we can provide counter examples (like the fishing story above.) Most especially, we need to detach from the idea of either emotional commitment, or the relative comparisons of intellect, if we want to have any affect at all. We shouldn’t look down in the slightest on those that don’t see things as we do, but only make the effort to explain why we see it differently.

I’ll be the first to admit that this isn’t easy, and that I’m guilty of not heeding my own advice on numerous occasions. We tend to see things as personal conflicts, especially when faced with arrogant or dismissive attitudes towards ourselves, but that’s a trap, a way of driving us away from our goals. We need to view our activities, despite provocation, as efforts to improve the standards, to critically examine the evidence, to catch the flaws before someone else does. Most especially, we need to demonstrate that questioning doesn’t stop at a preferred answer, and/or that preferred answers don’t actually exist – facts are facts regardless of our preference for them.

That raises another issue, again seen far too often, which is the arbitrary interpretation of facts. What someone sees or hears is generally simple stimuli of sensory organs, interpreted by the brain into an idea of something known and, usually, expected. They may then communicate their interpretations, and not the stimuli itself, when describing the event. But like the meanings behind literature, interpretations do not necessarily indicate accuracy, and may reflect either preconceptions of the interpreter or even suggestions from others. UFO enthusiasts absolutely hate birds, military flares, and the planet Venus, because they keep blocking witness’ views of alien spacecraft. But like it or not, if someone was looking at a clear sky in that specific direction and could not place the spaceship in relation to the highly-visible planet nearby, they probably didn’t see a spaceship. As for movement, the moon really rips across the sky on the nights that a stiff wind is blowing high thin clouds…

The point is, in order for something to be a compelling explanation, there must be no exceptions, no possibility of mistake, no way of misinterpreting it. And the skeptic’s job is to present this concept in a useful manner. There will naturally be resistance, so our goal should never be to win, but only to raise that niggling little question and let it grow on its own. Doubt is a very hardy weed, and once started, requires some very firm evidence to kill off.

Just stuff

There have been a couple of things I’ve been working on and trying to update, and I finally have them available, so this post is simply a short list of new things available on the site.

I mentioned earlier that I would include a tutorial on removing noise, and so I have: it can be found here. Bear in mind that this is limited to noise from bad sensor pixels, the kind that shows up in many images, especially low-light or long exposure shots. The other kind of noise, usually multi-colored speckling from low light or high ISO, is a very involved thing to remove, and the tutorial would be much longer, but I still may get to that someday.

I might have to start teaching my students directly about the next one, which is how to effectively resize an image. I’m still amazed at how few people understand this, and how many websites I see where the images load slowly because no one knows how to make their images web-sized. You can save a lot of download time and server load by making web and e-mail photos the right size, and get better results from your prints too.

Last year I provided instructions on making a year-long guide to rise and set times for the sun and moon, and I have updated it for 2012 (formatting and leap year stuff.) Call me optimistic, but I didn’t cut it off after December 21st, either. It’s admittedly a bit fussy, but you only have to do it once and then have a quick reference for the sun and moon for the year, which you’re going to use frequently to get those great landscapes and ‘golden hour‘ shots, right?

And I figure I’ll just mention this here, rather than make another post about it. You may recall my taking Cecil Adams of “The Straight Dope” to task on his wishy-washy answer to the question, “Does god Exist?“, and apparently I wasn’t the only one. Yesterday, he responded to one of his detractors in a disparaging way, claiming that he really was making the point of how weak the Cosmological Argument is. I’ll be blunt: bullshit. If you’ve ever read the details of some of his answers, you’ll know that he’s more than capable of getting past the appearance of importance to deal with the crucial details, and if anything, his advisory staff is even better. Even the Straight Dope Message Board handed him his ass over the reply, which is no doubt what prompted the revisit. That he couldn’t do so without both shameless backpedaling and several petty digs is just a lack of character.

Amateur naturalism, part four


I didn’t initially intend it this way, but we’ve been working through a scale of increasing difficulty and effort in this series, starting with insects, then working through birds, then reptiles, and come finally to mammals. In my journeys, mammals have been the hardest to photograph and observe, for a number of reasons. So my first warning is, be patient, and be prepared for not seeing very much.

We tend to relate more to mammals, it appears, not perhaps for the least of which that we ourselves belong to that order, but to be honest, I think it’s more because mammals display both more apparent emotion through their eyes and expressions, and have more behavior that we recognize – or at least, think that we do. More on this shortly. First, our lists.

What do I need? This list is short, because mammal observation doesn’t benefit from many materials at all.

Flashlight. As before, a head-mounted one works better, and of course, spare batteries. Many mammals are far more active at night, so expect to spend some nights outside. Additionally, most mammals have reflective eyes, so a head-mounted flashlight provides a light source close to your own eyes, minimizing the reflection angle and increasing your likelihood of spotting something.

Appropriate clothing. The temperature often drops at night, and you may well be in rough country, so dress for trailblazing, with layers you can add or remove as needed. Since mammals rely on their noses to some extent, skip the perfumey detergents or softeners – and for that matter, cologne or scented toiletries on your body as well. Camouflage is better than, for instance, high-contrast clothing, but not absolutely necessary. The color vision of many mammals is limited in certain ways – not necessarily ‘color blindness,’ but often the inability to distinguish a wide range of colors. Usually, muted and darker colors are fine.

Measuring tape. Used for size of tracks and distance between, height of territorial marks, width of teeth marks, and the like. In a lot of cases, you’ll see more evidence of mammals than the mammals themselves, and this can help detail what, exactly, you’re seeing evidence of.

Collecting bags. Unlike the reptiles, these are used more for the evidence itself rather than collecting species. Usually ziplock plastic bags, film cans, or something similar work fine. In addition, tweezers or forceps for smaller or more gross items – you might actually be collecting feces for examination, if you’re serious ;-)

Binoculars. Again, good for identifying species from a distance, but not terribly high on the importance list – not like for birds.

The ability not to get lost. This is especially important if you’re trying to follow an animal trail at night. Orientation/trail skills, or a decent GPS unit, work very well here. I would add either area maps for the GPS, or a good knowledge ahead of time of the salient terrain features, like streams and ravines. These are distinct features that can tell you where you are, and direct you where you need to be. The typical topo maps, like the kind available from US Geological Survey, are often of limited use because they’re on a larger scale than a hiker can use. You’ll want fine detail.

Believe it or not, an identification guide is not really necessary, unless you’re trying to identify spoor (tracks, marks, feces.) Mammal species are usually quite distinct in an area, and easy to learn – most people can learn to tell a raccoon from an opossum pretty quickly ;-). And while identifying tracks can sometimes be useful, it requires terrain that leaves distinct tracks in the first place, like the mud at the edge of streams, or fine silty soil. Heavy forest, grasslands, and such terrain usually provide nothing to see, so while you might start tracking at a streamside, it becomes easy to lose the trail a short ways further on.

So, what am I looking for? Unlike the other classes we’ve covered, you’re likely to be doing as much detective work as you are actually seeing mammals, if not more. You’ll be looking for evidence that they’ve been around, especially if you’re doing anything in the day. This means tracks, trails through the tall grasses, feeding signs, freshly-dug small holes, and, occasionally, feces.

Start at the water. Everything needs water, but mammal species often leave the most distinct traces of their passing there. The fresher and more accessible, the better. Follow the edges of streams, looking for tracks and trails of flattened grass leading away. Also look for deposits of shells from molluscs and crayfish – this often indicates otters or raccoons. Steeper banks along deeper water often allows for entrances to beaver dens in the banks, but muskrats more often seek shallower areas because they eat grasses.

Spot the trails. Most times, this is simply an area of flattened grasses, so keep a sharp eye out. On the banks of water, you might see a smooth, cleared slide area often indicative of beavers – if so, you can often find anything from small sticks to limbs that have been cut, gnawed, or stripped of bark. Deer will often leave behind a large flattened section (about a meter across) in very deep grasses where they made their beds. However, wolves, foxes, raccoons, and opossums often have no trails at all, since they wander opportunistically looking for food.

In early mornings, occasionally you can find a very faint trail of overturned leaves, especially since they’ll have been damp on their undersides and this shows when disturbed. When the dewpoint arrived sometime in the night, occasionally a larger animal passing through high grass will have shaken off the dew there, leaving a very subtle trail that might be seen with the light at your back.

Listen! This is very important in spotting mammals. Their movements produce more sound than the others we’ve discussed, but it is still usually very subtle (the biggest exception, in my experience, is squirrels, which can produce a racket way out of proportion to their size.) The normal sounds of wind and such rarely produce little snaps or distinct rustles, so these are what you’re paying attention to. Freeze the moment you hear them and wait them out – if something is nearby, you’ll hear them again shortly. And of course, this means you can’t be sending your own signals, which animals are quite adept at listening for themselves, so you’ll be avoiding leaves, twigs, gravel, bubble wrap, and anything else that causes your feet to make noise. Find the bare patches or soft grasses, move slowly and gently, and pause very frequently.

Look! Well, this is obvious, but there are some good habits to get into. Most especially, any time you’re about to leave an area of, for instance, screening trees or tall grasses, pause just inside the edge and scan the open areas very carefully. There’s nothing like bursting out into the open to scare off something you could have seen easily, which also means that sticking to edges and cover helps a lot more than crossing open fields. Watch those stream banks carefully, and look for those breaks in patterns. Most mammals are brown or greyish-brown to varying degrees, and can be distinguished from foliage with a sharp eye, but often not as easily as believed (I’m amazed at how well deer disappear even a few meters into wooded areas.)

Patience. When you know you’re in an area that sees frequent activity, or hear something, or simply know it’s a good area, this is where you wait it out. Get comfortable if you can, and a camo blind or anything that screens your own subtle movements can help here, and of course, being in shade works better. The longer you can wait, the more you’ll be able to see. Animals that were alerted to your presence when you arrived have time to relax and reappear. Being on a slope or rise above good areas lets you have a much better view, but also be aware of what you look like yourself, and don’t silhouette yourself against the sky or something that shows your contrast. When photographing, you’re going to pick areas that give you a clear field of view and a good background, uncluttered and photogenic, preferably giving you something that contrasts from your chosen subjects to help them stand out.

Use the tire marks for comparison - yes, those are bear tracks
Tracks. This is a field of special education all its own, and I couldn’t do justice to it in a post. It depends on what you want to do; it’s easy to identify that tracks came from a mammal, for instance, and if that’s all you need to know then you’re set. But if you want to differentiate otters from raccoons, or skunks from cats, that takes a bit more effort, and a good tracking guide is recommended. If you suspect nighttime visitors, for instance, you can spread a layer of fine white sand or gypsum (drywall) powder in likely travel areas and check for tracks in the morning – the gypsum powder will make more distinctive tracks but needs to remain dry. Overall, however, tracks simply indicate that this is a good area to start observing.

Scat. Or poop, if you prefer. This can also be used to identify what’s been visiting, and gives a better indication of how recently than tracks will, but for reasons mysterious, you may not want to mess with it. Knowing the basic types helps a lot, however: deer, rabbit, raccoon, fox, and so on. If you’re unsure, poking through it (a stick, at least, is recommended) can reveal what the animal has been eating recently, through the presence of small bones, seeds, grains, et cetera. Of course, this means you must know what diet the species has as well.

Other signs. This might mean small holes dug into soft ground (or an excavated beehive,) saplings with small branches nibbled off, deposits of mollusc shells, patches of fur or feathers in one spot, and so on. Again, for these to mean something, you have to know what’s in your area and what its habits are. Many people think deer graze, like cows, but they browse instead, eating new shoots and saplings, berries, garden plants, and the like. They’ll strip off soft bark from saplings, but bucks (males) will also score it with their rack to mark territory and clear the velvet off new horns. A cluster of fur or a patch of feathers often denotes fox or wolf ate something there, but smaller cases might indicate raccoon or opossum, and sometimes either is an indication of birds-of-prey instead – it can be very tricky to tell which. Beavers and muskrats do not touch fish, being strictly vegetarian, so finding something that’s been feeding on molluscs and shellfish means raccoons and otters, most likely (I admit I’m sticking to North American species here from experience.) Beaver signs are easy to find, consisting of the obvious felled trees, but also twigs stripped of bark, especially floating or with a series of crosswise teethmarks, trees with bark stripped off up to half a meter off the ground, and of course, dams. In my area, there are virtually no lodges; instead, the beavers live in the banks, often under tree roots.

Interpreting behavior. This is actually much harder to do than it would seem, but because we tend to have a greater affinity for mammals than for birds or reptiles (or insects, imagine that,) we often fall for the trap that we know what they’re thinking, or what some particular aspect of behavior means. Yet, we may live around domesticated dogs or cats all of our lives and still not know what certain behaviors mean – we just think that we do. Virtually no animal thinks like us, or has the slightest reason to, and they all have their own particular social interactions. It’s best to simply keep very specific notes, remaining aware of all that you can, and leave the interpretations as mere speculation.

Imitation. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but many animals rely more on the behavior of other species, including us, than appearances. What this means is that behaving like a deer is actually more reassuring to a deer than looking like one. We have a wicked tendency to stop and stare when we see something, but this is actually predatory behavior, and often sends all kinds of warning signs to mammals (and birds too.) However, I have crept closer to deer and herons by imitating their behavior, especially that which sends the message that everything is cool. For herons, this was slow, lazy gazing around at the surroundings, careful steps in the shallow water, and preening behavior – yes, really; I was ducking, shrugging, and lifting my ‘wing’ to get at the ‘feathers’ on my side, and walked within 4 or 5 meters of a Great Blue Heron in Florida. For deer, this meant dipping my head low while wandering around slowly, examining the ground rather than them, and moving closer at an oblique angle rather than directly. It’s startling how well this can work, but overall, should only be attempted once you’ve already been spotted. Remaining motionless is still the best way to prevent discovery.

Stay safe! This must go hand-in-hand with the sections above. As tempting as it may be to get nice close photos, or to have that “special encounter,” most mammals can do us a great deal of damage if so inclined. From my years of doing wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, I have a scar on my shoulder from a cute little grey squirrel that someone had tried to raise as a pet, and raccoons are a species that I’ll handle only with a net. We really don’t know what behavior, what circumstances, what line, constitutes a threat to most species and invites an aggressive response, and once it occurs we’re likely in no position to deal with it. This applies even to habituated animals in parks and refuges. So the cardinal rule is, keep your distance, and always have your escape route. Don’t keep pushing your luck by seeing just how close you can get, or by believing that since nothing has happened so far, this will continue to hold true. Most especially, animals with young should be left entirely alone (as in, leave the area,) and mating season is a time to remain very discreet. If any animal is staring at you, this is a warning sign, and walking up to you is very likely not a friendly gesture, but the test to see if you’re serious about invading their territory – the charge comes next. Relying on our human ideas of behavior is almost always a bad idea. Treat everything as if it’s an alien species from another planet, with unknown abilities and responses – this is the right attitude of respect and caution.

To go along with that: Rabies is active in the mammal population across, at the least, the eastern seaboard of the US. The risks of this are often overstated, since it is no reason to avoid going out into the woods to look for mammals, but it does mean that you treat odd behavior as potentially dangerous. Most people think rabid animals are especially aggressive, but another trait of infection is the ‘dumb’ rabies, where animals are disoriented, slow, clumsy, and often spaced-out in appearance. This can give the impression of a sick or injured animal. Ditch the nurturing instincts and leave it be – call animal control as needed.

Baby mammals: On occasion, you may come across what appears to be an orphaned or abandoned mammal, and feel this necessitates intervention. Once again, contact animal control or the local wildlife authority for your area (throughout the US, each state has a wildlife commission which will generally provide better resources than the federal US Fish & Wildlife Commission can – that’s how the jurisdiction breaks down.) And do this before you even pick up the animal – there are many circumstances where you should not interfere in any way. For instance, fawns instinctively stay put, laying down in tall grass while their mother forages, and may appear abandoned when this is business as usual. Many animal parents spring off at signs of danger, hoping to draw attention away from their young, and have not abandoned them at all.

Further, raising an orphan should never be attempted without proper education, and most states require specific permits to do this legally anyway. From having been in this field, I can’t stress this enough – it’s not as easy as it seems, and this is a wretched way of indulging your nurturing instincts. Mammal diets are specialized, and their behavior patterns as adults are, to some extent, established in their childhood; other behaviors come up naturally, and thus pets cannot be created just by getting them young. Rehabilitation takes education and experience, and the concern over an animal’s life should be the very reason not to attempt this on your own, since it’s far too easy to permanently, fatally affect an infant.

I’ll say it again: Mammal observation is often hard, and all the tips in the world won’t guarantee your ability to see something. You’ll have to work at it, and use patience, but most times it’s far more rewarding when you’re successful than with other types of animals. With luck, you’ll discover a situation where you can see frequent visits and start getting a good collection of observational notes, and perhaps some pics too.

Good luck!


The Fish is back

I feel obligated to let my four readers know that the blog Weird Things has rebooted. Greg Fish took a hiatus because of time demands earlier this year, with no promises of a return. But he was kind enough to send me an e-mail last night announcing his encore, and I am happy to send people his way again. Technically, I never really stopped, because his link remained there in the blogroll, simply marked “Archive” since he had plenty of interesting posts available to work through, but now you can find new content as well.

Greg is one of those that likes to show up bloggers like me, because he made a point of having a post every damn day, missing this only through a period of illness. I’m nowhere’s near that kind of activity, but I feature more of my own illustrations (as in, nearly all of the pics you see here.) That makes up for it, right? Right?

Anyway, be sure to check it out. And, naturally, don’t miss the others in the blogroll to the right, who’ve been posting steadily while Greg took his six-month vacation ;-)

1 295 296 297 298 299 327