Anyone can enjoy a reptile trade show

I took my grandson to the Repticon Reptile and Exotic Animal Convention in Columbia, S.C., last month. Herpetoculturists (people who keep reptiles and amphibians for pets) gather at Repticon extravaganzas in different cities to trade, sell or simply display their animals. You can buy a ticket just to look around, with no intent to buy. That's what we did, and it's a bargain for anyone wanting to entertain kids (or adults) interested in snakes and lizards.

Our initial animal encounter was not with reptiles, but mammals. Not monkeys swinging from branches or lions lounging in an African savanna. Oh no. We saw mice and rats. Hundreds of them. Some wriggling, just-born pinkies; others full grown with waving whiskers. Most were part of a neatly packaged frozen food section. We moved on, not needing to ask why people with pet snakes might want a mouse or six.

Our first face-to-face with a reptile was an enormous monitor lizard walking around on a leash. At least 5 feet long from nose to tail tip, it was taking its stroll alongside a sign that read Photo of You and the Dragon. $5.00. A bargain to be sure, but not one we succumbed to, although my grandson got to pat the big lizard for free.


Over the next hour we saw hundreds of other lizards, including venomous Gila monsters and the easy-to-care-for bearded dragon lizards kept by many herpetoculturists. Snakes came in all sizes from baby king and garter snakes to boas, pythons and anacondas. A few token amphibians, such as poison dart frogs and fire-bellied newts, were interspersed here and there. All of the animals being sold were bred and raised in captivity. Corn snakes took the prize for displays of the most bizarre color patterns of any snake. Corn snakes are a native species already beautiful in their natural colors of blotched red, orange, white and black. At the Repticon they came in designer snake patterns ranging from pigment variations of solid white, solid red and solid orange to blotched pink, lavender, yellow and everything in between. Looking at a table with little plastic containers of baby corn snakes was like gazing at a kaleidoscope of coiled serpents.

Events like Repticon serve a useful purpose in fulfilling the desire many people have to possess and care for a pet snake, lizard, turtle, salamander or frog. Such a longing might seem peculiar to some people. To me it's no odder than acquaintances I have known over the years who collect ball caps, matchbooks or thimbles. Reptile enthusiasts are worldwide and most are well meaning.

As with all professions, a few individuals engaged in the business break the law. Unscrupulous pet trade dealers sell illegal commodities, in this case wildlife. Many of these are simply greedy, having little interest in the reptiles themselves beyond their commercial value. But a valid reptile trade show, one in which the animals for sale are truly ones born and bred in captivity, often by private individuals who enjoy the challenge, helps reduce the collection and commercialization of animals from the wild. With legitimate captive-raised reptiles and amphibians, people have an opportunity to try their hand at keeping an unusual pet that is easy to maintain. If properly cared for, most carry virtually no diseases that are transmittable to humans. With a little education, anyone can learn the proper techniques and how to pick out the best animal for their personal situation. As we made the rounds past exhibits, I explained to my grandson that none of them were suitable for our personal situation.

To find out when a Repticon show might be coming to your neighborhood, check out their events calendar at www.repticon.com. The next one is July 9 and 10 in Atlanta. Even if you are a thimble collector or model ship enthusiast, rather than a herpetoculturist, you should find it fascinating. And you won't have to spend any time making decisions about what to get at the food locker that greets you when you walk in.

Why does a female antelope have horns?

Who would turn down an opportunity to read a journal called Gnusletter, a publication of the Antelope Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature? Gnu is the African name for wildebeest, from the rather unimaginative Dutch name meaning "wild beast." Gnus are one of the 140 species in the true antelope family, the Bovidae.

Antelopes are distinguished from other hoofed animals such as deer, pigs, and horses by having unbranched horns. Ironically, the American bison, aka buffalo, is in the family of "true antelopes" whereas the pronghorn antelope of the American Southwest is not. Familiar members of the antelope family are sheep, goats, and cattle. Most people have also heard of African gazelles and impalas, as well as muskoxen of Arctic tundra regions. The size range within the family is impressive. Cattle known as gaur, of Southeast Asia, are the largest, reaching a shoulder height of nearly 7 feet and weighing more than a ton. The tiniest are African royal antelopes, which are about the size of a 6-pound house cat.

According to the ASG, Gnusletter "is intended as a medium of communication on issues that concern the management and conservation of antelopes both in the wild and in captivity." Since the Gnusletter's inception in 1982, 65 issues have been published, with a primary focus on threatened and endangered antelope species of Africa and Asia. In addition to reports on the status of different species, the publication allows ASG members and others "to communicate their experiences, ideas, and perceptions freely, so that the conservation of antelopes can benefit."


A recent issue of Gnusletter reported on the status of various species, such as the decline of sable antelopes in their natural range in Kenya and the increase in population size of the Tibetan antelope in China. The most intriguing article was written by Richard D. Estes, an expert on African mammals and the founder of Gnusletter. The article is a well-written rebuttal to a published hypothesis that the horns on females evolved as weapons against predators, which at first glance seems like a reasonable assumption.

Estes' account covers wide-ranging behavioral literature about animals with horns and considers extensive biological and evolutionary nuances. But his basic premise is that when females of species in the antelope family have horns, they did not evolve for purposes of defense for themselves or their offspring. Most antelopes use their speed to escape predators rather than staying to fight them. Even males of most horned species of antelope and deer use their horns for male-male combat rather than predator defense. Estes maintains that when both sexes have horns, it reduces "male despotic competition toward developing males." The behavioral concepts involved are complex, but the essence is that adult males tend to attack young males and drive them away. But dominant males are less likely to be provoked into attacking a young male if it looks and acts similar to young females, including both having horns. If juvenile males are not driven away, they can stay for a longer period with their mothers and have the benefits of herd protection. Once young males leave a herd, their horns continue growing and they assume distinctively male behavior patterns; the same is not true of females.

Estes explained how his hypothesis could be tested in the wild by studies among species to determine when young males leave female herds and what the survival rate is of offspring of horned and hornless females. His rationale for not conducting the field studies himself was sensible--"both on account of my advanced age (83) and on the labor of writing a book on the behavioral ecology of the Serengeti wildebeest population." He invites "any antelope specialist or other biologist" who wants to pursue such a study to contact him via email.

I am looking forward to reading a book on the Serengeti wildebeest, aka gnu, for which Richard Estes has provided insights and suggestions. He clearly knows more about antelopes than anyone else in the world.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

The secret to saving sea turtles

I recently read this statement in a book: "We no longer have the luxury of eating sea turtles and their eggs, of making jewelry out of their shells and leather out of their skin." According to the author, too many humans populate the earth for sea turtles to ever again be harvested in a sustainable fashion.

The plight of the seven species of sea turtles alive in the world today is set forth by James R. Spotila in a 216-page book, "Saving Sea Turtles" (2011, Johns Hopkins University Press). The book's subtitle is "Extraordinary Stories from the Battle against Extinction." Spotila provides accounts of various environmental threats sea turtles have faced. Myriad problems that threaten the very survival of individual turtles and some species can be attributed to humans, including poachers, developers and politicians. Many of Spotila's stories relate how other humans, including conservation biologists, sea turtle ecologists and politicians, have intervened to save these magnificent creatures of the sea from destruction.

Spotila writes in an easy, highly readable style, without the flowery emotional flourishes that some sea turtle enthusiasts resort to. He lets the facts tell the story. The book is well organized, with the first chapter addressing the status of sea turtles in the modern world and pointing out the contemporary problems they face. He identifies the challenge that every sea turtle faces from the outset--to successfully hatch from an egg laid on a beach. In one part of the first chapter he focuses on turtle egg poachers. He refers to the poachers as people with "an undersized heart." Poachers will steal eggs right out of a nest on the beach where a turtle biologist is doing a study. This practice is no longer an "I need food for my family" operation; it is commerce. For example, the author caught a poacher one night in Costa Rica with almost 500 sea turtle eggs. "Guess he had a big family," Spotila says.


The second chapter, "Life in the Egg: Buried Alive under Two Feet of Sand," goes through the vital steps of how an embryo develops within the egg until it hatches. The book explains the importance of temperature in determining the sex of a baby turtle and what besides small-hearted poachers are threats to nests. The remaining chapters are in life cycle order, from hatchlings racing to the sea, to life as a juvenile turtle, to the adult female returning to a beach to nest.

Much of the book uses examples of leatherback sea turtles, the largest turtles in the world and the species Jim Spotila has fought tirelessly to save from annihilation. These giants are so large that if one were stood on end in a normal-size room, the turtle's head would poke through the ceiling. These enormous turtles have been known to travel into the ice-cold waters of polar seas, indicating that they can survive at least short periods of freezing weather. They may then travel to the equator and nest on a tropical beach. The hazards they face - from an egg on a beach where people and predators roam, to a hatchling swimming past sharks in an ocean, to a nesting female trying to find a safe beach to crawl onto - are many. But the primary threat to all sea turtles are not natural conditions around the world that the species have successfully navigated through for millions of years. The principal threat comes from people, as detailed many times in this book.

The stories capture the essence of how dedicated people must be involved to carry out a sustainable effort to conserve this identifiable group of species. By writing a book about what is involved in saving sea turtles, Jim Spotila has augmented his own already substantial efforts by helping keep the conservation process alive. Sea turtles may never be a sustainable resource that can be harvested, but the author shows that with the right attitudes we can at least ensure they will be around for us to enjoy for decades to come.

What do we know about Pirate Perches?

Jack Sparrow is certainly the most unusual pirate on the scene these days, but I recently encountered a different sort of pirate with its own intrigue. I caught two little fish in a flooded area of some nearby woods and recognized them as pirate perch. Knowing the name of a plant or animal is the first step in identifying it; knowing someone who can tell you about its lifestyle, its behavior and other interesting facts is the next step.

I caught the fish in a minnow trap, a small wire mesh cylinder with inward-pointing funnels at both ends. My grandson and I had placed some in a shallow woodland pool alongside a swampy area. We also caught other captivating creatures, including leopard frog tadpoles and some seldom-seen aquatic salamanders called sirens. We brought the fish home in a plastic sandwich bag filled with swamp water and I took them to a colleague who is an ichthyologist to confirm their identity and to find out more about their biology. Dean Fletcher, a research scientist at the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, probably knows more about pirate perches than any other living person, whether angler or fisheries biologist. The coauthor of a book on freshwater fishes, he has written one of the few modern scientific papers on pirate perches.

The pirate perch, a freshwater fish but not a true perch, is the only living species in its family. It is common and widely distributed along the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains and up the Mississippi River Valley to the Great Lakes. But most people, even seasoned anglers, are not likely to see one. Adults are usually less than 4 inches long and are primarily nocturnal. In addition, not many people fish in small tributary streams, in weedy waters thick with root masses or in the floodplain swamps of larger rivers.


A bizarre biological trait of pirate perches involves the adult anatomy. As with other fishes, reproductive products (eggs and sperm) and body wastes are released through the vent, which is usually situated under the body near the tail. The vent is in this location in juvenile pirate perches. But as a pirate perch approaches adulthood, something strange happens. The opening gradually migrates along the underside of the fish until it is positioned under the throat, just behind the gills.

Fish biologists have speculated on the function of this odd placement of the vent since it was first described in 1824. As the scientific paper by Dean Fletcher and his colleagues says, "We solve[d] the conundrum through a combination of intensive field investigations, underwater filming, and molecular parentage analysis." In other words they studied the fish extensively in its murky habitat, filmed its behavior and used DNA analyses to see who the parents were of various offspring. Their discoveries were made in the cool waters of late winter and early spring when pirate perch begin spawning.

Through the use of modern technology, laboratory genetics and plain old-fashioned behavioral observations in the field, the scientists revealed why a fish would have a vent located in the front of the body instead of toward the back. They documented for the first time that the female actually thrusts her head into a tangled root mass and lays her eggs, a behavior unconfirmed for any other North American fish. The male quickly follows suit, putting his head into the same opening in the roots and depositing sperm to fertilize the eggs. The DNA analyses confirmed that particular offspring indeed had the parents predicted based on the mating observations.

My grandson and I released the two fish we had caught, still in good condition, back into their wetland home. Let's hope they find the right root masses to produce their young, leading to future generations of this unusual little fish. And why are they called "pirate" perch? If you put one in your home aquarium, it will apparently have no qualms about attacking smaller fish--to eat them, of course, not to take their money and jewels.

Looking at walls can be environmentally interesting

Aside from the mountains, any place within 300 miles of where I live reached temperatures approaching 100 degrees last week. During such hot weather, nature-watching can be disappointing at midday. Birds are less active. Turtles stop basking on logs. Lizards retreat to shady out-of-sight spots. Amphibians have gone underground. While contemplating that truth, I remembered a long-ago column about a habitat that will always yield some life to observe.

The habitat is in my backyard and everyone's neighborhood. It is a habitat we see daily but seldom think of in ecological terms. I am referring to walls. Yes, walls. Like the sides of houses and sheds or a fence around a garden. Walls make up a significant portion of the world's terrestrial habitats. Arnold Darlington, in his 1981 book titled "Ecology of Walls," claims that walls comprise more than 10 percent of the area habitable by plants and animals in a city.

Many factors affect the extent and composition of species inhabiting walls, including the degree of inclination. Horizontal walls have shelf space and are more likely to collect dirt and debris where seeds can root. Compass direction could matter for some species. Moss is more likely to grow on the shadiest side of a wall. The material, porosity, and composition of the wall, the climate of the region, and the history of human alteration are also major influences on what is found living on a particular wall.


One influential factor determining the vegetative character is the age of the wall itself. Algae and lichens are usually the first pioneers to become established. According to Darlington, vines rooted at the base produce the best "mural" vegetation on walls that are more than 150 years old, such as at the Ivy League schools. When walls get several centuries old and are left unattended, as with 2000 year old walls built by the Romans in many parts of Europe, they become badly decomposed. Then shrubs and trees are more likely to grow from the wall ruins. Once a wall has structure in the form of vines or other plants, or as a result of crevices, animals begin to take up residence.

The ecological perspective of walls offers some new and intriguing prospects. School projects come to mind. I once suggested that wall ecology would make ideal science fair projects. The hypothesis would relate to biodiversity and be stated something like: plants and animals will live on any available space if given enough time, even on a vertical wall. Included would be fences, concrete incinerators, and even the sides of trees, which are natural walls. Questions can be posed and answered. Do wood, brick and concrete walls in an area differ in the number and kinds of plant and animal inhabitants? Does a shaded wall have more organisms than a sunny wall? How important are the wall's age, height or position relative to ground vegetation in determining what grows on the wall?

One feature of a science fair project involving the ecology of walls that will appeal to some students is that there will be plenty of time to procrastinate. A wall ecology project could be completed one or two weeks before it is due, maybe in a day under desperate conditions. But imagine the data set a student who starts now could accumulate through summer and into fall to make the point that walls are important to the biodiversity of an area.

Examining walls around your home can even be a way to entertain yourself or children by observing the world from a different perspective. See how many different kinds of plants and animals you can find on walls in your neighborhood. It was too hot during my wall search last week to expect to find animals, but upon reflection, I realized some of my previous observations of lizards and snakes crawling, bats and treefrogs sleeping, and birds building nests had been activities that occurred on some sort of wall. Walls are much more interesting ecologically than most people would think.

Do Giant Salamanders Really Exist?

By my calculation, if all the salamanders Tom Luhring caught during his research project for his master's degree from the University of Georgia were laid end to end, they would be longer than three football fields. That has to be a world record. 

Tom, who is now a doctoral student at the University of Missouri, conducted his research at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory in South Carolina on a group of amphibians known as the giant salamanders. These secretive creatures inhabit swamps and lowlands, spending their entire lives in the mud and waters of places where few people ever go. His studies of one species, the greater siren, have revealed more about their population ecology, movement patterns and behavior than had ever been known before. The species, which has been known to science for more than two centuries, is one of the heaviest salamanders in the Western Hemisphere. Yet little was known of certain aspects of its biology before Tom's research.

The largest salamanders in North America are aquatic species that live in the East. The greater siren reaches lengths of more than three feet. Another giant salamander of the Southeast, the amphiuma, has a record length of almost four feet. Like sirens, amphiumas are seldom seen by people despite their large size. That their scientific name (Amphiuma) is used as their common name in most places is indicative of their rarity, although they are called lamper eels or Congo eels in some regions.

Two other salamanders, the hellbender and the mudpuppy, or waterdog, also qualify as giants, although neither gets as long as the biggest amphiumas and sirens. The mudpuppy, reaching a length of a foot and a half, is primarily a northern species, found in lakes, ponds and rivers. Hellbenders are bulky creatures that can reach two and half feet long. They live in cold mountain streams and rivers from Alabama to New York. The world's largest salamander, from Japan, is closely related to the hellbender; it can be more than five feet long.

Sirens and amphiumas, despite their enormous size relative to other amphibians, have minuscule legs with toes. An amphiuma more than a yard in length will have legs less than an inch long and no thicker than a toothpick. Amphiumas and sirens are short-legged, dark-colored, slippery creatures, but distinguishing one from the other is easy: sirens have only two of the seemingly useless legs, whereas amphiumas have four. In addition, sirens have external, visible gills; amphiumas have an opening alongside the head that leads to internal gills.

Sirens and amphiumas are slimy animals that seldom leave the water; they would soon dehydrate if left on dry ground. But both live in aquatic habitats that can dry up completely during long-term droughts. What do great big water-dwelling salamanders do then? First, as their lake home dries up, they burrow into the remaining mud. Then they secrete a slimy body covering, which hardens into a cocoon that can keep them moist for a few months to more than a year. When the rains return and the cocoon is exposed to water, the siren or amphiuma emerges to begin feeding on aquatic insects and other invertebrates that have also survived the drought.

Sirens and amphiumas kept in aquariums as pets have been known to live for decades, but no one knows how long they can live in the wild. Their courtship and mating behavior are also still a mystery, even for specimens kept in captivity. Amphibian biologists are not sure how closely related sirens are to other salamanders, and some even argue that sirens are not salamanders at all, but some other type of amphibian. 

America's giant salamanders bring to the fore two ecological insights. One, scientists know relatively little about the biology of some of the largest animals in our midst, which means we still have much to learn about the world around us. Second is the realization that some of our local creatures are as fascinating in their own way as any exotic species with a starring role in a nature show. 

Invaders make life interesting

Two disturbing types of invasions have occurred along the Mississippi River in recent times. Unstoppable, ever-rising floodwaters that are invading a region and know no master will always catch our attention. Residents over thousands of square miles of floodplain have been at the water's mercy. Once a flood is recognized as becoming a problem it is often too late to take effective action.

Let's hope that being too late does not apply to another type of invader to the region, one of an entirely different nature. I saw a disquieting photo awhile back of a man in Mississippi holding an ugly-faced, meat-eating piranha, a native of the Amazon Basin. The fish is known from tales about "man-eating" attack behavior on cattle, horses and humans in the water. Although some of the stories are overstated, this fish and most others are not something we want to become established as invasive species in any rivers or lakes outside their native range.

An invasive species is one brought to a region, usually from another continent, that successfully establishes itself. A piranha in a river in North America means somebody inappropriately released an aquarium pet into a waterway. As far as I know, piranhas have not become established in any U.S. aquatic system. But should they do so, a potential man-eating fish in our midst would quickly get our attention.

Pleas are made daily to federal and state governments to set controls on one invasive threat or another. But like a rising river, it may be too late to stop the flood. New introduced species enter our country and others every day. Transportation on a global scale is universal by land, air and sea. Regulations have been set for importing some plants and animals, but considering the traffic overload, the controls and enforcement are minimal.

One fact about invasive species is that few generalizations can be made about what will determine the success or failure of any particular species. The findings of scientists can be contradictory. For example, three separate research studies of invasive plants in Great Britain identified certain seed characteristics that were in common to successful invaders. However, one study revealed that having large seeds made a plant more likely to be successful. Another study found that small seeds were the key to success. The third study concluded that seed size did not matter. So much for making predictions about which exotic plants will be most likely to populate England.

Another confusing example from scientific study of invasive species is that of the Brazilian pepper tree, a plant in the same family as poison ivy and poison sumac. The tree has become a major pest in southern Florida because it outcompetes native trees and supplants most varieties. According to one authority, Floridians had kept Brazilian pepper trees as ornamental plants for decades with no problems. Then suddenly in the 1980s they began to grow wild and create environmental havoc. No one had any idea in advance that they might become a problem. The ecological paradox is that scientists remain uncertain about whether any guiding ecological principles can be applied to predicting whether an introduced species will become a dominant and invasive part of the landscape or simply disappear.

Major laws and regulations have been proposed about how we should deal with the present-day pervasiveness of introduced species. The solutions make politicians uneasy and biologists do not always agree on what they are. But if we do not do something, many environments will be changed in ways that are unquestionably negative from most perspectives.

Anyone living alongside a flooding river is unhappy about the situation. Even before floodwaters subside, people vow to become more vigilant about future flood control measures and about rebuilding. Being invaded by river floodwaters is a process with an ending; the water will eventually go away. The problem with many invasive species is that they never will. We need to be alert for the first signs that a new one is about to invade; we certainly don't want to find that flooded waters are transporting something like piranhas into new neighborhoods.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.

How do floods and tornados affect wildlife?

The funnel of fury that passed through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in late April left thousands of people reeling with personal losses of property, pets, and even lives. The terrifying tornado destroyed homes, businesses, and entire communities. A different environmental tragedy struck the Midwest as record-breaking floods breached levees of the country's mightiest rivers. Floods and tornados can be devastating from a human perspective, and people must be our first and foremost concern. But some have asked, how do such natural disasters affect native wildlife?

The answer is simple. The overall impact on natural ecosystems and wildlife communities is minimal in the long run. Although the local impacts of two-story high flooding or 200-mph winds are evident immediately, all species native to an area had ancestors that were able to weather similar extremes of wind and water. With us today are the species that have persisted because former generations faced similar weather phenomena and survived.


Although temporarily gone from wind-ravaged or flooded areas, birds and other animals will soon return. Native trees that have disappeared will soon be replaced by seedlings of the same species. Although of small consolation to a homeless family or the owner of lost or damaged property, no native species of plant or animal will be lost because of tornados or floods.

We do not perceive wildlife as suffering the devastating effects from floods and tornados in the same way as people because we measure impacts differently for wild animals than we do for ourselves. With people, and even with our pets, we empathize with each individual who suffers. We have all seen photos or videos of someone stranded atop a house in the floodplain of a swollen river, people examining a pile of wood, metal, and paper that was once their home, or police searching for a missing person beneath a collapsed building. Even the rescue of a pet can make national news. And most people relate personally and with empathy to each incident.

In contrast, with wild animals we hear a few stories of the plight of individuals, but for the most part we focus on how a population or the species itself fared. Wrens and robins unquestionably were killed or displaced from many local communities in Alabama by tornados. But no species of bird was irreparably impaired. Other individuals of each species will eventually return, emigrating from surrounding unaffected areas.

On another scale, few animals have "personal property" that can be lost in a tornado or flood. All a coon or turtle has to do is survive. Their home is where they choose to be at any particular moment. One group of animals with structural assets are birds with nests, and indeed this spring's natural disasters have eliminated many a family of bird. But birds are resilient. In the long run, more nests will be built and more eggs will be laid, eventually even in what are now destroyed habitats. Among other property losses by wildlife, beavers lose dams and lodges due to powerful flooding. But in the nature of beavers, they simply set about repairing the damage as soon as water levels decline, and their life goes on.

Despite the worst weather-related natural disasters the world can offer--floods and tornados, as well as hurricanes, droughts, and forest fires--the ancestors of all our native wildlife evolved to deal with them. None of these phenomena ultimately affect healthy populations of wildlife. And of course no wildlife affect the weather.

But humans are different. Personal lives can be permanently altered by the vagaries of weather. And we are different in another way in that we influence some natural disasters. Damage from some floods can be attributed to the configuration and structural integrity of levees, dikes. and dams. We are responsible for some out-of-control forest fires because we have suppressed natural burning patterns. Are we also responsible for dramatic climate changes brought about by carbon dioxide emissions emanating from industrial countries like ours? The wildlife doesn't care, but should we?

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Antiques and biodiversity, a solution to ‘spousal entrapment‘

An ecologist friend recently asked for advice about how to deal with a situation involving his wife. He said he knew I had once faced the same problem and he hoped I would have some helpful suggestions for him. Imagine my disquiet as I waited to hear what kind of marital difficulty he thought I might provide a solution for. Turns out his wife wanted him to go with her to visit several antique stores--and I did have a solution. Several years ago, I had even written a column about how I solved the problem now facing my friend.

Here is how I dealt with having to accompany my wife on a two-day expedition to explore antique stores: I conducted an ecological study of biodiversity in the wilds of the antique shop habitat. The biodiversity I found in the 21 antique stores we visited was astonishing.


Feeling a bit like Walter Mitty, I decided to approach the study in the spirit of an ecologist beginning a species survey and environmental assessment. For each store, which I defined as a "habitat," the objective was to determine the kinds and abundance of species and to identify the factors responsible for their presence or absence. Within the first 15 minutes of wandering around, I had recorded on my survey list a dozen Indian elephants, an American armadillo, and an African hippopotamus.

Several parallels exist between examining biodiversity in antique shops and examining it in natural habitats. Both locales have features that can influence how many species occupy them. Size of the store/habitat can be important, as can a variety of intrinsic features. For example, simple ecosystems like caves and small islands ordinarily have lower biodiversity than more complex habitats such as tropical rain forests or southeastern wetlands. Likewise, antique stores can be simple environments that specialize in a single type of merchandise, such as Victorian furniture or Oriental vases. A store that sells china, furniture, silverware, clocks, and estate jewelry from a variety of cultures and eras is obviously more complex.

Indeed, the greater the diversity of items, cultures, and time periods represented in a store, the higher the diversity of plant and animal species present. One store specialized in place settings produced in China from 1760 to 1910 designed to be exported. The rose medallion pattern characteristically had colorful butterflies and birds and pink peonies. I found a dragonfly on one, and on a similar style known as mandarin I found bats and a lotus plant. But aside from these specimens, along with a few more kinds of flowers I could not identify, that was pretty much it. Low biodiversity.

Meanwhile, at a much bigger store that looked like it held the loot from a pirate ship that had been engaged in global plundering for five centuries, the biodiversity was overwhelming. Among the wild animals popping up everywhere--on furniture, plates, brass door knockers--were owls, monkeys, foxes, storks, frogs, beetles, bears, lions (lots of lions), parrots, and turtles. Rare sightings were made of snails, zebras, lizards, and cobras. Domestic species included numerous dogs and horses, occasional donkeys, ducks, and cats, even a few pigs. A botanist could probably have categorized the plant families represented. I identified ivy, grapevines, lilies, and legumes. The ecological message in all this is that wildlife is woven deeply into the artistry of many forms of antiques, with certain ones being closely associated with specific times in history.

One mystery emerged. After looking at more than 50 chandeliers, I had found only a single grapevine twining around one, plus butterflies and birds associated with another. Perhaps this was sampling bias of some sort, but the chandeliers seemed to represent a broad array of vintages, yet a sterile habitat without the life that pervades so many other art forms.

My friend agreed a biodiversity quest would be one way to endure the trip and accepted the challenge of learning more about antique store environments. On his expedition he plans to specialize in chandeliers.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Who got the Wild South Conservation award?

Wild South is a nonprofit grassroots organization based in Asheville, N.C. As the name suggests, its focus is on natural habitats in the South, wild ones at that. In fact, its mission is "to inspire people to protect the wild character and natural legacy of the South."

This year Wild South's Roosevelt-Ashe Society Conservation Award for Outstanding Journalist in Conservation was given to someone who is most deserving at many levels. I am especially pleased that the recipient of the award is someone I have written about twice in the last decade as a protector of the environment: John Wathen of Tuscaloosa, Ala. 

The namesakes for the Roosevelt-Ashe conservation awards are Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, and W. W. Ashe, a botanist at the University of North Carolina in the early 1900s. Both were ahead of their time in the contributions they made to forest conservation. The Roosevelt-Ashe awards are given in eight different conservation categories, including the one for outstanding journalist. 

Wathen received the award for his outstanding research and public media communications regarding the environmental situation following the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although that endeavor was somewhat different from those I wrote about in earlier columns, in some ways John's award-winning work in the Gulf was simply an extension of his longstanding environmental efforts 200 miles upstream from Mobile Bay, where a small tributary, Hurricane Creek, enters the Black Warrior River on its way to the Gulf of Mexico.

John Wathen has done a commendable job of putting Hurricane Creek center stage and then shining a spotlight on it. A video on the Friends of Hurricane Creek website (www.hurricane-creek.org) shows him in a canoe with his dog Smokey Joe as they travel along the beautiful creek, "the crown jewel of Alabama." His environmental message comes through loud and clear, with no mistaking whom he views as perpetrators of habitat destruction and degradation. "As you head downstream, you paddle through steep canyons and high rock bluffs with spires that extend along the banks. As beautiful as they are, it's unfortunate that a lot of these rock bluffs have been undermined for the coal and [then] . . . abandoned." He goes on to say, "There's still a great deal of active strip mining in the watershed tearing down our mountains and pushing the rubble over into the valleys. . . . Our streams look like bleeding messes."

As John Wathen, says, our natural streams "are not just industrial waste conduits. They are the life and blood of the earth, and they must be protected at all cost." He does not indict just the coal mining industry for irresponsible environmental behavior. On the video he notes that "as bad as the coal mines are for the watershed, there's more trouble downstream." Here he transfers blame to the Alabama Department of Transportation, which he says is "known as the single largest contributor of sediment to the state's waterways."

Paddling along the part of the creek known as the M-bend, he points out that ALDOT is trying "to put a four-lane bridge through this section of the creek where I am . . . now." "This section" of the creek is a stretch of unsurpassed beauty that will never be the same if bridge construction is allowed to go forward. John believes that construction sediment in public waterways, bridges that spoil extraordinarily beautiful sites, and other destructive environmental practices are unacceptable. Perhaps his efforts will eventually inspire a public outcry loudly and vehemently protesting the ruin of that portion of their natural heritage.

"This land," as Woody Guthrie reminds us, "belongs to you and me." Our natural habitats do indeed belong to the people - to you and me. Organizations such as Wild South work to instill "a reverence for our public lands and the native natural life they support." I applaud individuals like John Wathen, people who are committed to realizing that vision, and organizations like Wild South that give such people the recognition they deserve.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

What are pit vipers?

Last week I answered a question about coral snakes. The following addresses the major group of venomous snakes found in the South - pit vipers.

The Southeast has five species of pit vipers. All five - three kinds of rattlesnakes plus the copperhead and cottonmouth - are found in parts of every coastal state from Louisiana to North Carolina. Each species is distinctive in behavior, habitat, and venom capabilities, but all have one common characteristic, a heat-sensitive pit located on the side of the head between the eye and the nostril. A pit viper uses the pit in total darkness to detect the presence of warm-blooded prey such as mice or rats and to strike that prey with unerring accuracy.

The pit viper that typically bites the most Americans every year is the copperhead. That's the bad news. The good news is that copperheads have one of the mildest venoms, being determined in one study to be only 1/10th as potent drop for drop as that of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. As far as I am aware, despite bites by copperheads to hundreds of people over the years, no one has died from the bite of a wild copperhead. Although a copperhead bite usually causes minimal damage to the victim, a trip to the hospital or doctor's office is still advisable.

Copperheads are quite abundant in some localities. However, their presence often goes unnoticed because of body coloration. Dark brown crossbands on a lighter brown background provide very effective camouflage when the snake is coiled on a ground cover of fallen leaves. At least two harmless snakes, banded watersnakes and corn snakes, are often mistaken for copperheads because of similar banding and coloration, but only copperheads have crossbands that resemble the shape of an hour-glass. Copperheads are common in the mountains and also in many coastal areas, but they can show up anywhere within their extensive geographic range in the eastern United States. Interestingly, the species is absent from all of the Florida peninsula and most of the panhandle.

The cottonmouth is the copperhead's closest relative and by far the most common venomous U.S. snake associated with water. The bite of a cottonmouth can be serious, but the snake's aggressiveness is overrated. Many bites from cottonmouths occur after someone has picked the snake up, and most of the snakebite cases I know of with these species have been to herpetologists who did just that. Hard to blame the snake for that outcome.

Of the three southeastern rattlesnakes, the smallest is the pygmy; a large one is only two feet long. The largest is the eastern diamondback, which can reach almost eight feet. The third species, called canebrake rattler in the Coastal Plain and timber rattler in the mountains and most other areas, can be more than six feet long.

What are the chances that a hiker, hunter, or other outdoor nature enthusiast will encounter and be bitten by a pit viper? And what about children? Children should be taught never to pick up any snake without supervision by a knowledgeable adult. They should learn to enjoy snakes by watching them. Of course, the same advice would apply to most adults, as many U.S. snakebites occur because someone picked up the snake. People who see a snake and then simply observe it from a safe distance (a few feet away) virtually never get bitten. And if you do encounter a snake in the Southeast, the odds are 10 to 1 that you need not be concerned. More than 50 species are harmless compared to only five that are pit vipers.

How can you identify southeastern pit vipers and what should you do if someone is bitten? The book "Snakes of the Southeast," published by the University of Georgia Press, has numerous color photographs of all southeastern snakes and is the most authoritative nature guide on the topic. Here's the advice given for snakebite victims: "The best snakebite kit is a set of car keys, a cell phone, and a companion" to get you to the hospital.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.

What Do We Know About Coral Snakes?

Every spring I receive many questions about venomous snakes from people throughout the Southeast. Answers to some recent questions will be provided in this and next week's columns.

Q. I hear a lot about the danger of rattlesnakes and copperheads in the South but no one provides much information about coral snakes. Are they really different from the other poisonous species?

A. Snakes qualify as one of the world's most fascinating group of creatures with which virtually everyone is familiar. A snake on a playground will nearly always attract a bigger crowd than any bird, with the exception of, say, an ostrich or an albatross. People are intrigued with snakes of every size, in part because we know that some of them are potentially dangerous. Yet only six of the 52 species that occur naturally in the southern United States east of the Mississippi River are venomous. Of the remaining 46, all have teeth, and a few will bite if picked up but even these can be considered harmless.

To most people, the words "venomous" and "poisonous" are synonymous. The technical distinction is that venom is injected into the bloodstream; poison is typically injected or absorbed through mucous membranes. As far as I know, no snakes are poisonous to eat, although I have only tried a few so cannot speak with certainty about all of them. The copperhead, cottonmouth, and three kinds of southeastern rattlesnakes, all venomous, are known as pit vipers. The heat-sensitive pit is located between the nostril and eye. If you are using the presence of this pit to determine if a live snake in the woods is venomous or not, you are probably too close to the snake. The coral snake is distinguished from the pit vipers in several ways. Nonetheless, despite many people's misconception, coral snakes have hollow fangs in the front of the mouth with tubular connections to venom sacs located in the head, as do pit vipers.

Coral snakes are the only North American snakes in the cobra family. The type of venom they inject, generally referred to as neurotoxic, is distinctively different from that of most other U.S. snakes. The venom affects the nervous system and results in muscle paralysis. As the venom effect progresses through the body, the muscles of the diaphragm can become paralyzed, resulting in difficulty in breathing. If that difficulty continues, the result can be fatal.

From a human safety standpoint, southeastern coral snakes are small, rare, and unlikely to bite a person unless picked up, which no one other than a herpetologist should do. An accidental bite from an unseen coral snake is a truly rare event. The greatest likelihood of a coral snake bite is to a child who might pick up a brightly colored red, yellow, and black snake because it is pretty. The eastern variety, which is one of the 70 species of coral snakes found in the Americas, is found in the Coastal Plain from Louisiana to the Carolinas and throughout Florida.

Despite the potency of coral snake venom, a victim has plenty of time to get to a hospital. According to the book "Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere" (2004; Cornell University Press) even "the onset of symptoms usually begins during the first 2-6 hours following a bite" and "may require 48 hours to reach the maximum effect." Ample time would be available anywhere in the country to reach a medical facility.

I have firsthand knowledge of two eastern coral snake bites (to a young girl and an adult male); both of them had happy endings. Each person was bitten on the finger. Numbness and paralysis slowly progressed up the arm; the attending physician told me the man could not feel a needle stuck into his hand. When each victim was given coral snake antivenin, the process immediately reversed itself and the paralysis gradually disappeared. Why the man picked up a coral snake in the first place is a question he will now be able to answer for the rest of his life.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
.

Let's Begin America's Great Outdoors Initiative

President Obama has announced the creation of a community-based conservation plan, a program called America's Great Outdoors Initiative. The goal is to "achieve lasting conservation of the outdoor spaces that power our nation's economy, shape our culture, and build our outdoor traditions." The initiative seeks to get people, especially young people, outdoors on a more regular basis so they can appreciate the importance of the nation's lands and waters.

The much-needed reinvigoration of outdoor appreciation should include an understanding of the need for our natural environments to coexist with farming, ranching and other agricultural endeavors. We need to rekindle an appreciation in Americans, especially young ones, for hunting, fishing and other activities that put families and friends outdoors. Getting youngsters away from computers and other electronic devices for a few hours a week or month would be in society's best interest.

America's Great Outdoors Initiative gives farmers, ranchers and private landowners an opportunity to contribute by offering support for those who "help protect rural landscapes and provide access for recreation." Likewise, revenues from oil and gas removal will help protect parks, green spaces and wildlife habitats, as well as promote recreational activities at the sites. The idea is to move our country in a direction that creates "a 21st-century conservation ethic . . . for environmental stewardship" that connects us "to our historic, cultural, and natural heritage."

The president's plan is intended to develop local, community-level conservation and recreation agendas. Surveys taken across the country revealed that among the steps needed to accomplish the goals of the program were accessible parks, including "a new generation of great urban parks," or green spaces for children, and restoration of rivers to revitalize communities. The ideas presented on the Great Outdoors website at http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/ should receive widespread support.

The site invites comments on any aspect of being outdoors and on the many issues involved with outdoor activities. Some links lead to debates among people who favor outdoor activities but do not always agree on the details, such as whether mountain bikers who pay fees should have greater access to certain trails than do hikers who pay no fees. On another topic, someone noted that "one of the things that drives me crazy as a hunter and hiker . . . is the overgrazing on Forest Service lands." Should the federal government be subsidizing cattle ranchers rather than opening up the lands for camping, hunting or bird-watching?

The first thing many will ask is how such an initiative will be paid for; how will it affect the economy? Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack addressed the issue in part, saying, "America's farmlands and woodlands help fuel our economy and create jobs across the rural areas of our country. This plan seeks to work in partnership with landowners, conservation groups, states and others to conserve our working lands and our public lands and to reconnect Americans." The long-term economic value of a program that engenders new appreciation of our natural environment will more than pay for any short-term costs.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the program was based on "practical, common-sense ideas from the American people on how our natural, cultural, and historic resources can help us be a more competitive, stronger, and healthier nation. Together, we are adapting our conservation strategies to meet the challenges of today and empowering communities to protect and preserve our working lands and natural landscapes for generations to come." Clearly, this is a long-term perspective. When we think of the environment, natural habitats and native wildlife we should always take a comprehensive, long-term view not a myopic, short-term one.

Today's children spend half as much time outside as their parents did. Also, many Americans live in urban communities without access to safe, open, green spaces. You do not have to be an ecologist or an environmentalist to know that having a society that has drifted away from its environmental roots is not good for the economy, the environment or the country itself.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

 

Why Don't Hawks Fight Back?

Q: A pair of red-tailed hawks has nested near our house for years. Several times I have seen one or both of them harassed by crows. I watched a five-minute dogfight today with the hawk just trying to get away. It was very entertaining, but puzzling. Why do these large raptors let the crows that are less than half their size and without their weapons harass them?

Q: I have seen crows pester a couple of big hawks. Sometimes the hawks just sit on a tree branch and let the crows fly around and make a lot of noise. Sometimes they fly away, with the crows chasing them. Would the hawks act differently if they had a nest with babies in it?

A: Very good questions about a commonly observed phenomenon called mobbing, in which several smaller birds harass a larger predatory bird. Why would a red-tailed hawk, bald eagle or great horned owl let a bunch of smaller birds, like crows, pester it? And why would a smaller bird take the risk of attacking these large predators? The answer, as is usually the case when animal behavior and ecology are involved, is complex. Some explanations seem relatively straightforward whereas others are more speculative.

From the crows' perspective, mobbing behavior may have adaptive significance in terms of survival in that a large potential predator may be driven from an area where crows raise their young because the babies might become prey for some raptors. In a situation in which a predator such as a large hawk is simply in between meals, either sitting or flying, and has no special stake in a particular location, mobbing behavior by crows could be very effective. The hawk would presumably not find the annoyance worth the effort of staying around and would move on to another area to hunt. In other words, the crows don't want the predator in the area and the hawk itself doesn't really care whether it is there or somewhere else.

In search of an answer to the question of what a pair of these birds of prey would do when harassed by crows if they had a couple of babies in a nest, I asked an ornithologist. In fact, I asked 11 ornithologists. Some are top-flight amateur bird watchers and some are professional scientists who have studied hawks or eagles. The answers I got were consistent, and surprising.

All agreed that if a red-tailed hawk reached out and grabbed a crow with its talons, that would be the end of the crow. Or as one of the professionals put it, in scientific terms, "the crow would be toast." But although large raptors have the necessary weapons, the energy cost of pursuing or otherwise attempting to catch a crow is normally not worth it. Crows are agile creatures and would be very difficult to catch in flight. So a hawk typically ignores the crows or flies away.

The answers from the bird researchers about what hawks or eagles would do if eggs or babies were in the nest were especially interesting. Statements like the following were telling. "I have never seen crows approach when young were present, but birds of prey will fiercely protect their nests." One commented, "None of our staff has ever seen crows or raccoons be predators on an eagle nest with eggs or young in it." Another said, "I don't know for sure, but when there's a nest involved, the stakes are higher and the raptor would probably fight back. The crows know this and keep their distance." Or as another put it, "When baby hawks are in the nest, the area around it becomes a no-fly zone for crows."

Observations of how hawks respond when crows use their mobbing behavior tactics are frequent. But what a pair of hawks or eagles would do if crows tried their antics when eggs or babies are in the nest remains unanswered. Ironically, the fact that such attacks seldom or never occur, may be because crows already know the answer.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

 

Darwin Realized That Animals Are Deceitful

If you have ever played poker, encouraged a child to believe in Santa Claus, or skirted the truth to avoid embarrassing a friend, you have been deceitful. Although humans are generally discouraged from lying, all of us occasionally tell little white lies. You may be surprised to know that the natural world is also full of deceitful behavior.

In his 1871 book "The Descent of Man," Charles Darwin noted the "marvellously deceptive appearance, through variation and natural selection" of certain tropical butterflies. He was referring to edible species with color patterns similar to those of species unpalatable to birds. The mimics resembled the inedible species "so closely in every stripe and shade of colour that they could not be distinguished except by an experienced entomologist." Darwin's innate understanding of biology was amazing.

The discovery of mimicry in butterflies is credited to Henry Bates, another famous English naturalist. Today biologists refer to Batesian mimicry, in which a harmless form has evolved to be mistaken for a noxious one to avoid predation. Early naturalists knew that animals use deceit and subterfuge to survive. Darwin noted that some animals mimic others "in order to be mistaken for the protected kinds and thus to escape being devoured." In short, many animals are unmitigated liars.

The use of color patterns to deceive potential predators is widespread. Ocelli, or false eyes, are a common deceptive feature. Many defenseless butterflies and moths have ocelli on their wings that look like a pair of large eyes belonging to a much larger creature. The ocelli deter certain predators from trying to eat the butterfly. A dramatic example is the peacock butterfly of Europe. Birds avoid attacking the seemingly big-eyed flying creature.

In the natural world, camouflage is the quintessential deceit. Some animals add a form of misdirection called flash colors. For example, the bright yellow on the back legs of the eastern gray treefrog is hidden when the treefrog is sitting on a tree. It is so well camouflaged on a gray-barked oak tree, it is virtually invisible. But when the treefrog jumps, a pursuing bird sees a brilliant flash of yellow. Upon landing, the treefrog folds up its legs and once again blends in with the tree trunk. The bird, meanwhile, searches futilely for a yellow frog.

Animals use other ways to deceive predators, including behaviors that make them appear bigger or more dangerous than they really are. Common hognose snakes carry deception to an extreme, starting with an impressive threat display. When confronted by a predator, the hognose raises the front part of its body, expands its neck and hisses. This would be an honest display if these snakes had hollow fangs and injected venom. But hognose snakes do not even bite, let alone carry any of the weaponry of a cobra or a rattlesnake, which use threat displays honestly. Then, as if it had not already been dishonest enough, if a hognose is pestered further and continues to feel threatened, it will roll over on its back, let its tongue hang limply out of its mouth and play dead. Another deceitful performance. North America's only marsupial has long held the franchise on "playing possum," but many other animals also play dead.

Though plants do not engage in Batesian mimicry, they are not above duplicity. The flower of the voodoo lily of Southeast Asia produces a smell like rotting meat that attracts scarab beetles, which feed on carrion. The flower is like a good-smelling restaurant (to a scavenger). But the restaurant is not open for business. Instead the voodoo lily hoaxes beetles into pollinating its flowers. The bee orchids of Europe engage in a phenomenon known as sexual deception. The flowers look and smell like females of certain species of bees so that males are attracted to them, which results in pollination of the orchid flowers.

Deceit is a common means of survival and reproduction in the natural world and is probably more prevalent among humans than we like to admit.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

What Should We Do About Rabies?

I've received the following questions about rabies.

Q. We watched a raccoon climb a tree in our backyard one afternoon. We approached and it just sat there, seemingly unafraid, on a limb five feet above the ground. It started drooling and growling, so we backed away. Later that week we found a dead raccoon in the backyard. Could the animal have had rabies?

A. It very likely did have rabies, and leaving it alone was certainly the right thing to do. Several aspects of its behavior are telling. First, it was out in the middle of the day: Raccoons are usually nocturnal. Second, it let you get close. Third, it was drooling, not something we want to see in a raccoon, one of the most prevalent reservoirs for rabies. It probably died because it was infected with the rabies virus.

According to information received later from the same county, animal control picked up two more strange-acting raccoons that were found to have rabies. Incidental cases of rabies among wild mammals are not that unusual in many parts of the country and are certainly no cause for alarm. Knowing about the disease can help people avoid problems for themselves and for domestic dogs and cats, all of which are susceptible to infection by the rabies virus.

Q. What animals transmit rabies?

A. Any warm-blooded animal can harbor the virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control the most common US wildlife species to be infected are foxes, skunks, raccoons and bats. Unvaccinated domestic pets are also susceptible, as are coyotes, which have become more prevalent in the Southeast in the past two decades. The CDC notes that small mammals, including "squirrels, rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, chipmunks, rabbits, and hares are almost never found to be infected with rabies." They are not known to have caused rabies in humans in the United States. One odd statistic is that the woodchuck (aka, groundhog), has a high incidence of the disease. According to some scientists, possums supposedly do not get rabies, although they will certainly bite if given an opportunity.

The rabies virus is usually introduced by saliva during biting; rarely, it can enter the body through mucous membranes. The virus multiplies in the nervous system, and symptoms usually develop within three months, but occasionally can appear in only a few days. Rabies victims have difficulty swallowing water, because of paralysis of the throat muscles. The seeming aversion to water led to the name "hydrophobia," which means fear of water. The loss of muscular control of the throat muscles can also result in excessive drooling, leading to the "foaming at the mouth" symptom.

The first line of safety precautions for dealing with rabies is pretty much common sense. Don't pick up a drooling, growling raccoon (in fact, don't pick up any wild raccoon). Likewise for sick or injured bats. Bats are beautiful animals in flight, especially when they are eating mosquitoes, but if you find one on the ground or in a house, don't let it bite you. CDC records indicate that rabies has been documented in bats from all 48 of the conterminous states. All domestic dogs and cats should be vaccinated, especially those likely to go outside or come in contact with wild animals.

Q. I have heard some people suggest that we should start vaccinating wild animals to prevent rabies epidemics. Is this feasible?

A. Such a plan would be costly - and it's unnecessary. Wild animals are not the problem if we avoid situations in which we are likely to get bitten. CDC records show that "control of dog rabies through programs of animal vaccination . . . reduces the incidence of human rabies." Rabid dogs are the cause of more than 90% of human infections of the rabies virus and the source of more than 99% of human deaths from rabies worldwide.

We should have our pets vaccinated at a vet's or a rabies clinic, but let's leave the wild animals to take care of themselves.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Whit Gibbons is an ecologist and environmental educator with the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Let's Let Kids Catch Anything They Want

Should a little boy who catches a turtle in a trap have to let it go right away or should he be able to keep it for a day? I was recently asked to comment on a draft copy of an illustrated children's book someone has written about turtles. In the story, a little boy's dad takes him to a coastal marsh where they use a trap to catch crabs for dinner. They also catch a small diamondback terrapin. The boy is allowed to take the turtle home as a temporary pet.

My role as reviewer was to comment on whether the facts about terrapin ecology were accurate, not necessarily to comment on the story itself. However, other readers of the draft decried letting the boy keep the terrapin. Their argument was that allowing the boy to take the animal home signaled to readers that removing animals from the wild is acceptable. In their opinion the terrapin should never make it off the dock because the boy should drop it right back into the water.

I thought that was OK for the purposes of the book. But I told the author that I think in real life children should be able to catch any animal they want as long as they follow the one-day rule (or 10-day rule, or five-minute rule, or whatever time period a parent thinks appropriate for the animal in question) before they let it go. My reasoning is that the knowledge children gain by becoming familiar with different animals ultimately contributes far more to conservation efforts than the hands-off approach some people advocate.

Children should not be prohibited from catching and keeping any animal they can get their hands on. What better way to learn how an earthworm moves than holding it in your hands and watching it, or maybe even keeping it in a homemade terrarium? And isn't catching a tadpole and raising it in a bowl of water the best way to know what kind of frog or toad it will turn into? Why shouldn't a child take a caterpillar home, let it build a cocoon or chrysalis and turn into a moth or butterfly? Children should be taught proper husbandry for any pet but not discouraged from keeping them.

Let's not worry about a single specimen of a species being removed from its natural habitat. Instead, let's celebrate the wonderment and appreciation for nature that children get by catching an animal and keeping it for awhile. Children who grow into adults with an appreciation for nature from firsthand experience will likely be proponents of wildlife conservation. Conservation is best served when we focus on the well-being of the species population as a whole rather than an individual animal. No child is going to have a serious impact on the status of any animal population by removing one individual. If they do, the population was already doomed anyway.

Speaking of rules about keeping wild animals as pets, some states have laws that would benefit from revision. At the very least the laws should not apply to children. An example of one such ill-conceived regulation from Georgia: a kid who enjoys nature and wants to learn about animals cannot legally keep a flying squirrel, a garter snake, or even a green anole for a pet. This law is not in the best interest of wildlife protection. Any of those species can make good pets and be educational for the owner, and none are in danger of being affected by the removal of individuals by children.

The children's book about turtles has some good information on terrapin ecology. I do not know what decision the author made about whether to have the child keep the turtle or immediately let it go. But if he does keep the turtle, the message would be equally as good, maybe better, than if he releases it. Kids should be allowed to catch and keep (for a short while) anything they want except a cold.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Will Congress Undermine Environmental Progress?

We hold certain truths to be self-evident . . . among them is the fact that the U.S. Congress has changed its makeup considerably since the last election. Meanwhile, most environmentalists would agree that three of the best things any Congress ever did for the environment were the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, all passed in the 1970s during the Nixon administration.

 Most members of the general public who are aware of the way we used to treat the environment would agree that all of those changes were in the best interest of the general public. Will the current Congress keep this environmental progress intact? Is there any way such admirable advancements in environmental policy, which benefit the citizenry of an entire country, could be threatened? Can anyone come up with a reason why a politician would propose diluting strong environmental laws that are good for the country? Read on.

Another current self-evident truth is that times are tough economically, although a wide range of opinions can be found about exactly when they started and who should shoulder the blame. But whatever the perceived cause of our economic adversity, the new Congress will be expected to improve the situation. Unfortunately, during economic hard times, some officials elected to fix economic problems make environmental issues the scapegoat. People with self-serving agendas begin to attack environmental rules and regulation. Beware of rhetoric that uses slogans like "creating jobs," “reducing the national debt” or "being good for the economy" while undermining environmental safeguards. Such catchphrases are presented as if they are incompatible with protecting the environment. They are not. But we are already beginning to hear of moves afoot to weaken the laws that ensure clean water and clean air, and that protect our native species. Political efforts to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency are another red flag, usually a corporate agenda seeking unrestrained use of environmental resources that belong to all of us.

Attempts to change environmental laws that are good for the nation become especially noticeable when commerce intrudes on our common assets: air, water and the natural resources of our native plants and animals as well as their habitats. These commodities, all of them, belong as much to any one of us as to any other, regardless of wealth, land holdings or social position. Free enterprise should be lauded, but not at the cost of weak environmental laws that will benefit a few financially while being detrimental to the rest of us.

Less than four decades ago the House and Senate acted wisely and decisively with regard to safeguarding air, water and wildlife. The passage of that powerful environmental legislation has benefited the whole country. We have the highest water standards of any country in the world. This would not be true were it not for the Clean Water Act (1972). The Clean Air Act (1977) enacted strong measures against air pollution, focusing on the question, whose air is it anyway? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 saved several species from certain doom, and the program remains one of the ecological success stories of the last century. 

Significant environmental gains have been achieved through these laws, without dire economic consequences. Yet some people persist in wanting to weaken the regulations in all three of these nation-saving legislative acts. Anytime you hear someone, whether politician, industrialist or just plain folk, talk about the need to curtail any of these laws, take a careful look at who is going to benefit. I guarantee it will not be you. 

One thing is certain--the congressional zenith of passing the environmental laws of the 1970s to protect our natural heritage will be hard to follow. But for other senators and representatives to weaken them would be to reach a congressional nadir. Let’s not stand for it. Let’s make it clear to all that to truly realize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America, we must do so with clean air and water and with our biological communities and natural habitats intact.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com