'stop growing food on 25% of American farmland'.
Wouldn't be the proposed solution. Regulating farm runoff, or building treatment plants along the mississippi and its tributaries(mostly the smaller tributaries with heavy agriculture on them). Though trying to get farmers to reduce their polluting is political suicide it isn't as hard as trying to shut down a large sector of agriculture.
Most farmers don't want to cause runoff because it indicates wasted fertilizer, but they don't necessarily know how to use the right amount to maximize crop yields without causing pollution.
Eliminating reproduction isn't the only reason we neuter pets. It also prevents future health problems. When left intact, roughly 80% of male dogs end up with an enlarged prostate after the age of 5. Neutered dogs are at much less likely to have this problem. Neutering also eliminates the chance of testicular cancer, which about 7% of dogs will eventually develop.
It's also a common myth that neutering makes a dog lose it's "masculinity." A male puppy's brain is permanently masculinized by testosterone at a very young age, and this doesn't go away after neutering. Neutered dogs still retain some sexual urges and are still perfectly capable of mating with a female, they just won't produce pups.
Why is it that we haven't worked on exterminating rabies yet? I don't mean why it is not done world-wide (that is unbelievably difficult) but at least in the US?
Dog rabies, which is the cause of 99% of global rabies deaths worldwide, has been virtually eradicated in the US, leaving wildlife (and the occasional domestic animal that comes into contact with it) the only remaining vectors. We do have oral vaccination programs for wildlife -- vaccinated baits are dropped from planes into areas where wildlife rabies is common. The critters eat the baits and vaccinate themselves, reducing the incidence of rabies in terrestrial mammals. But this technique can't vaccinate every animal, and it doesn't work on bats, so there will probably always be rabies in North America.
The horror of mind which he suffered was equal to a most timid lady being compelled to walk through a graveyard at midnight.
Man, this simile feels so out of place. We're talking about unspeakable horror, and he says it's equal to what a timid woman would feel when taking a spooky stroll? I know it's the 1700s, but this level of sexism is just so bizarre.
That sentence was copy-pasted from a simplified version of the account. In the original, he writes:
The horror of mind which he continually suffered, was equal to that which would be felt by a most timid lady, on being compelled to go alone at midnight into a grave yard, with an entire certainty of seeing a ghost in the most frightful form which a disordered imagination ever ascribed to a departed spirit.
Situations like this specifically are why I really wish there was a way to make certain Pokemon no longer transferable, to protect against mistakes or like in this case malicious sabotage. Something like an everstone, which could be a rare drop from pokestops you know?
Anyway you're a good brother and I am glad they allowed a further name change. I hope this bully doesn't bother your brother again.
Having the option to require a fingerprint scan to transfer Pokemon would solve this.
I've had this phobia, too, so I know how much it sucks. Since this fear, which you know is irrational, has been ruining your life for years now and is getting out of control, I strongly recommend that you make an appointment with a psychiatrist. They see this stuff all the time and can prescribe medication or therapy to help. As much as we want to, health anxiety isn't something you can just decide to "stop thinking about" because it's a real medical condition with a biological cause. After all, your brain is an organ just like any other part of your body.
I'm definitely looking into professional help if it starts to impede my productivity. So far it hasn't it's just become a hindrance in my quality of life. Like I can work, stay clean and hygienic, hang out with people and socialize normally, etc. but when I have spare time my mind usually always goes into hypochondriac mode and I start to ponder about the different "exposures" that I've had to rabies.
That's how mine is too. But why wait until it gets worse? You shouldn't have to suffer, and it might be easier to treat an anxiety disorder before it becomes debilitating.
That said, there are some things you can do on your own. Whenever I notice my mind thinking about rabies or another irrational fear, I find that it helps to distract myself with a favorite video game, movie, etc. Getting outside and taking a walk or doing other exercise can also help your mental health (Pokemon Go is a big incentive for me to get outside everyday, but YMMV). Also, make sure you get enough sleep every night -- I've noticed that if I stay up too late, my anxiety is noticably worse the next day.
The absolute worst thing to do is obsessively research rabies or seek reassurance. I know it's really tempting and a hard habit to break, but every time you ruminate on a phobia, it burns itself into your brain a little bit more. When you feel the urge to research or seek reassurance, just do something -- anything -- else until the thought passes. And remember, no matter how anxious you feel, it will pass eventually. For example, I felt the urge to research rabies this afternoon, but instead of searching about it, I managed to force myself to watch a favorite youtube video instead, and it distracted me long enough for the thought to dissipate.
I'd like to see what the "high risk" criteria are. The CDC info https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/animals/bats.html sure sounds like people can't make their own decision and self-pay for the vaccine if they're worried about, for example, bats around their home potentially biting someone without the person (maybe children) noticing.
Rabies postexposure prophylaxis is recommended for all persons with bite, scratch, or mucous membrane exposure to a bat, unless the bat is available for testing and is negative for evidence of rabies. Postexposure prophylaxis should be considered when direct contact between a human and a bat has occurred, unless the exposed person can be certain a bite, scratch, or mucous membrane exposure did not occur. . . . Postexposure prophylaxis can be considered for persons who were in the same room as a bat and who might be unaware that a bite or direct contact had occurred (e.g., a sleeping person awakens to find a bat in the room or an adult witnesses a bat in the room with a previously unattended child, mentally disabled person, or intoxicated person) and rabies cannot be ruled out by testing the bat. Postexposure prophylaxis would not be warranted for other household members.
To take an example from my own experience, I used to own a rarely used old house in a wooded area. There was a second story porch running the full length of the back of the house, facing a creek and woods. Lovely place to hang out. But there was always lots of bat guano along the floor near the wall of the house. Bats apparently really liked hanging out under the porch roof. It's very easy not to notice a bat bite made on the fly, especially in an area where there are mosquitos and biting gnats/flies that are a much more common source for a sudden sting on exposed skin. Flying bats are very hard to see in dim light. If I'd had children spending time at this house, I would have seriously considered having them vaccinated against rabies, on the assumption that they could not be relied on to distinguish between fairly frequent stinging bug bites and a bite that might really have been from a bat, nor would I have been likely to examine their skin thoroughly every 24 hours. And the CDC information treats indoor bat sightings differently from outdoor close-encounter bat sightings, even though a bat outdoors can bite just as easily as a bat indoors.
In one of the cases described in this article http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/16/health/cases-a-bat-s-swift-bite-unfelt-that-could-bring-rabies.html the woman would almost certainly not have gotten, if she hadn't happened to catch a brief glimpse of the bat before it flew out the window. She didn't think she'd been bitten, but went to a doctor as a precaution because she'd seen a bat right after feeling something brush against her skin
An incident described in the medical journal Lancet in 1997, however, shows it can happen. A woman in her bathroom in Connecticut felt something brush against her bottom, and when she turned on the light, she saw a bat hanging from the ceiling. It escaped through a window.
Even though the woman did not think she had been bitten, she called her doctor, who looked at her skin through a magnifier. He found two pinpoint punctures, about a fifth of an inch apart, probably made by the teeth or claws of a silver-haired bat.
''It's always been written that a bat could bite you without your knowing it, but it was poorly documented, and hard to believe,'' said Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr., an author of the report and a professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut health center in Farmington. Now, Dr. Feder said, there is proof that such bites can occur. He and other researchers point out that these bats' teeth and claws are tiny and so exceedingly sharp that they might puncture a person's skin without causing pain.
I just have a problem with government restricting production of, and then access to, a potentially life-saving vaccine, and not letting people make their own decisions about their risk tolerance. If someone describes a situation like my country house to their physician and says they'd feel safer having their family vaccinated, and the physician doesn't have any medical reason to say no (e.g. someone in the family having had a bad reaction to another vaccine), it's scary that the government can just say "No", citing a shortage that is the direct result of government's regulatory actions.
I just have a problem with government restricting production of, and then access to, a potentially life-saving vaccine, and not letting people make their own decisions about their risk tolerance.
The government can't and doesn't ban doctors from giving rabies vaccine to anybody, and plenty of people have chosen to pay for vaccinations even if they were at low or no risk of actual exposure. However, because the post-exposure series of rabies shots is very expensive (up to $30,000 out of pocket without insurance), because there can be adverse side effects, and because there can be shortages of it, the CDC has created guidelines to help doctors decide when it's actually appropriate to prescribe it.
The reason Human Rabies Immunoglobulin (HRIG) can be scarce isn't because of any artificial regulatory action, but because it's difficult and expensive to manufacture. It's derived from the blood of previously-vaccinated humans who have an immunity to the virus, so it's perishable. Many hospitals don't have it on-site and must order it when needed. Only two manufacturers produce HRIG for the US market, and if their production lines are ever suspended, there can be limited supplies until the problem is fixed. Right now, there are no ordering restrictions on HRIG from one manufacturer, but the other brand has had a manufacturing delay and is only available on an "as needed" basis.
I know someone who was on a hike in China who got bit by a stray dog. The clinic had rabies shots....but no clean needles.... And he was more than 24 hours away from any real hospital. He figured you could live with HIV and Hep C, but not so much with rabies. Said waiting to be able to get tested for HIV was the most stressful 6 weeks of his life. I'd do the same thing though. Rabies is no joke.
He probably would have been fine waiting 24 hours to get to a safer clinic. The CDC notes that rabies exposure is a medical urgency but not an emergency. While people should get PEP as soon as it's feasible to do so, there's no 24-hour "time limit" as is often believed, so travelers are fine if they're unable to access the vaccine or a clinic for several days. Rabies has a fairly long incubation period, and the shots are virtually 100% effective as long as they're given before symptoms start, even if the bite was days, weeks, or months ago.
Im gonna guess china?
Nope, it's the Noribetsu Bear Park in Japan, although it's worth noting that "bear pit" attractions like this still exist in the United States, too. You don't have to go to China to find bad conditions for exotic animals -- the private zoo industry in the U.S. has surprisingly few regulations, and the ones that do exist are nearly impossible to enforce. The only federal requirement is that the facility has a USDA permit and undergoes inspections, but their legal standards are the absolute bare minimum needed to keep the animal alive and contained. The only space requirements for keeping big cats, for example, is that they have enough space to stand up and turn around. This means that it's perfectly legal to house an adult tiger in a concrete cage the size of a parking space for its entire life. This, for example, is a totally legal enclosure by USDA standards. And even if federal inspectors find violations of the Animal Welfare Act, the facility usually gets by with just a warning or a small fine. It's extremely, extremely rare for bad facilities to actually be shut down by authorities because nobody wants to deal with homeless bears, big cats, etc.
No, it's from inbreeding. Down's syndrome is caused by a chromosome replication error and there's no evidence that Kenny (the tiger pictured) had any such genetic disorder. He was just inbred as hell.
Yes, this is the result of severe inbreeding, which is commonly used to produce white tigers because the genetic mutation is double-recessive. Kenny's parents were brother and sister, and his littermate, Willy, had crossed eyes (which is very common in white tigers). Both cats only lived to be about 10, just half the lifespan of a healthy captive tiger.
Sadly, tigers like Kenny and Willy are not rare. Many, many tigers like this are produced in the attempt to get a "display-quality" white tiger, but the public never sees them because they either die quickly due to medical complications or are euthanized. It's rumored that for every beautiful white tiger you see on display, anywhere from 30-60 cubs could have been destroyed.
FYI, as cool as these guys are, they are rapidly going the way of the white tiger. The king cheetah coloration is caused by a recessive gene and doesn't happen often naturally. Unfortunately, because they're so neat, zoos have begun intentionally breeding them, which is a harmful practice and we really need to make sure it doesn't get out hand, like it has with white tigers.
Yep, the AZA has issued a white paper (PDF) stating that member zoos should not intentionally breed king cheetahs (and white tigers, for that matter) for this very reason.
"Breeding practices that increase the physical expression of single rare alleles (i.e., rare genetic traits) through intentional inbreeding, for example intentional breeding to achieve rare color-morphs such as white tigers, deer, and alligators, has been clearly linked with various abnormal, debilitating, and, at times, lethal, external and internal conditions and characteristics. Many of these conditions may seriously compromise the welfare of individual animals. In addition, such breeding practices are also problematic from a population management and conservation perspective, impairing our ability to develop and maintain sustainable captive populations for the future and to deliver appropriate animal welfare and conservation education messages. Therefore such practices are not in adherence with AZA’s Board-approved Policy on the Presentation of Animals."
It's accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. It is considered a zoo, and like all AZA facilities, has to go through strict inspections and is held to very high standards.
The problem is thinking roadside zoos/"sanctuaries" and accredited zoological institutions are the same.
Yep. The shitty roadside attractions call themselves zoos and give all zoos a bad name. They often tout their USDA license, but all that means is that they're legally permitted to exhibit animals. It is not a guarantee of humane treatment. Some questionable attractions go a step further and have accreditation by the Zoological Association of America (ZAA). Not all ZAA zoos are bad, but its standards are not nearly as stringent as the AZA's, their animals aren't part of any official Species Survival Plan, and it serves mainly as a trade organization for private zoos.
Wow. Honestly I'm a little surprised people thought putting kids on a zebra was a viable idea. They aren't domesticated like horses, donkeys or mules.
Traveling petting zoos aren't always the most professional places. There are some good ones, but the industry tends to attract some shady characters and questionable practices.
There has been a proven financial link between PeTA and the Animal Liberation Front, the latter being a terrorist organization linked to arson, bombings, and murder.
In addition to this, PeTA kidnaps peoples pets and euthanize them, and their "no-kill" shelters have an over 90% euthanasia rate.
Fuck PeTA and everyone who gives them money.
I disagree with a lot of what PETA does, but lobbyist groups have spread a lot of misinformation and outright lies about them -- most of the "PETA kills animals" websites are run by Richard Berman's Center for Organizational Research and Education, formerly the "Center for Consumer Freedom," a lobbyist group for Big Ag and other industry groups. In the interest of fairness, here's the other side of the story:
There has been a proven financial link between PeTA and the Animal Liberation Front, the latter being a terrorist organization linked to arson, bombings, and murder.
As far as I can tell, the most recent direct evidence linking PETA to the ALF or related groups was from 2001. Although the FBI has extensively investigated PETA for potential links to terrorism, they were unable to find any proof of wrongdoing. They may have funded terror organizations 20 years ago, but there's little evidence that they do so now.
In addition to this, PeTA kidnaps peoples pets and euthanize them
This is a really common misconception based on one tragic mistake that happened in 2015, when some PETA employees accidentally mistook a pet chihuahua for one that had been surrendered by someone else. The organization didn't intend to euthanize the dog, the employee responsible for the incident was fired, and PETA immediately implemented new policies to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again. It should never have happened in the first place, but PETA isn't the boogeyman going around murdering pets on purpose.
their "no-kill" shelters have an over 90% euthanasia rate.
Partially true. PETA's shelter does have a very high euthanasia rate, but this is because they generally refer adoptable animals to other shelters while humanely euthanizing severely injured or sick animals that can't be fixed. They never claimed to be "no-kill" and actually disagree with the idea of no-kill policies because they believe that it leads to unwanted animals being dumped elsewhere once the shelters reach capacity, and that it's kinder to humanely euthanize unadoptable animals than to warehouse them in a shelter for the rest of their lives.
The problem is PETA has been known to misrepresent situations which ended up costing state funds.
The most famous case occurred during a recent dog-themed film where they edited a video to misrepresent a dog as being abused on set. The reality is the longer video showed the dog to be completely fine and not being harmed or forced.
PETA doesn't get to be given credit for helping the state save money when they themselves committed fraud which resulted in a waste of investigatory funds.
They are a problem, not a solution.
They are a problem, not a solution.
In some cases, sure. But IMO, just because they've done stupid or questionable things in the past doesn't automatically mean that everything they do is sinister. I prefer to evaluate things on their own merits. If they can get a shitty roadside zoo shut down, I'm not going to complain about it.
And BTW, PETA didn't edit that dog video, they simply reacted to it. It was sent to them by an anonymous "whistleblower" completely unknown to them -- they even offered a $5000 reward in an attempt to find the person and get more information. Yes, they probably overreacted and should have verified the video before making a judgment, but in this case, I think it was a well-meaning mistake, not intentional fraud. And American Humane, who claims to have "confirmed" that no abuse happened, isn't exactly an impartial group either, as its run by the film industry it claims to oversee. Issues like this are complicated!
It’s a wild animal you can’t register it as a service animal. If the local game warden finds a too friendly deer they will put it down.
Yep, and this seems like a good time to mention that it's against the law in the US to raise or keep a wild animal without a permit from your state.
They may not have to do that for much longer, since now we have technology that can determine the chick's gender before it hatches. So instead of cruelly killing the male chicks, the eggs can just be diverted and used for other things before they even hatch.
I'm wondering if they tend to be this friendly, and if that's where the idea for Pepe LePew came from.
It's not normal behavior for a wild skunk to approach humans. Sometimes they become habituated to people, especially if food is left out, but another possibility that should be considered is rabies.
Skunks are huge rabies vectors in some regions, and abnormally "friendly" behavior is one clue that a skunk may be rabid (it's a myth that all rabid animals are aggressive or foaming; the disease can also make an animal act friendly towards humans, and a healthy-looking skunk may be able to transmit rabies before showing symptoms). If a skunk is out and about during the day, that's another red flag.
Here in Pennsylvania, we had a case recently where a skunk walked up to some people and rubbed against their legs like a friendly cat, before suddenly biting them. The skunk was killed and tested positive for rabies. (The humans received post-exposure vaccinations and are fine.)
Not all skunks are rabid, but it is a legitimate risk that should be considered. Stench aside, never try to handle or rescue a wild skunk, and if one bites you, seek medical attention immediately.
It's probably bullshit. It's an animatronic. You can put whatever "skin" on top of it you want, there's no need to start making a "Hillary"one and then switch to a "Trump" one. And there's no need to start making the skin all that fast. Besides, Disney's had this display going for decades now. You think they've never seen a close race or unexpected winner before? Until I see a leaked memo from Disney all this is to me is a case of people seeing what they want to see.
For you to own a tiger you need to pass a very long background check, this has helped the tiger population grow instead of declining
This isn't true -- it's surprisingly easy to buy a tiger in the United States.
Exotic animal ownership requirements vary by state, and there are still quite a few states which have no regulation at all, meaning that anyone can theoretically buy a tiger on a whim. There are still some states where it's easier to buy a big cat than to adopt a dog from a shelter. Private tiger owners are exempt from federal permits and inspections, which are only required for people who want to exhibit their animals. Many states do require permits to own a tiger, but these permits aren't always difficult to get -- in many cases, the prospective owner just has to pay a small fee, and the permit is issued.
As for your second point, although a lot of private owners/breeders claim that their backyard menagerie helps conserve tigers, conservation isn't just about having animals warehoused in cages. Captive breeding programs can and do save species in the wild, but only when carefully managed for healthy genetics, and most private owners and unaccredited facilities don't do this. The vast majority of privately-owned tigers are hybrids of the Bengal and Siberian subspecies (which would never occur in the wild), are inbred, or of unknown ancestry, making them virtually useless for legitimate conservation programs. In fact, conservationists fear that the private ownership of tigers may pose a threat to their wild counterparts, because unwanted tigers in the US occasionally end up slaughtered and sold for their parts, propping up the illegal black market for these products. It's not just about having a lot of tigers, you have to have the right tigers in the right places. It's like the difference between a responsible dog breeder and a puppy mill.
'I ahm bi-sekshual.'
Seriously, how did ye not make this man president?
EDIT: it's been a while. Misremembered his orientation. He's even better than I remember though. <3
His craziness would almost be endearing if he wasn't so cruel to his animals. The man had 23 tiger cubs die at his shitty zoo in one year and has been videotaped physically abusing them. He's one of those people who thinks it's his "right" to do whatever he wants with animals, welfare laws be damned.