You can call me Mono - it's a pleasure to meet you. Here you'll find updates from a Master of Science (Zoology) student at Melbourne University, Australia. This is a mismatch of a place; expect updates from within Uni and from out of it. I post about both zoology and its domestic cousin, animal science, and mix photos and pictures with lengthy discussions.
Anonymous asked: Why do you have an issue with PETA?
PETA makes a mockery of what could be a potentially good cause through general ridiculousness, extremism, sexism, overall hypocrisy. PETA does next to nothing for the welfare of animals. They kill the vast majority of the animals that they supposedly shelter (there was a HUGE ordeal when a statistical report in VA found that they kill over 90% of the animals they receive, most of which are killed within 24 hours of admission). A spokeswoman for PETA said that the euthanasia was out of love for them. Which I found…oddly disturbing.
PETA has given animal rights activism a bad name, has given veganism a bad name, has generally given a lot of things a bad name— they flipped the fuck out because Obama killed a fly, okay. Don’t even get me started on PETA and how stupid and hypocritical the organization is.
Killing animals, giving money to terrorist organizations, and spewing unsupported pseudoscience is what you do best.
You - and organizations like you - are why I say I’m an animal welfare activist and conservationist. NOT an animal rights activist. (x, x, x)
On a related note:
Please remember the difference between the Humane Society (HSUS) and the ASPCA (New York) / your local SPCA. The Humane Society of America does not run any shelters (and gives only 1% of it’s budget to shelters). Please support your local shelters if you feel like giving time and money to this cause. By donating / supporting the HSUS you aren’t actually helping the shelters in need. (x)
Excellent things to have tack on. Thank you for your additions. Put beautifully as always by the wonderful Shelly.
For those of us Down Under, this is directly applicable also to Animals Australia. Terrible organisation, which uses outright lies and emotional abuse to win people over to its side.
Do your own research, and use science to form your opinions.
The Northern Goshawk (Accipter gentilis) is the only species of the Accipiter genus that is found in both Eurasia and North America. It is the only species of Goshawk in its range (except in Asia), so in these regions it is typically only known as the Goshawk.
Via Corné van Oosterhout | 500px
Coyotes (Canis latrans) usually hunt in pairs, though have been observed travelling in large groups. Typical packs consist of six or so closely related individuals, ranging from adults, to yearlings, to young.
Coyotes were, historically, primarily diurnal, but pressure from humans has shifted them to a typically nocturnal species.
A Manta ray (Manta alfredi) swims over a diver on Ningaloo Reef in Coral Bay, Western Australia.
M. alfredi is the smaller of the two manta rays, and tends to reside in coastal regions.
Via Edward Cardwell | Australian Geographic
My home town, the towns of my family and friends, in Victoria, Australia, got swept with fires this week. It was rough. But not just for us.
Lots of young native animals become orphaned after Australian bushfires. Fortunately, volunteers step forwards in these situations to heal and rehabilitate these orphaned animals.Tending to burns, dehydration, and illness, these volunteers save the lives of numerous animals every bushfire season. They do awesome work.
And who can resist the face of a little bandaged joey?
248 million year old reptile birth
Viviparity (birthing live young) in Mesozoic marine reptiles has, traditionally, been considered to be an aquatic adaptation. This new specimen - a Chauhosaurus fossilised part way through the second of three births - shows the oldest fossil embryos, about 10 million years older than previous such records.
It’s the head-first position that’s most interesting, here. Marine births tend to occur tail-first, suggesting that these births may have taken place on land.
Check out the paper here.
A pilot study has just suggested that whale watching could be done from space.
That is pretty damn cool. Estimating population sizes of whale pods is hard; but researchers think that satellite imagery could be an excellent tool.
Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) were counted in a 113 km-sq region of Golfo Nuevo in Argentina. Results from the satellite images is of course almost impossible to confirm, but researchers are confident that by limiting their analysis by size and using appropriate locations, they will reduce the number of false positives.
And even so, the information could be extraordinarily valuable. It can be used to monitor whale movements, and determine if whale numbers are increasing in important locations. And that’s pretty awesome.
You can find the new publication here.
A polar bear (Ursus maritimus) on the east coast of Svalbard.
Large, well-established and isolated Marine Protected Areas boost shark numbers
The concept itself probably doesn’t come as a big surprise to a lot of us, but a recent comprehensive study has shown that large, established and well-enforced no take zones show 14 times more more sharks and other sea life than commercial fishing areas.
87 marine protected areas (MPAs) were examined over 40 countries, allowing researchers to determine factors contributing to a successful MPA. Successful MPAs typically had five features: no-take zone, well-enforced, over 10 years old, over 100km-sq, and isolated by sand or deep water.
Of course, most of us also know that the majority of MPAs are not successful, and are in fact only token protected areas - they’re paper parks, meaning they’re only MPAs on paper. And the sea life in these areas is about on the same level as the sea life in the nearby fishing areas. Which is to say, not great; the study shows a 90% decrease in sharks, and 83% decrease in large fish (with a 63% decrease in fish overall). And that’s pretty scary, because it means a lot of MPAs aren’t achieving their conservation goals, if they have them at all.
But it’s not all bad news. Hopefully, this means the study and ones similar to it could be used in the near future to improve current MPAs, increase the number of successful MPAs and reduce the number of paper parks and MPAs like them. Fingers crossed.
(Also, you can read the paper, published in Nature, here.)
What can I say. I’m in a mood. I think this might become an ongoing series. Hehe.