Man Today Yuh Dead.

“Man today yuh dead, man today yuh dead and bury, man today yuh dead and bury, who tell you to come an trouble me. Man today yuh dead, man today yuh dead and bury, man today yuh dead and bury, who tell you to come trouble me.”

And with the reverberating drums carrying the tales of the gayelle echoing in my mind, I sit here on this November day reminiscent of how the culture of stick fight could have been erased from the history of Trinidad and Tobago as the younger generations of revellers wooed by the Brazilian style nakedness and the American style cash cows have within a few years transformed the true art forms - changing, thwarting and corrupting everything till the cultural jewels like minstrel, kaiso, extempo and stick fight were almost phased out.

Probably what saved them from sure demise was the very speed at which the bombardment on the true indigenous aspects of this culture were being eroded. So quickly that generations of yesteryear were still around to tell the younger generations that something very wrong was happening. Imagine the father of Soca was alive and around to tell the first born like Iwer that they were singing rubbish. That the grand master of costume mas, still alive, told the nation he’s packing his bags and leaving: because art was being destroyed by consumerism, capitalism, lewdness and alcoholism!

With such warnings and cries it seems that some were able to pull us back from the brink of this bit of our culture becoming extinct. It seems that the bois man did get to cut the devil of “modernisation” and save himself and the gayelle – even if only for a few generations again.

But I did not come to talk of carnival culture. The parallels though to which I really wanted to mention were quite similar: another aspect of our culture that is under attack – almost to say “being poached by a skilled hunter.”

It may shock some when I say that this aspect of culture and tradition to which I mention is Hunting.

I could pause here to take on the various steups and insults and twist face that is expected of ignoramuses in this land but I won’t pause for long. Just to cut their sourness short I would clearly state that this is not a scientific piece on wildlife conservation. I think it has already been long established by those who have cared to listen to the voices in this the “hunting gayelle,” that we understand and have no problems with and are in fact the biggest advocates and supporters of conservation – period!

Like the stick fight, hunting is deep rooted into the culture of Trinidad and Tobago. Make no mistake about it, it is not a case as black and white as predator and prey.

Hunting has been entrenched into the fabric of our culture to the extent that it is quite probable that every citizen of this land has a family member or one close enough who is a hunter, or has a love of wild meat etc. Of course this in no way means that everyone is partial to hunting, but should at least be a serious point to consider by those who wish to tear this part of our heritage from our culture.

It maybe that like the fate of the stick man, the younger generations need to sit with the old folk and listen carefully to the tales they would tell. Being hunters, many of these tales would clearly need to begin with  “once upon a time,” but the general nature of them is common: they speak of the pre modern times, when the people in these islands were deeply bound to the land – to seeking from the forests and other natural sources their food and lively hood.

These tales of yesteryear speak of how hunting defined men and shaped families. They give us insight into aspects of our history that people take for granted. Of how the lives of families that depended on the hunt and the forests were built – from which small communities grew: communities that still exist today, unique in appearance and dialect and flavour. Maybe those born and raised in the concrete jungles and high societies of our islands may not be able to recognise it but do they not consider that iconic communities like Matelot, Brasso Seco, Blanchicheuse, Caigul, Tabaquite, Rio Clarro, Moruga, Guayaguare, Cedros, Erin, Fyzabad, Quinam, Tamana, Bieche, Plum Mitan – and the list can go on – would not be the same had it not been for hunting.

The tales of these old hunters can fill volumes, paint a myriad of canvases and lecture to the elite and laymen.

These stories are also indicative of change as well as give the guidelines of how we should chart our futures. If one would sit with the hunting legends they would understand the passion and drive of the new generations (not considering the generation of poachers who have sprung up and roam our islands like cockroaches – looting, raping, pillaging everything from iron to forests to human souls as they swarm).

The new generation of hunters have not appeared from nowhere – these are the seed of the past, eager to continue the traditions of their lineage. Of course, like Iwer should have listened to Shorty, new generation hunters aren’t infallible and would need guidance and rules and corrections from time to time, but nonetheless they are here awaiting their turn to eventually become the old story tellers in the hunting gayelle!

Sadly there is a new poacher in town – an odd fellow. His words meticulously devious and his deception and cunning rivalling the best predator. Yet all he sees in his scope is the hunter! Determined he is to remove us from the fabric of this society. No care or concern has he for the roads were have come from and the paths we wish to thread. All he does is plays on the emotions of ecological zealots pandering to their wish make us extinct! The Poachers of Men they are, the Bambi Brigades!

Like the old stick man, we have to battle, to save more than just a sport and lifestyle – to save a part of our culture and a Legacy that many who have their roots buried deep in this soil desperately wish to continue.

An Original Caiere Chase article.

By; Abby Karim.

Posted on Caiere Chase blog Wednesday 30 November 2016

Three new species identified amongst the Tegu lizard family

TUPINAMBIS CRYPTUS FROM TRINIDAD'S NORTHERN RANGE     

Credit: John Murphy. Posted on: eurekalert.org

The golden tegu lizard, previously thought to be a single species, may actually comprise four distinct clades, including three new cryptic species, according to a study published August 3, 2016 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by John Murphy from the Field Museum of Natural History, USA and colleagues.

Tegus are among the largest Neotropical lizards, and while some species occur only in Brazil,Tupinambis teguixin inhabits much of northern South America. Commonly known as the golden tegu, T. teguixin is also sometimes called the "black and white" tegu and can be confused with the closely related species, Salvator merianae. To help resolve the systematics and nomenclature of this species, the authors examined museum samples of golden tegus for genetic and morphological differences across its geographical distribution. The authors noted subtle differences in leg scale morphology, as well as the shape of eye and lip areas, and identified substantial genetic divergence across the tegus large range.

The authors split the species currently recognized as T. teguixin into four morphologically distinct but geographically overlapping species, including three new cryptic species - T. cryptus, T. cuzcoensis, and T. zuliensis - that look similar to the human eye but are genetically distinct. The authors suggest that further research in northeastern South America might identify additional species within the T. teguixin group, which would aid in planning for tegu conservation.

"We demonstrate for the first time that two lineages of the Golden Tegu, Tupinambis teguixin, are living side by side at multiple locations in South America, and that T. teguixin is composed of at least four distinct species," said John Murphy. "This situation is known in many other species. What is surprising is that it has gone unrecognized in a species heavily exploited by humans for more than 200 years."

###

In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158542 

Citation: Murphy JC, Jowers MJ, Lehtinen RM, Charles SP, Colli GR, Peres AK Jr, et al. (2016) Cryptic, Sympatric Diversity in Tegu Lizards of the Tupinambis teguixin Group (Squamata, Sauria, Teiidae) and the Description of Three New Species. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0158542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158542

Funding: George Washington University and the National Science Foundation funded part of this project (DBI-0905765, DEB-1441719) to R. Alex Pyron. But, no funding for this project was received by the other authors.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

LINK TO ARTICLE 

Caiere Chase does not own or claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article be long to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes.

Why We Can't Manage Deer Genetics

The power of selectively controlled breeding is incredible. With it, we transformed a wolf into a chihuahua over the course of 15,000 years – mere milliseconds in the echoing depths of geologic time. We transformed a seedy grass named maize into a crop that contributes to almost everything you eat. There are many other examples, but in every case the key word is “control.” No amount of selective killing of free-roaming wolves could ever produce a chihuahua, a Labrador retriever, or a border collie. But take the plant or animal and remove it from the wild, control who breeds who for a few generations, and change can be rapid.

Hunters of free-ranging whitetails cannot manage genetics through selective harvest and produce measurable genetic change. Period. Since we can’t control breeding in free-ranging deer, we can’t shape genetics. But put the deer in a pen and explicitly control who breeds who for several generations and, yes, results will be measurable, and they can be quite amazing. Because of this fact, many hunters assume the same can be done in the wild.

Hunters are hard-headed (I know because I’m a hunter). But I am bound and determined to be there when the last deer hunter gives up on the idea that a trigger-pull can change the gene pool. To help speed that day, here’s a list of sound reasons why we can’t manage genetics in free-ranging whitetails.

You can’t see genetics to start with. Many hunters think various forms of antlers represent genetic traits, but most of the abnormalities we see are injury-related, especially abnormalities that only appear on one side of the rack. As far as antler dimensions such as tine length and mass, the factors of age and nutrition are also on display. I’ve heard hunters claim a buck had “inferior genetics” when in fact it was just a yearling with average antlers for its age. I’ve seen hunters want to “cull” small-antlered bucks in populations where nutrition is low, deer density is high, and the sex ratio is out of balance. In these populations, some bucks are born late (because of the skewed sex ratio) and they survive on below-average nutrition for the rest of their lives, a recipe for underperformance. The last thing you want to do in a population like this is take more bucks out.

Since we can’t accurately identify genetic traits with a brief glance in the wild or by looking at a trail-camera photo, we can’t reliably select for them with a trigger-pull. But even if there was such a thing as “inferior genetics” and you could see it by just looking at a deer, you could not affect its prevalence in the population, not even by killing deer that are carriers. All of the following facts explain why.

Most yearling bucks disperse from their birth range, usually just before their second fall. They have been known to travel over 40 miles in this one-time dispersal movement (with an average of 1 to 5 miles), after which they almost always set up a permanent home range.

Think about the beauty of this behavior. Research suggests doe fawns tend to be home-bodies and live pretty much in the range where they were born. If buck fawns did this too, over time the same genetics would pile up in one area, leading to inbreeding. Yearling-buck dispersal is one mechanism that ensures the genetic river never becomes a stagnant pond but is constantly churning and flowing. Any effort by hunters to direct the flow at the property level will be easily overwhelmed by a constant stream of outside genetics.

Adult bucks leave their home range during the breeding season, making what are known to researchers as rut-related “excursions.” They have been known to travel several miles to a particular spot, spend a few hours, and return home. It would appear the point of the excursion is to rendezvous with an estrus doe. If that is true, then this is one more mechanism that contributes to genetic mixing across properties and even larger areas. Like yearling-buck dispersal, rut-related buck movements drill holes in a hunter’s imagined ability to control genetics.

Does carry genes too. It’s a fallacy that any deer or deer population has an “antler-gene problem” that we should worry about, but if it did, some does would carry it too, and a hunter would have no way of sorting them out and removing them. Interestingly, like bucks, does also make rut-related excursions, which further diminishes any hope of controlling genetics.

Young bucks breed. Most of the hunters who claim to be improving genetics through harvest choices are doing so to presumably increase the prevalence of high-scoring antlers. They’re looking at a middle-aged deer and deciding he doesn’t have much potential, so they hammer him so he “won’t breed.” Too late. Research shows he probably started breeding as a yearling, shortly after his arrival in the area via dispersal.

Breeding starts early every year. Though there is a “rut peak” when the bulk of the breeding takes place, conception dates always form a bell curve on a graph... meaning that a few does come into estrus and are bred well before and well after the peak. Most modern firearms seasons don’t open until close to the peak of the rut, and by that time a fair number of does are already bred. Many times breeding even starts before early archery seasons. The hunter who plans to control breeding with a trigger-pull can’t even begin doing so legally until after (sometimes well after) breeding has begun each fall.

You don’t have the time. If you’re going to shape deer genetics in the wild, part of maintaining control over the genetics is ensuring that every individual buck out there passes through your selective screening process, whatever your criteria might be. I’ve already shown that a lot of breeding takes place before bucks are old enough for you to accurately judge their antler potential, and before you can even legally shoot them each season. Once the season comes in, even if you have help from hunting partners, plenty of bucks that are breeding won’t be seen by you during legal hunting hours and seasons. After all, you have to make an appearance at work and stop by to visit your family every now and then.

Genetic manipulation doesn’t last. It would be impossible for you to achieve the intensity of selective harvest necessary to make measurable changes in genetics across a large region, and even if you could, you would have to keep it up forever. Once breeding control ends, highly selected breeds quickly fall back to a default position. When a hog farmer’s Chester Whites escape into the woods, they revert to black, long-haired, long-nosed, long-toothed feral hogs in a relatively short time. If humans stopped controlling the breeding of pedigreed dogs and let them run loose in the streets, they would unravel back into street mutts in a few generations. If you took the most prized breeder buck from his comfortable pen and turned him out among free-ranging whitetails, he would have no measurable impact on antler size in the region, even if he survived to successfully breed. The expression of that genetic potential could only go as far as local resources allowed (soil quality, habitat quality, herd demographics, hunter management choices). Eventually, his genes would be diluted and swamped by local gene flow.

The fact is, deer don’t have “antler-gene problems” to start with, so it’s kind of silly to explain all the reasons why we can’t manage something that doesn’t exist.

But bucks do have real problems of other kinds that affect antler growth. They often don’t get adequate nutrition in every season. They often are born late because of skewed sex ratios, so they get a delayed start on physical development from the very beginning. They often fall to hunters as yearlings. These are factors we can usually control, with great results. We can:

...enhance nutrition on a year-round basis through habitat improvement and food plots.

...balance adult sex ratios through harvesting does and reducing pressure on bucks.

...protect immature bucks to give them a chance to reach physical maturity.

You can’t see or manage genetics, and it’s not a problem anyway, so don’t waste another minute worrying about it. Instead, invest your time in methods that are proven to get measurable results.

by Lindsay Thomas Jr.
on May 30, 2012 on www.qdma.com 

LINK TO SOURCE ARTICLE

Caiere Chase does not claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes. 

A SCIENTIST’S PERSPECTIVE The Trojan horse of animal protectionism: The battle over curriculum

Our future will be determined by the children
Virtually every medical advance has used animals in some stage of research or testing. Thus, whether medical progress continues at the same pace in the next century depends upon an informed public supporting the continued use of animals in responsible research and testing. Let us hope that the children of today make their decisions tomorrow using a moral value system that distinguishes between humans and animals and between animal welfare and animal rights.

---

Confrontation
Some groups have taken a direct approach and clearly label their curriculum as animal rights. They mislead students about issues of animal abuse. Adrian Morrison, the director of animal issues for the National Institutes of Mental Health, summed up their approach best when he said: “Everyone has the right to believe a rat is due the same moral consideration as a child. What is wrong, though, is the promotion of beliefs among the untutored by dishonest presentations of the ways animals are used by humans. Such tactics have, in fact, been used to discredit biomedical research using animals – tactics that were a necessary prelude to the current campaign against biology education: Convince people that animals are badly used in one sphere and reap carry-over benefits from this ‘softening up’ process when you focus on another arena.”1

---

Deception
Other animal rights groups have elected a devious approach – a secret battle. They disguise their goals and methods by disavowing the methods of the militant animal rights movement. Instead of ‘animal rights,’ they call their curriculum ‘humane and environmental education.’ They avoid the term ‘animal rights’ but teach the same value system. Most educators are unaware of this deception. Teachers welcome humane education as a means to prevent violent behavior in some students and environmental curriculum as a means to develop a sensitivity to the environment. More than 20,000 teachers nationwide have bought into this program.
Have their school efforts been successful? Several different student polls have shown steady gains for the acceptance of the animal rights philosophy. The most alarming of these was a 1993 national Gallop poll which demonstrated that 60 percent of American teenagers “support animal rights,” including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. How have they been able to produce such a striking change in attitude?

---

HSUS
The Humane Society of the US with its 1.5 million members calls itself the nation’s largest animal protection organization. Few people know that the HSUS animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says it is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have been guided by that philosophy since 1980.2
Furthermore, HSUS has set as its goal the abolition of animals in laboratory research and education.3,4,5 In recent years, HSUS elected to call themselves ‘animal protectionists’ to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberation Front and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have brought to the animal rights movement. HSUS shares the same animal rights philosophy and goal of abolishing the use of animals in laboratory research as militant animal rights groups, but they differ in tactics and timetable for reaching that goal. Their tactic is to slowly but progressively wean society away from using animals.
In order to avoid the extremist label HSUS has deliberately sought to project a ‘moderate’ image and hide the animal rights message under animal protectionism and the guise of humane and environmental education. Many of the HSUS projects are laudable and could be described as animal welfare. They work very hard to keep that image. Corporate donations and the respect of the education community are dependant on that image. However, their hidden agenda is to get people to give animals the same respect they give humans. What better method to accomplish a change in societal values than by incorporating it into a nationwide elementary school curriculum on humane and environmental education?

---

NAHEE
Is HSUS a Trojan Horse being covertly carried into the citadel of elementary education?6
HSUS has endeavored to establish itself as The Authority in humane and environmental education. Indeed, the organization has won several awards for KIND News; has had the Adopt-a-Teacher program placed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index; and had a field representatives appointed to the prestigious National Environmental Education Advisory Council of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To help establish this reputation, HSUS created the National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, a separate youth education division. NAHEE had a 1992 budget of $940,000 and 14 full-time staff , an increase of 31 percent over the 1991 budget. The goals for NAHEE were articulated in the 1992 HSUS annual report: “ ... NAHEE strives to ensure that humane attitudes become a viable part of mainstream education and environmental perspectives. ... NAHEE continues to monitor and evaluate new children’s books, children’s magazines, and newspapers as well as all major elementary and secondary teaching magazines and newspapers to encourage the promotion of humane values in publications other than our own.”7
Indeed, NAHEE has been successful in influencing other publications as evidenced by a series of three grossly misleading articles biased against using animals in medical research which appeared in the nine-million circulation Weekly Reader and its companion for middle schools Current Science.6 NAHEE’s influence even extends beyond the USA as they have sent their educational materials to 13 foreign countries.
It is clear that HSUS has been acknowledged as The Authority and is being warmly welcomed through the educational gates of Troy by unsuspecting teachers and administrators who thought they weregetting ‘humane and environmental education’ but ended up with those elements mixed with a subtle animal rights message that says it is wrong for humans to kill, capture, or use animals for any reason. It is a message that elevates respect for animals to the same plane as respect for humans. This is a brilliant tactic as respect and consideration for animals is a hallmark of animal welfare. HSUS has reduced the difference between animal rights and animal welfare to the degree of respect and consideration given animals, thus blurring the difference between the two.

---

KIND News, KIND Teacher
NAHEE’s primary effort is directed at publishing and distributing a classroom newspaper covering laudable humane and environmental themes laced with a heavy dose of respect for animals, endangered species, and an emphasis on not harming animals.
Kids In Nature’s Defense (KIND News) is published at three reading levels for children in grades one through six and is read by more than 600,000 children in 20,000 classrooms nationwide. KIND News does not cover controversial animal rights issues. However, the accompanying teachers’ guide (KIND Teacher) brings up animal rights issues without identifying them as such. KIND Teacher indoctrinates children by having the teacher lead discussions on the use of animals in dissection, the use of wild animals in laboratory research, the use of animals in product safety testing, the keeping of wild animals in zoos and circuses, the capture and sale of wild birds, hunting, trapping, and rodeos.8 KIND Teacher also promotes the students to form KIND Clubs and engage in club projects. The nature of the project and the agenda is determined by the club and club president. Given the HSUS emotional and strongly–held position on these issues, can we expect a balanced presentation?

---

HSUS Student Action Guide
The HSUS Student Action Guide, NAHEE’s newspaper for middle and secondary students, is more direct as it openly seeks to promote activism by forming Earth-Animal Protection Clubs. These clubs target a number of animal rights issues, including laboratory animal research, product safety testing, dissection, animals in science fairs, zoos, animals in entertainment, hunting, trapping, and dolphin-safe tuna. The students are referred to HSUS to obtain specific misleading materials on these issues as well as animal research and so-called alternatives to animal research.

---

California’s environmental education
Given this background, I was concerned when I learned through the 1992 HSUS annual report that “Materials published by NAHEE such as ‘Sharing Sam’ and lessons from KIND Teacher had been incorporated into A Child’s Place in the Environment, California’s new environmental education curriculum guide. The guide promises to have a substantial impact since one out of nine children in the US attends schools in California. In addition, the guide will inevitably serve as a model nationwide.”

---

NAHEE and animal rights in California’s school curriculum
In 1993, I obtained a late stage draft of the first grade edition of the guide Respecting Living Things from the California Board of Education. Fortunately, the guide had not been finalized and was still in draft form. I was surprised to find that three out of the nine guide reviewers were affiliated with NAHEE and one NAHEE field representative was on the guide committee.
The guide had a pronounced animal rights bias as half the recommended resources at the end of several units were animal rights books such as The Animal Rights Handbook: 67 Ways to Save the Animals by Anna Sequoia and Animal Rights International, The Animals’ Agenda, and Going Green, A Kid’s Handbook to Saving the Planet. These resources contained grossly misleading and dishonest presentations of how animals are used by humans and in some cases gory pictures of animals that are totally inappropriate for first graders. Furthermore, more than half the resources listed as “organizations concerned with humane treatment of animals” turned out to be animal rights organizations such as HSUS, NAHEE, the Fund for Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute of America. The guide also suggested additional names of humane organizations listed in the book 67 Ways to Save the Animals. There were 77 organizations listed in the book and all 77 were identified by the author as ‘animal rights organizations.’

---

Respect = sacred reverence for animals
A common theme that ran through the unit on Respecting Living Things was that animals were anthropomorphized and respected to the point that they were elevated to the same plane as humans. Animals were held in such reverence that they were equal to humans. Another theme that was repeated many times was that out of respect for animals, they should not be captured and taken into the classroom for study. The theme “Look, Learn, and Leave Alone” was inviolate. It was even stressed in the teacher preparation section not to capture animals (including insects) for classroom study.
The source of these themes is hard to determine. Were they placed there by the guide’s author? How much influence did NAHEE have on the author or this curriculum? It is interesting to note that Are You A Good Kind Lion, the one poem that NAHEE contributed, contained a line that is the heart of the animal rights message: “Don’t hurt the animals for any reason.” Would that message tell first graders that it is morally wrong to eat animals?

---

Balance
Working with the California Biomedical Research Association, we took our concerns to the California State Board of Education. We were successful in deleting all the animal rights organizations and books as resources prior to the guide’s publication in 1994. We were also successful in deleting the NAHEE poem “Are You A Good Kind Lion.” Furthermore, the prohibition against capturing animals for classroom examination was replaced with a discussion on the proper methods of capturing and caring for animals.
Although our partial success was heartening, this episode graphically illustrates how close animal rights activists came to having their philosophy accepted as part of the nation’s largest and most influential humane and environmental education curricula. The educational community needs to be alerted to the hidden agenda of “animal protection” organizations. Local humane societies, APHE, and animal rights in schools.
Another source of concern is the local humane societies that have been hijacked and taken over by animal rights activists. They have also developed educational curricula with animal rights propaganda and have been taking it into the schools for many years.
The Association of Professional Humane Educators (formerly known as the Western Humane and Environmental Educators’ Association), a group that is often affiliated with HSUS and NAHEE, is comprised of education officials from at least 21 western humane societies and SPCAs, most of them located in California.
APHE provides a framework for these educators to network and share classroom material on animal rights along with humane and environmental themes. For example, on March 15-16, 1994, APHE (then known as WHEEA) held its annual meeting in San Diego, California. The keynote speaker was Kim Sturla of the Fund for Animals, a national animal rights organization. Two HSUS representatives were in attendance to promote KIND News and Adopt-a-Teacher programs.
The Packrat, the APHE Newsletter, is a bulletin board for animal rights educational material from a large number of animal rights groups such as the American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animals’ Agenda, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rights Information Service, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Fund for Animals, HSUS, Last Chance for Animals, NAHEE, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PeTA Teachers Network, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the United Coalition of Iditarod Animal Rights Volunteers.
Most humane societies have one or more education officers who go to schools and teach children about proper pet care, humane treatment of animals, endangered species, and environmentalism. Because most teachers perceive the local humane society to be an animal welfare organization, they are welcomed by the schools. APHE members take advantage of this relationship to introduce an animal rights message along with their regular presentations. For example, the Peninsula Humane Society of San Mateo, California, publishes an informative unit on endangered species. However, at the end of the unit, they urge students to read animal rights books, join animal rights organizations, write politicians about animal rights issues, sign petitions about animal rights issues, boycott specific companies that do product safety testing on animals, and boycott products made from animal skins, fur, or other parts. They also provide grossly misleading information on animal research.

---

Animal rights and New Age religion
If the Catholic Church had set out to indoctrinate public school children with a new moral system imbedded in a humane and environmental curriculum, there would have been a huge outcry and controversy. A religious cult is indoctrinating public school children, but there is little outcry or controversy because the religious overtones and the value system have been masked. The religion is called New Age; the value system is animal rights.
Thomas Berry, an ‘ecotheologian’ and the ‘spiritual guide’ for the HSUS Center for Respect of Life and the Environment, was one of several of the speakers at the HSUS 1992 annual meeting who focused on New Age themes of total reverence and respect for animals and the environment because the spirit of God was in the whole universe equally.
Although totally open about the spiritual and religious aspects of their movement in the annual meeting, HSUS is careful not to present its KIND News as part of a religious movement. In his book What Are They Trying to Do to Us? The Truth about the Animal Rights Movement and the New Age, Bernard Palmer illustrated that the animal rights movement takes on the fundamental tenets of the New Age religion. Furthermore, Rod and Patti Strand make a similar observation about the religious nature of animal rights in their book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement. Both books make the case that the energy that propels the movement is the faithful volunteers spreading the gospel of respect and sacred reverence for animals.

---

What can you do? Get involved!

• Give a copy of this article to your friends.
• See if your school subscribes to KIND News and check your school’s curriculum on humane and environmental education.
• Find out if local humane societies are invited to give presentations and if these presentations contain animal rights propaganda.
• Ask to see the material and teachers guides.
• Alert your child’s teachers, administrators, and school board about animal rights messages hidden in humane and environmental curriculum.
• Volunteer at your local school.
• If animals rights is discussed, make sure that a balanced discussion of the issue is presented.
• Check the school library for books presenting both viewpoints.
• Encourage your professional society, institution, or employer to support education programs that present the use of animals by society in a balanced manner. (The Massachusetts Society for Medical Research has produced such a program entitled People and Animals: United for Health Teaching Curriculum. Contact MSMR at www.msmr.org, msmr@att.net, or (978) 251-1556 (phone) or (978) 251-7683 (fax).

- See more at: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/a-scientists-perspective#sthash.5PvzekLu.vrIKRbIr.dpuf

By: Patrick H. Cleveland, PhD  Date: 05/9/1996
Posted on: www.naiaonline.org/     

LINK TO ARTICLE  

Caiere Chase does not own the rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes. 

Carib Tykes in the News

Posted on Covertside's facebook page on Saturday 23 of July 2016.

LINK TO POST

Hunting Steering Committee, Public Consultation of 16/7/16 Report

     The recommendations for proposed changes to the Conservation of Wildlife Act of Trinidad and Tobago, by the Hunting Steering Committee as presented to the public on 16/7/16 for the second public consultation held at the Tableland High School were as follows.

Cage Birds:

• Recommendation: Prevent the sale of cage birds during the closed season.                                   Action: Add regulation to prevent the sale of birds listed under Part III of the Second Schedule of the CoWA during the close season.
• Recommendation: A permit shall be required for the keeping in captivity of all local seed eaters of the genera Sporophila and Oryzoborus as listed in the second schedule part III of the Conservation of Wildlife Act of Trinidad and Tobago and said permit shall be subject to a framework of regulations, inclusive of breeding of seed eaters (native species ) in captivity.    Action: New regulations to keep and/or breed certain cage birds.
• Recommendation: Change size/volume requirement for cages per individual bird.             Action: No person shall keep captive any birds specified in Part III of the Second Schedule to the Act except in a cage floor space the minimum size of which shall be not less than one square foot, the height not less than one foot, the total volume excluding the trap section not less than one cubic foot for each such captive bird. For each additional bird an additional 25% floor space and 25% in height are required.
• Recommendation: No seed-eaters to be kept in trap cage.                                                     Action: New regulation needed.
• Recommendation: Stop trapping of birds from Part III with the exception of:                               Cravat ( Euphonia trinitatis)                                                                                                             Semp (Euphonia violacea)                                                                                                               Parakeet (Forpus passerinus)                                                                                                     these birds can be trapped and kept in trap cages.                                                             Action: Regulation will allow the following to be kept for breeding and fancy but not to be harvested in the wild by trapping:                                                                                         Chicki-Chong or Bullfinch (Oryzoborus angolensis)                                                                   Picoplat (Sporophila intermedia)                                                                                             Yellow-bellied seedeater (Sporophila nigricollis)                                                                           Chats: Nun Chat (Sporophila lineola) and King Chat (Sporophila bouvronides)

Game Birds:

• Leave the following on the Second Schedule Part II:                                                                   Wild Ducks: Black-bellied whistling duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis),                                          Fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor),                                                                        Muscovy (Cairina moschata) all other ducks to be removed.                                                        
• Pigeons (Family Columbidae): Omit all excepting Scaled Pigeon (Columba speciosa), Pale-vented Pigeon (Columba cayennensis), Eared Dove (Zenaida auriculata), Ruddy Ground-Dove (Columbina talpacoti), White-tipped Dove (Leptotila verreauxi), Gray-fronted Dove (Leptotila rufaxilla).
• Orange-winged amazon parrot – Amazona amazonica in Trinidad only.
• Black Vulture or Corbeau – (Coragyps atratus)
• Neotropic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax brasilianus)
• Rallidae —All birds belonging to the Family Rallidae (Coots, Rails, Gallinules and their allies)
• Herons: Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Cocoi heron (Ardea cocoi), Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea), Boat-billed heron (Cochlearius cochlearius)
• Recommendation: Prescribe Bag Limits per day.                                                                      Action: Already existing, but need revisions - 8. (1) Except in pursuance of an authority specially granted by the Chief Game Warden under this regulation, no person shall harvest by hunting more than five Wild Ducks and five Herons in any one day.

Vermin:

• Recommendation: Remove all bats from this list except the vampire bats: the Common Vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) and the White-winged vampire bat (Diaemus youngi) and update list.                                                                                                                                  Action: Revise list in Third Schedule and to the remaining animals assign correct scientific names:1. Common vampire bats (Desmodus rotundus) 2.White-winged vampire bats (Diaemus youngi) 3. Fer de lance, Mapepire Balsain (Bothrops asper) 4. Bushmaster, Mapepire Zanana (Lachesis muta muta) 5. House mice (Mus musculus) 6. Small Asian Mongooses (Herpestes javanicus) 7. Black rats (Rattus rattus) 8. Brown rats (Rattus norvegicus) 9. Large coral snakes (Micrurus lemniscatus diutius) 10. Small or common coral snakes (Micrurus circinalis) 11. Red-tailed squirrels (Sciurus granatensis) 12. Yellowtail or cornbird (Psarocolius decumanus) 13. Manicou or Black-eared opossum (Didelphis marsupialis)
• Recommendation: Remove the green parrot on list.                                                               Action: Orange-winged Amazon Parrot: Amazona amazonica from Tobago only.

Other: 

• Recommendation: The use of air guns and live traps need to be reviewed with special emphasis given to proper definitions and descriptions of the varying types of traps, e.g. 1.baited cage trap, 2.squad or unbaited cagetrap placed in mouth of animals’ den, 3.jaw trap, 4. noose snare. Squads, jaw traps and noose or snares should be outlawed.                                             Action: New regulation may be needed.
• Recommendation: State Game Liscense – increase price to $100.00 per category.  Action: Revise regulations.
• Recommendation: Include state lands in the prohibition of night hunting (7:30pm – 5:00am) in Forest Reserves.                                                                                                                   Action: Revise regulation.
• Recommendation: Qualify further artificial lights mentioned in Reg. 5 (1).           Action: Revision of existing regulation.

*****

Below is an article appearing on http://newsday.co.tt/ concerning the HSC public consultation of 16/7/16. Caiere Chase does not claim or own any rights to this news article,all rights belong to the author and original publisher, it is only reproduced here in full for critique, news and archival purposes.

‘I eat wild meat’

By Richardson Dhalai Sunday, July 17 2016

Having objected to the ban on hunting when it had been announced during the People’s Partnership’s term in office, Agriculture, Lands and Fisheries Minister, Clarence Rambharat has announced that the hunting season would open on its traditional October 1 date.

In 2013, then Environment Minister, Ganga Singh, had announced a two-year ban on hunting and cited data which h seemed to suggest that more than 140,000 wild animals had been hunted and killed in Trinidad and Tobago over a three-year period.

Addressing a public consultation on wildlife hunting at the Tableland Secondary School, Naparima Mayaro Road, Tableland yesterday, Rambharat said he had not supported the hunting ban due to economic reasons and had ‘no intention of advocating a moratorium on hunting.” “I am not against hunting, but as I have said today, we have to strike the right balance between hunting and conservation,” Rambharat said.

And asked whether he was a hunter, Rambharat said: “No, no, no, never hunted.” However speaking to reporters after the consultation he admitted to eating wild meat as it was part of the culture of Rio Claro and pointed out hunting was of significant economic value to rural communities.

“Yes, I eat wild meat, it is part of the culture in Rio Claro,” he said, adding, “I am not opposed to hunters or hunting but I don’t personally hunt but the economic value in the rural communities is too significant for us to interfere with it.” And regarding the National Wildlife Survey results, he said the most striking thing on the survey was the absence of the indigenous red brocket deer in Tobago and its diminishing numbers in Trinidad.

“The survey showed that the red brocket deer, there is no sign of it in Tobago, and it’s very scarce in Trinidad and that raises to me a significant concern, I don’t think it is well known that the red brocket deer is unique to Trinidad, that is why I have asked the committee to pay particular attention to it, how we could reintroduce to Tobago and how we could focus on it in terms of co-conservation and increasing the numbers in Trinidad,” Rambharat said.

He said the deer had once been abundant in Tobago, but had “been gone for a while.” Rambharat also addressed a concern from hunters about the absence of game wardens in the forests saying his Ministry was faced with an absence of other officers such as agriculture officers and joked that he had to make an appointment to speak to them.

He also revealed plans to relocate all senior ministry managers to its Chaguanas building so he would be able to directly interact with them on a daily basis on the operations of the ministry.

Some of the concerns raised by hunters was the need to protect the wildlife as well as its habitat in order to ensure the industry’s survival. The third consultation is planned for Tobago. 

LINK TO ARTICLE

How to Run a Trail-Camera Survey

A trail-camera survey – put simply – is the most powerful herd monitoring tool you can use that doesn’t require the assistance of a professional wildlife biologist. On your own, you can estimate deer density, sex ratio, buck age structure, fawn recruitment and more – tons of information that will guide you in achieving Quality Deer Management success where you hunt.

A trail-camera survey involves operating one camera per 100 acres over evenly spaced, baited sites for 14 days. The accuracy of your results depends on how well you run the survey. I compiled the following step-by-step guide for use in Quality Whitetails magazine based on the original research conducted in 1997 by Drs. Harry Jacobson and James Kroll, and I fine-tuned the guide with input from other wildlife biologists who conduct surveys. Even with this guide, you will still have a lot of questions as you work your way through your first trail-camera survey. To answer those questions, QDMA published a book, Deer Cameras: The Science of Scouting, which includes four chapters devoted to helping the reader run successful trail-camera surveys. If you are serious about improving the local deer population through QDM, we strongly encourage you to incorporate trail-camera surveys into your herd monitoring plan.

Of course, some hunters are prevented from conducting baited trail-camera surveys because local or state regulations prohibit the use of bait, such as corn. QDMA’s book goes into detail on different approaches these hunters can use to monitor their local deer population.

Now, for the step-by-step guide.

• Conduct trail-camera surveys in pre-season (after antlers are completely grown but before acorns begin to fall) or post-season (start as soon as hunting season ends but before antler casting begins).

• Avoid timing a survey when natural food sources, such as a heavy acorn crop, will compete with your bait. In general, shelled corn is the best bait to use.

• If you hunt in an area with a traditionally late rut peak (late December into January), wait until October for pre-season surveys so that fawns are old enough to be mobile and appear in survey photos.

• Follow all baiting and feeding regulations in your state.

• Determine the number of cameras needed. On properties smaller than 1,000 acres, use one camera per 100 or fewer acres. On larger properties, use one camera per 160 or fewer acres. NOTE: If you can’t afford or borrow enough cameras, rotate the cameras you have across the survey sites until each site has been monitored 10 to 14 days. If you do this, be sure to start the cameras at the same sites at the same time each year and rotate to new sites in the same order each year to keep survey results comparable across years.

• Using a map or aerial photo of your property, mark off a grid that divides the tract into one block per camera needed. Select a camera site close to the center of each block based on ease of access and deer activity. (deer travel routes, woods roads, etc.). Identify each grid with a number or letter (placing a numbered or lettered sign at each site so that it will appear in the photos will help you later to organize images and data by location. See the photo above as an example).

• Clear ground-level debris at each camera site to allow for clean images of deer. Orient the camera facing north to avoid backlighting caused by sunrise or sunset.

• Locate the camera approximately 12 to 20 feet from the bait, with the bait pile in the center of the image. Precise set-up varies with camera model.

• With digital cameras, set the delay for no less than 5 minutes to keep the number of images manageable.

• Once each site is ready, “pre-bait” for 7 to 10 days. Turn cameras on during this phase and monitor photos to ensure cameras are working and camera setup is good (for example, deer are not too close or too far from the camera).

• After 7 to 10 days, if deer are responding to your bait and traffic at each site is strong, begin the active survey phase (photos from this phase should be kept separate from older photos and saved for later analysis).

• Maintain the survey phase for 10 to 14 days (In research, 14 days captured 90 percent of all unique deer; 10 days captured 85 percent of unique deer, which is adequate for the survey if expenses must be minimized).

• Refresh memory cards, batteries and bait as needed, but otherwise keep human activity to a minimum. Wear rubber boots and gloves and practice scent-control measures whenever you visit the sites.
Collect cameras and compile images. Count the total number of bucks, does and fawns. “Fawns” are all deer under 1-year old, including button bucks. “Total” counts include known repeats of individual deer. Do not count deer you cannot identify as a buck, doe or fawn.

• Study photos closely to count unique bucks based on recognizable antler and/or body characteristics (ask for second opinions from friends or a consultant if any photos present tough calls). For example, you may have 100 total buck images but only 10 unique bucks in all. Your ratio of unique bucks to total bucks is therefore 1:10, or 10 percent (0.10).

Note: QDMA has created a free computation form that makes the next few steps very simple.

• Multiply your ratio of unique-to-total bucks by the total does and fawns to come up with an estimate of unique does and fawns. For example, if you have 200 total images of does and multiply it by your 0.10 ratio, you get an estimate of 20 unique does.

• Apply a correction factor to your estimates. If you ran the survey phase for the full 14 days, multiply each of your buck, doe and fawn estimates by 1.11 to adjust for deer you may not have photographed. If you ran the survey phase for 10 days, multiply by a correction factor of 1.18. The results are your adjusted estimates.

• You now have an estimate of the deer population separated by bucks, does and fawns. Use this data to produce estimated deer density, buck:doe ratio and fawn:doe ratio. Sort unique bucks by estimated age to evaluate age structure. If you need help interpreting results to guide future management decisions, talk to a local wildlife biologist or private wildlife consultant.

• Repeat the survey annually or as regularly as possible, using the same method, timing and camera sites, so that you can monitor trends in herd characteristics.

This may sound more difficult than it really is, but it's important to think through the details before you launch a trail-camera survey, or else your results may be compromised. The truth is, trail-camera surveys are fun, and they can produce valuable information even for your hunting strategies. .....................................

LINK TO ARTICLE

Caiere Chase does not own or claim any rights to this article and it is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article was sourced from www.qdma.com

Hunting Steering Committee Rescheduling of Public Consultation

NOTICE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON WILDLIFE AND HUNTING SATURDAY 9th JULY 2016

Vampires in "Guaya"

Scanned from the Trinidad Express newspaper of Thursday 9 June 2016.

A NONHUNTER TAKES HUNTER ED: MY STORY

Hunting has never been a part of my life. I have never desired to take down a bull elk with a gun or even whack a trout on the head. Yet, somehow, I found myself in a hunter education class, enjoying the lessons and learning more than I ever expected. If I’m clearly not a hunter, why on earth did I sign up for hunter-ed?

Utterly disconnected from where food comes from, I stopped to think about it for the first time when a coworker offered me slices of sausage harvested from an elk hunt. I’m a regular person who eats regular supermarket meat, with no room in the budget for local butcher shops or organic, free-range, grass-fed beef. Taking the first bite of elk, it dawned on me that I could finally ask someone exactly where the meat came from. Within 10 seconds I had my answer and more. The elk came from game management unit 32, near Meeker. It died quickly with two shots to the lungs, and the hunter shared the meat amongst family and friends. Sure, you could ask your local grocer the same question, but unless you work somewhere along the supply chain, you can never be 100 percent certain where supermarket meat comes from or how humanely it was harvested.

Being directly connected to this elk meat started a chain reaction of questions I had no answers for. I have always enjoyed blissful ignorance in regard to where my meat comes from. So why did I care about this meat, and not the burger I ate last night? Could this animal have had a better life—and death—than the animals I usually consume? Could these factors make hunting… better? To answer these questions I needed to know more about hunting.

The hunters I know have a great respect for animals, eat all the meat they harvest and enjoy the overall hunting experience—not the kill. To a letter, every person I interviewed said taking the life of an animal is never something they find joy in, and all reported feeling grateful toward the animal, as its meat will feed themselves and their family. Gratitude. What a powerful (and frankly surprising) emotion to find hunters identifying with. On the other hand, I know my small sample pool does not necessarily define the way all hunters think and feel. I still needed to know more, so I signed up for a hunter education course.

Two weeks later I found myself walking into Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Hunter Education building. I took a seat near the back and waited for class to begin. Looking around I realized the room had quickly filled up, not with crazy gun-toting hunter stereotypes, but with children. A tow-headed youngster eagerly showed off his knowledge of animal identification to friends. He gestured wildly at two taxidermied bucks on the wall, barely containing his excitement as he exclaimed, “Do you know how to tell the difference between a mule deer and a whitetail? You gotta look at the antlers and the ears and the butt.” His friends, eager to show off their matched knowledge of animal ID, began animatedly talking over each other about antlers, fur color and body size. These kids knew a lot about wildlife.

Running a quick head-count as class began, I determined that nearly half of the 70 students were teens or younger. As the instructors began posing questions to the class, little hands popped up, eagerly waving fingertips indicating their desire to be called upon. A 12-year-old girl correctly answered a question about pump-action shotguns. An 8-year-old boy knew the “Four Rules of Firearm Safety.” When an instructor asked, “what’s the safest way to carry a rifle in the field?” a 10-year-old girl almost caused shock waves from waving her hand so hard in the air. Proud and confident the girl proclaimed, “Two-hand carry!” I quickly turned to page 33 in the hunter-ed manual… she was right.

Firearm safety and handling were just the tip of the iceberg. I had no idea we would also learn about laws and regulations, wilderness survival skills, wildlife identification, habitat conservation and ethics. Wait, did I just say ethics? Until now, I had thought of ethics as a term people use when talking about why they don’t hunt. The instructors spent a great deal of time discussing what ethical hunting means. “One shot, one kill.” I heard this mantra over and over during class. “One shot, one kill”, means that you only take a shot at an animal when you know you can kill it quickly and cleanly. You may have a legal shot, but if there is a chance of merely wounding the animal it would not be ethical to try. Going even further, the instructors told us hunters are in the circle of life, and encouraged everyone to “ask yourself each time if you want to take that life. If there’s any reason you don’t want to shoot, don’t shoot.” Eagerly agreeing, an older gentleman near the front shared that few of his best hunting stories end with actually bagging an animal, and his favorite part of hunting is spending time with his kids in the backcountry.

Over the course of the two-day class, I began developing a different picture of what defines a hunter. Gaining new insight on how an ethical and respectful hunter behaves both on and off the hunt, confirmed my belief that ethical and legal hunters comprise the vast majority of folks in the field. It is the law that you only hunt what you have a license to kill. It is the law that you hunt sober. It is the law that you harvest every part of an animal fit for human consumption. People who do not follow the laws or ethically harvest their kills are not hunters, they are poachers, and poachers are the ones who give legitimate hunters a bad reputation. So how many hunters really put harvesting every usable part of the animal above all else and how many hunters hunt legally and ethically? All of them.

If you are unsure of how you feel about hunting, are all for it but have never experienced a hunt, or perhaps are dead set against hunting and want to know who on earth would kill an animal for any reason, I encourage you to take hunter education. Taking the class doesn’t automatically turn you into a hunter. In fact, recent survey results reveal 52 percent of class participants have yet to purchase a hunting license after taking the course and 64 percent have not hunted since taking the class.

Seated next to me in class was a gentleman who, like me, was just there to self-educate and see what this hunting thing was all about. Neither of us own a gun and neither of us plan to ever go hunting, but we both gained greater understanding  by daring to expand our worldview just a little bit. I now have a little orange card which would allow me to purchase a license and hunt for my own local, free-range, organic, grass-fed meat. For now, however, the card is tucked away in a drawer at home, next to coupons for the grocery store.

Story and photo by Crystal Lynn Egli. Egli is a seasonal temp in CPW’s video production section.

Originally posted on May 23 2016 to coloradooutdoorsmag.com

LINK TO ARTICLE

Caiere Chase does not claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced her for news, critique and archival purposes.