Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.
Category: Communication
More dog photos courtesy of Unsplash.
Photo by Vincent van Zalinge
Photo by gotdaflow
Photo by Kieran White
Photo by Kinshuk Bose
Photo by Ja San Miguel
Photo by Taylor Kopel
Photo by Clarke Sanders
Apologies for the re-posting of some of these photos.
The challenge in deciding what is best for our forests.
As a great many of you already know, we live in a rural area in Southern Oregon. It is a beautiful place and we look out to the East upon Mount Sexton. But locally a great many houses are built on rural sites with the local forest just yards away.
Thus it was with interest that an article on The Conversation website ‘spoke’ to me.
ooOOoo
Mark Kreider, University of Montana
In the U.S., wildland firefighters are able to stop about 98% of all wildfires before the fires have burned even 100 acres. That may seem comforting, but decades of quickly suppressing fires has had unintended consequences.
Fires are a natural part of many landscapes globally. When forests aren’t allowed to burn, they become more dense, and dead branches, leaves and other biomass accumulate, leaving more fuel for the next fire. This buildup leads to more extreme fires that are even harder to put out. That’s why land managers set controlled burns and thin forests to clear out the undergrowth.
However, fuel accumulation isn’t the only consequence of fire suppression.
Fire suppression also disproportionately reduces certain types of fire. In a new study, my colleagues and I show how this effect, known as the suppression bias, compounds the impacts of fuel accumulation and climate change.
Most wildfires are low-intensity. They ignite when conditions aren’t too dry or windy, and they can often be quickly extinguished.
The 2% of fires that escape suppression are those that are more extreme and much harder to fight. They account for about 98% of the burned area in a typical year.
The author and colleagues discuss changing wildfire in Montana and Idaho’s Bitterroot Mountains. By Mark Kreider.
In other words, trying to put out all wildfires doesn’t reduce the total amount of fire equally – instead, it limits low-intensity fires while extreme fires still burn. This effect is worsened by climate change.
In our study, we used a fire modeling simulation to explore the effects of the fire suppression bias and see how they compared to the effects of global warming and fuel accumulation alone.
Fuel accumulation and global warming both inherently make fires more severe. But over thousands of simulated fires, we found that allowing forests to burn only under the very worst conditions increased fire severity by the same amount as more than a century’s worth of fuel accumulation or 21st-century climate change.
The suppression bias also changes the way plants and animals interact with fire.
By removing low-intensity fires, humans may be changing the course of evolution. Without exposure to low-intensity fires, species can lose traits crucial for surviving and recovering from such events.
After extreme fires, landscapes have fewer seed sources and less shade. New seedlings have a harder time becoming established, and for those that do, the hotter and drier conditions reduce their chance of survival.
In contrast, low-intensity fires free up space and resources for new growth, while still retaining living trees and other biological legacies that support seedlings in their vulnerable initial years.
By quickly putting out low-intensity fires and allowing only extreme fires to burn, conventional suppression reduces the opportunities for climate-adapted plants to establish and help ecosystems adjust to changes like global warming.
As the climate becomes hotter and drier, more area is burning in wildfires. If suppression removes fire, it should help slow this increase, right?
In fact, we found it does just the opposite.
We found that while conventional suppression led to less total area burning, the yearly burned area increased more than three times faster under conventional suppression than under less aggressive suppression efforts. The amount of area burned doubled every 14 years with conventional fire suppression under simulated climate change, instead of every 44 years when low- and moderate-intensity fires were allowed to burn. That raises concerns for how quickly people and ecosystems will have to adapt to extreme fires in the future.
The fact that the amount of area burned is increasing is undoubtedly driven by climate change. But our study shows that the rate of this increase may also be a result of conventional fire management.
The near total suppression of fires over the last century means that even a little additional fire in a more fire-prone future can create big changes. As climate change continues to fuel more fires, the relative increase in area burned will be much bigger.
This puts more stress on communities as they adapt to increased extreme wildfires, from dealing with more wildfire smoke to even changing where people can live.
To address the wildfire crisis, fire managers can be less aggressive in suppressing low- and moderate-intensity fires when it is safe to do so. They can also increase the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning to clear away brush and other fuel for fires.
These low-intensity fires will not only reduce the risk of future extreme fires, but they also will create conditions that favor the establishment of species better suited to the changing climate, thereby helping ecosystems adapt to global warming.
Coexisting with wildfire requires developing technologies and approaches that enable the safe management of wildfires under moderate burning conditions. Our study shows that this may be just as necessary as other interventions, such as reducing the number of fires unintentionally started by human activities and mitigating climate change.
Mark Kreider, Ph.D. Candidate in Forest and Conservation Science, University of Montana
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ooOOoo
The article makes a great deal of sense and presents a solution that may not be our first thought. But especially the message is fundamentally important, and please watch the video because it very clearly presents the benefits of the solution.
So we want more low-intensity fires! Please! Or to say it another way, we want more prescribed fires.
Back to Unsplash.
Photo by Anthony Duran
Photo by Mia Anderson
Photo by Ayelt van Veen
Photo by Samantha Fortney
Photo by Joe Caione
Photo by Celine Sayuri Tagami
Photo by Anna Dudkova
The theme of today’s pictures is dogs playing.
There you are for this Easter Sunday and apologies if there are any duplications.
The Einstein-Freud Letters
I was born in London in November, 1944. Exactly six months before the Second World War ended in April, 1945.
Thus it was of great interest to me that yesterday Jean and I listened to a BBC Radio 4 programme about the letters that were exchanged between two great Jewish men: Einstein and Freud, in 1932. The programme was called Why War? The Einstein-Freud Letters.
The programme ends with offering the listener a fundamental choice, which I won’t spoil for you now. But to me it is an extension of my post (or Patrice’s post) that I published recently on March 19th.
I believe, and hope, you can listen to it by clicking on this link. Here also is the text that is at that link:
In 1932 the world-famous physicist Albert Einstein wrote a public letter to the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Einstein, a keen advocate of the League of Nations and peace campaigner, asked Freud if he thought war and aggression was forever tied to human psychology and the course of international relations: could we ever secure a lasting world peace?
Einstein’s letter is deeply prescient, as is Freud’s extraordinary response. The exchange was titled ‘Why War?’. The two thinkers explore the nature of war and peace in politics and in all human life; they think about human nature, the history of warfare and human aggression and the hope represented by the foundation of the League of Nations (precursor to the UN) and its promise of global security and a new architecture of international law.
At the time of their exchange, Freud is in the last great phase of his career and has already introduced psychoanalysis into the field of politics and society. Einstein, the younger of the two, is using his huge international profile as a physicist for political and pacifist intervention.
For Einstein, future world security means a shared moral understanding across the global order – that humankind rise above the ‘state of nature’ never to devolve into total war again. He wrote to Freud, as ‘a citizen of the world…immune to nationalist bias…I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth. You have shown how the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, you make manifest your devotion to the goal of liberation from the evils of war…’ Is it possible, Einstein asks Freud, to make us ‘proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?’. Freud’s answer is fascinating and quite unexpected.
The exchange of letters was sponsored by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, an organisation promoting global security by using prominent thinkers, drawing on multiple fields of knowledge (from science to psychology, politics and law) to achieve a new language for international peace, following the lessons learned from the Great War of 1914-18.
But even as Einstein wrote to Freud in the summer of 1932, the Nazi party became the largest political party in the German Reichstag. Both men felt a sense of apprehension about what was coming; both were pacifist, both Jewish, both would be driven into exile (both Einsteinian physics and Freudian psychoanalysis were denounced by the new regime). The letters were finally published in 1933 when Hitler came to power, suppressed in Germany, and as a result never achieved the circulation intended for them.
Featuring readings from the Einstein–Freud letters and contributions from historians of warfare and psychoanalysis, war journalism and global security, this feature showcases the little-known exchange between two of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers, ‘Why War?’ – a question just as relevant in today’s world.
Contributors include historian of war and peace Margaret MacMillan, BBC chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet, defence and security expert Mark Galeotti, historian of international relations Patrick O Cohrs, author Lisa Appignanesi, who has written on Freud and the history of psychoanalysis, and Faisal Devji, historian of conflict and political violence in India and the Middle East.
Readings are by Elliot Levey (Einstein) and Henry Goodman (Freud)
Produced by Simon Hollis
A Brook Lapping production for BBC Radio 4
Albert Einstein
Sigmund Freud
Freud, 1921
Two very great men.
A story about a dog that was first thought to be dead.
Dear reader,
We had so much going on Wednesday afternoon that I was tempted to give this post a miss. But then I changed my mind considering how beautiful the story is.
ooOOoo
‘Dead’ Dog Abandoned In Amazon Box Turns Out To Be A Total Lovebug
By Maeve Dunigan, Published on the 7th March.
Earlier this year, on a sunny day in Pennsylvania, a woman stepped out onto her porch and found a horrifying package. Lying in an open cardboard box was a fluffy white dog — and he wasn’t moving.
Alarmed, the woman quickly called her daughter, who works for Speranza Animal Rescue.
“[M]y mom called me in a panic because she found a ‘dead’ dog dropped on her porch in an Amazon box,” the rescue wrote in a Facebook post about the event. “Turns out this boy wasn’t dead, he was just unconscious.”
When rescuers arrived, they were heartbroken to realize the pup was barely a year old. His pupils were cloudy, and he suffered from seizures. Rescuers moved the sick dog, later named G.I. Joe, into veterinary care, where he began receiving necessary treatment.
Within days, G.I. Joe’s gentle spirit began returning. He moved in with Karen Spangler, an experienced foster mom, and made friends with his new dog siblings. Though she immediately loved G.I. Joe, Spangler initially insisted that the situation would only be temporary.
“I didn’t want another permanent dog to add to my family,” Spangler told The Dodo. “I told multiple family and friends I would not become a foster fail.”
But as the weeks went on, Spangler realized G.I. Joe, or “Joey,” as she calls him, was too special to let go. The curious, quiet rescue pup had already bonded with her grandchildren and with her other two dogs. Spangler adored G.I. Joe, and she wanted him to feel safe and secure.
“I could not put him through another change,” Spangler said. “That was it. I became a foster fail.”
These days, Spangler can’t imagine her life without G.I. Joe. Her new pup has already proven to be a great influence on her other dogs, encouraging them to play and exercise. Spangler looks forward to G.I. Joe’s continued training and hopes to walk him on neighborhood country roads soon.
“They always say things happen for a reason, and this is so true,” Spangler said. “My family needed Joey. Never in a million years did I think he would turn out to be so sweet and smart. [I]m looking forward to seeing where he takes us.”
ooOOoo
Karen Spangler is a very kind soul and clearly loves dogs. Congratulations to her and to the Speranza Animal Rescue. Finally, many thanks to Maeve Dunigan for writing the story.
We are a very strange bunch.
Jean and I live in an ideal part of America: Merlin in Southern Oregon. We did not plan to come here but in 2012 we wanted to move from Payson, Az. and fortune brought us here. However, I started this blog in 2009 when I had seen the integrity and happiness of dogs and wanted to write about them.
However the wider world is far, far from just the integrity and happiness of dogs.
On March 17th Patrice Ayme posted yet another post on his blog about war and I felt that it was important to be read by as many followers of Learning from Dogs as is possible. (The few small typographical changes are mine.)
ooOOoo
Want No War? A Symptom That Nazism Perdures
Do not whine that war is bad. Ask instead what it is for.
Friend of a friend Manfred Krieger: Will mankind ever learn that wars do no good to anyone?
Patrice Ayme: All over the world, the vermin helping Putin claim that war does not do any good. Similarly the Nazis, after claiming for years that they were the party of peace and minorities, accused big bad France of having launched WW2. France did, indeed, but that was after the Nazis had invaded a few countries, including two democracies, and officially killed a few hundred thousands of alleged mental retards and genetically defective (including a relative of Hitler).
Vermin helping Putin vermin has been crawling around the French and German leadership for a quarter of a century. That Putin was a war criminal was obvious as early as 1999.
The Putinists claim that war never helped anyone. So the war to stop Hitler did not do good to anyone? Only an obdurate Nazi would hold that opinion.
My family was hunted by the Gestapo: I am delighted that more than five million Nazis got exterminated like the vicious vermin they were. It would have been better if the French Republic had declared war on the Nazi gangrene earlier. Destroying the vermin when it was weaker would have saved the lives of in excess of 50 million thoroughly innocent people who got killed as a result of having let the Axis fly from victory to victory, gathering alliances with nearly as equally repulsive tyrannies in the process.
This may well be happening now: the Chinese dictatorship is sitting on a fence, not trying to help the Kremlin tyrant too much. The fascist Iranian theocracy retreated a bit when threatened recently by the West after attacks in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and Syria.
This hesitancy on the part of fascists also happened in World War Two; for a long time Mussolini did not dare to join Hitler, but then they militarily cooperated attacking Spain and three years later, attacking France. But ultimately, except for Franco who looked degenerate, but was smarter, fellow dictators, even Stalin, sided with the Axis.
In final analysis, WW2, and also WW1, happened because, primarily, not enough Germans fought the forces of fascist imperialistic plutocracy inside Germany.
So it is a lack of war, not an excess of it, which brought disaster.
That happened because not enough Morally Correct Germans realized in a timely manner that it would do some good to destroy the fascist imperialistic plutocratic mentality.
None of this deplorable meta-mentality is obsolete; France and Germany encouraged and empowered the Kremlin vermin in the last quarter of a century, by building its economy and financing it with advantageous trade. Now the Kremlin vermin is potentially the greatest threat against humanity and civilization, ever. And what does the German government do? Claim that one should not fight the Kremlin gangrene too much, to not aggravate matters too much.
But that appeasement in face of the unacceptable only encourages the latter. Germans still have to understand the biggest lessons of history.
‘An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile quality food, hoping
that the ferocious creature will die of indigestion.’
Patrice Ayme
ooOOoo
Continuing on the theme
With ongoing many thanks to Penny.
Nothing to add to this wisdom from the mouths of dogs!
Penny Martin delivers another great post!
At first sight, the above title goes without saying. But then one quickly realises that not everyone, by far, has the circumstances that are ideal for dogs.
Thus, it is an important guest post from Penny.
ooOOoo
Explore the world of Learning from Dogs, where the integrity and lessons from our canine friends are celebrated.
Canine Contentment: Effortless Ways to Please Your Pooch
Enhancing your dog’s quality of life goes beyond just fulfilling their basic needs. It’s about creating a fulfilling environment that nurtures both their physical and mental well-being, ensuring they lead a happy and healthy life. By adopting a few straightforward strategies, you can make a significant impact on your furry companion’s daily life. In today’s post on the Learning From Dogs blog, we delve into practices that promise to elevate your dog’s overall happiness and strengthen the bond you share.
Diversify Playtime
Traditional fetch is a classic game, but expanding your play sessions to include interactive toys, agility courses, and the teaching of new tricks can significantly stimulate your dog’s mind and body. These activities are not just fun; they challenge your dog, keeping them mentally sharp and physically fit. An engaged dog is a happy dog, and by incorporating variety into your playtime, you ensure their days are filled with anticipation and excitement.
Upgrade Their Living Space
A nurturing environment for your dog goes beyond daily walks and playtime; it extends into the realm of maintaining a safe and secure home. Leveraging a home maintenance and repair app can be a game-changer for pet owners, offering an efficient way of covering repair and maintenance. These digital tools simplify the process of arranging service appointments. Furthermore, they connect homeowners with skilled professionals, ready to provide estimates for any necessary work, keeping the living space both comfortable and safe for your furry friend.
Plan for Daily Exercise
Tailoring daily exercise to match your dog’s breed and energy level is crucial for their overall well-being. Incorporating at least 30 minutes of brisk walking or running into their routine plays a pivotal role in maintaining physical fitness and mental alertness. This practice acts as a fundamental pillar of health, warding off boredom and potential behavioral problems, thereby securing a state of contentment and optimal health for your pet. Moreover, this commitment to regular physical activity reinforces your bond with your dog, highlighting the shared experiences that enrich your relationship.
Socialize Regularly
Socialization introduces your dog to new experiences and fellow canines, crucial for their emotional development. Visits to dog parks, pet-friendly stores, or arranging doggy playdates offer your dog a chance to develop social skills and enjoy a variety of experiences. Such outings enrich your dog’s life, offering new sights, sounds, and smells to explore, keeping their days interesting and fulfilling.
Consistent Training Sessions
Consistent training sessions are crucial for both teaching your dog new skills and enhancing the bond between you and your pet. By employing positive reinforcement methods, you not only make learning enjoyable for your dog but also significantly strengthen your relationship. Keeping the training sessions regular and brief ensures your dog’s mental stimulation is high and reaffirms their status as a cherished family member. The technique of positive reinforcement turns each training encounter into an anticipated and joyous occasion, underscoring the pleasure found in the learning process.
Mealtime Enrichment
Transforming mealtime into a game satisfies your dog’s natural foraging instincts. Puzzle feeders, snuffle mats, or hiding treats around the house can turn a routine meal into an exciting adventure. This not only enriches their daily routine but also provides mental stimulation, keeping their minds sharp and engaged.
Provide a Cozy Retreat
Ensuring your dog has a comfortable resting area is essential for their sense of security and well-being. Spending time each day on calm interactions, such as petting or grooming, reinforces their feeling of love and security. A dedicated space for rest and the assurance of your love helps them feel safe and cherished, fostering a deep sense of well-being.
Adopting these strategies not only improves your dog’s physical and mental health but also enhances the bond you share, making each moment together richer and more meaningful. Each practice, from diversifying playtime to ensuring a comfortable living space, plays a vital role in your dog’s overall happiness. By investing time and love into your dog’s well-being, you ensure they lead a fulfilling life, full of joy and love. Embrace these strategies and witness the transformation in your dog’s life, knowing you’re providing the best care and affection possible.
ooOOoo
I am very grateful to Penny for sending these posts to me.
Long may it continue!
A dramatic article from George Monbiot about water!
I read the latest from George Monbiot yesterday morning and was startled. Startled because I hadn’t thought of it before. Startled because here in Merlin, Southern Oregon we have had so much rain since the beginning of November, 2023 that our acres are swimming in the wet. Startled since that time also our Bummer Creek, which flows across our land, has been at record depths.
But this report is incredibly important and I wanted to share it with you, as I have Geo. Monbiot’s permission for so doing.
ooOOoo
Posted on11th March 2024
The mega-droughts in Spain and the US are a portent of a gathering global water crisis.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 4th March 2024
There’s a flaw in the plan. It’s not a small one: it is an Earth-sized hole in our calculations. To keep pace with the global demand for food, crop production needs to grow by at least 50% by 2050. In principle, if nothing else changes, this is feasible, thanks mostly to improvements in crop breeding and farming techniques. But everything else is going to change.
Even if we set aside all other issues – heat impacts, soil degradation, epidemic plant diseases accelerated by the loss of genetic diversity – there is one which, without help from any other cause, could prevent the world’s people from being fed. Water.
A paper published in 2017 estimated that to match crop production to expected demand, water use for irrigation would have to increase by 146% by the middle of this century. One minor problem. Water is already maxed out.
In general, the dry parts of the world are becoming drier, partly through reduced rainfall; partly through declining river flow as mountain ice and snow retreats; and partly through rising temperatures causing increased evaporation and increased transpiration by plants. Many of the world’s major growing regions are now threatened by “flash droughts”, in which hot and dry weather sucks moisture from the soil at frightening speed. Some places, such as the southwest of the US, now in its 24th year of drought, may have switched permanently to a drier state. Rivers fail to reach the sea, lakes and aquifers are shrinking, species living in freshwater are becoming extinct at roughly five times the rate of species that live on land and major cities are threatened by extreme water stress.
Already, agriculture accounts for 90% of the world’s freshwater use. We have pumped so much out of the ground that we’ve changed the Earth’s spin. The water required to meet growing food demand simply does not exist.
That 2017 paper should have sent everyone scrambling. But as usual, it was ignored by policymakers and the media. Only when the problem arrives in Europe do we acknowledge that there’s a crisis. But while there is understandable panic about the drought in Catalonia and Andalusia, there’s an almost total failure among powerful interests to acknowledge that this is just one instance of a global problem, a problem that should feature at the top of the political agenda.
Though drought measures have triggered protests in Spain, this is far from the most dangerous flashpoint. The catchment of the Indus river is shared by three nuclear powers – India, Pakistan and China – and several highly unstable and divided regions already afflicted by hunger and extreme poverty. Today, 95% of the river’s dry season flow is extracted, mostly for irrigation. But water demand in both Pakistan and India is growing rapidly. Supply – temporarily boosted by the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush – will, before long, peak and then go into decline.
Even under the most optimistic climate scenario, runoff from Asian glaciers is expected to peak before mid-century, and glacier mass will shrink by about 46% by 2100. Some analysts see water competition between India and Pakistan as a major cause of the repeated conflicts in Kashmir. But unless a new Indus waters treaty is struck, taking falling supplies into account, this fighting could be a mere prelude for something much worse.
There’s a widespread belief that these problems can be solved simply by enhancing the efficiency of irrigation: huge amounts of water are wasted in agriculture. So let me introduce you to the irrigation efficiency paradox. As better techniques ensure that less water is required to grow a given volume of crops, irrigation becomes cheaper. As a result, it attracts more investment, encourages farmers to grow thirstier, more profitable plants, and expands across a wider area. This is what happened, for instance, in the Guadiana river basin in Spain, where a €600m investment to reduce water use by improving the efficiency of irrigation has instead increased it.
You can overcome the paradox through regulation: laws to limit both total and individual water consumption. But governments prefer to rely on technology alone. Without political and economic measures, it doesn’t work.
Nor are other technofixes likely to solve the problem. Governments are planning massive engineering schemes to pipe water from one place to another. But climate breakdown and rising demand ensure that many of the donor regions are also likely to run dry. Water from desalination plants typically costs five or 10 times as much as water from the ground or the sky, while the process requires masses of energy and generates great volumes of toxic brine.
Above all, we need to change our diets. Those of us with dietary choice (in other words, the richer half of the world’s population) should seek to minimise the water footprint of our food. With apologies for harping on about it, this is yet another reason to switch to an animal-free diet, which reduces both total crop demand and, in most cases, water use. The water demand of certain plant products, especially almonds and pistachios in California, has become a major theme in the culture wars, as rightwing influencers attack plant-based diets. But, excessive as the watering of these crops is, more than twice as much irrigation water is used in California to grow forage plants to feed livestock, especially dairy cows. Dairy milk has much higher water demand even than the worst alternative (almond milk), and is astronomically higher than the best alternatives, such as oat or soya milk.
This is not to give all plant products a free pass: horticulture can make massive demands on water supplies. Even within a plant-based diet, we should be switching from some grains, vegetables and fruit to others. Governments and retailers should help us through a combination of stronger rules and informative labelling.
Instead, they do the opposite. Last month, at the behest of the EU’s agricultural commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, the European Commission deleted from its new climate plan the call to incentivise “diversified” (animal-free) protein sources. Regulatory capture is never stronger than in the food and farming sector.
I hate to pile yet more on to you, but some of us have to try to counter the endless bias against relevance in politics and most of the media. This is yet another of those massive neglected issues, any one of which could be fatal to peace and prosperity on a habitable planet. Somehow, we need to recover our focus.
ooOOoo
Oh dear, oh dear!
One hates to be alarmist and yet Monbiot is a very smart reporter and this is truly important.
Oh dear, oh dear!
And another cartoon!
Val sent me this one and I promised to publish it!
It is gorgeous and makes me smile every time I look at it.
Thank you, Val
Learning from Dogs 