Caz and the (dead) seal

This tale begins on Saturday, March 14 during a stroll along the beach at Wauwinet, at the east end of Nantucket Harbor, when we happened upon a dead harbor seal. Caz checked it out:

It seemed fairly freshly dead. It didn't smell, nor did it seem to be bloated or rotting yet. Only the eyes were missing, presumably pecked out by seagulls based on the numerous tracks surrounding the body. Caz continued his inspection at the other end:

He did not seem especially anxious, excited or agitated. He just smelled the carcass calmly, but with purpose. But then he did something rather odd. After a brief pause, he dug his snout into the sand near the hind flippers of the seal and pushed a pile of sand onto the flippers:

He continued this until the flippers were completely covered:

He then moved up to the head and front flippers and continued his snout-shoveling:

Soon the front third of the seal began to disappear beneath the sand:

Eventually the head was completely buried:

So he moved onto the side of the seal and began pushing more sand over the midsection:

Before too long, the entire seal was covered:

I have never seen Caz do anything like this before! The whole process took only 10 minutes or less. His work was not hurried, but he was focused and worked consistently. I was impressed by the precision of his "shoveling"; very little sand piled upon the seal was redundant, with each new dig largely covering exposed area. He paid little attention to me or anything else during the process, only his work. For my part, I stood by, mouth agape, amazed and awed by this new behavior.

-

The big question lingering in my mind is what this was all about? I have shared the photos with many friends, and received many different responses. Most if not all expressed some degree of awe comparable to my reaction, and also wondered what was going on. There were some who did not want to know the underlying motivation, and simply appreciated the uniqueness and strange beauty of the act. And I respect that.

-

But I find myself with an inescapable curiousness about the intent of Caz's behavior that won't seem to pass. Perhaps it's the nature of being a scientist. Or perhaps it's born of a desire to better understand my longtime friend and companion, to bridge the inter-species divide that inevitably is between us, no matter how many years we've had together or how strong of bond we feel.

-

So I've been asking the question of myself and others: What was he doing? There seem to be two prevailing (and perhaps obvious) theories:

-

1. He was storing (and maybe "seasoning") a large and fresh food source.

-

2. He was burying (and maybe protecting) the dead, not for food but out of honor or respect (for lack of better terms).

-

Of course, I'd like to believe #2. It would seem to reveal some deeper wisdom, or at least soul, in the boy. But logic at first told me that #1 was more likely. After all, it is well known that domestic dogs bury bones, and this has been linked to age old instincts to guard food from competitors and store it for leaner times.

-

So perhaps I am not passing through life with the canine Gandhi by my side that wishful thinking had me starting to believe. But maybe so. A few things have me thinking that my initial hope might have some merit, and my initial reasoning might not necessarily be the case.

Firstly, he's never buried food or bones before. He will dig in the sand or snow, but it's usually because he's trying to retrieve a ball or frisbee or stick that is dug in, and needs to get under it a bit to get a grip. He has also come across animal carcasses before and has never made any effort to bury them.

-

Secondly, other animals are known to protect their dead. I recall seeing footage in a documentary some time ago of a hippo protecting the body of its mate from crocodiles for days before being forced to leave it to forage. Of course, all the googling in the world hasn't turned up any footage, photo or even mention of this behavior. But I did find reference to elephant not simply protecting their dead, but burying them too.

-

Of course, those hippo and elephant examples are one species protecting or burying their own kind, whereas this is a different species. However, there have been various reports over the years of dolphins protecting humans from sharks, so sort of inter-species empathy is not out of the question. Also, pinnipeds do have a distinctly canine look about them, and seals are in fact more closely related to dogs than are cats.

-

Finally, one friend made an interesting observation that warrants consideration: There might be some significance to the fact that Caz faced the seal and buried it with his snout, rather than turn his back and kick sand backwards with his forepaws. Apparently in the dog world, facing someone is a sing of respect, whereas turning your back is a sign of disrespect (not unlike the human world, I suppose). So, facing the seal might reflect respect for the dead, whereas he might have faced away had he been storing food. Of course, there might be efficiency gains to be had by facing the body, as noted in my comments above about the precision of his efforts.

-

I'm a bit uncomfortable with seeming like I'm making a case for theory #2 over #1, and therefore risking biasing the answer. However, #1 would seem to be more likely, on the surface at least, so it requires less of a case to be made. #2, on the other hand, begins to stray from very basic instincts from the wild into some deeper emotional aspects that are harder to explain and understand, but might nevertheless be at play. So, for what it's worth, my intuition, experience and, if I'm being honest, preference leads me to toward #2 (n.b. By "experience" I mean with Caz specifically and not with dog behavior in general. The uniqueness of the act and his demeanor just told me something else was going on...).

-

So, I'm curious to know what others think, including those with relevant expertise and those who simply have some insight. Please visit the brief survey I created to gather perspectives, and be on the lookout for a post with an update on the results in the near future. Thanks!

Monsters!

There was flurry of coverage recently in various news outlets across the globe of the discovery of fossils of a prehistoric relative of the boa constrictor, the giant "Titanoboa". The behemoth could reach 45 feet in length, and weigh over a ton. Sweet.

This discovery reminded me that I have yet to write what is perhaps the most important post I will ever craft in this space: My Top 5 Monster Movies! I love monsters and monster movies. I'm talking about gigantic monsters, not your human-sized vampires and werewolves and such (n.b. When did werewolves become "lycans"? When I hear "lycan", I think about moss.). I can't really explain why. Perhaps it's due to my fascination with nature. Monsters represent the extremes of nature - evolution and biology pushed to the edge. They are terrible (although sometimes misunderstood) and dangerous and so damn cool.

And they are unique. True monsters are one-of-a-kind in the movies (or at least very-few-of-a-kind, for reproductive/sequel purposes), although in the real world we get entire populations of monster-like species. My favorite is probably the saltwater crocodile, a species I encountered once or twice during my years in Australia. Crocodiles are also the subject of one of the most original and insightful natural history books I have ever read: Alistair Graham's Eyelids of Morning: The Mingled Destinies of Crocodile and Men, which not only has the greatest subtitle in the history of subtitles, but is also peppered with mind-blowing photos by Peter Beard, the photographer who accompanied Graham on the expedition that forms the basis for the book. It can be hard to find, but check it out if you can find it.

Anyway, I'm slipping into nerdy scientist mode when I'm supposed to be in geeky monster-loving mode. So, without further adieu, the list...

Honorable mention: Jurassic Park (1993) - Science, thrills and dinosaurs: What more could you ask for?
Honorable mention: Gamera (1965) - Like Romancing the Stone, it's a shameless rip-off a wildly successful movie, but a rip-off that works nonetheless.

#5 Cloverfield (2008)
It only came out last year, and I wasn't expecting to like it. I HATED The Blair Witch Project, not so much because of the jerky hand-held camera style, but rather because nothing really happened. Very much not the case here. If you can accept the fact that these people kept filming while things were trying to kill them, I thought this movie did a great job of keeping up the action and suspense, and especially at incrementally showing us the beast. Given the format, we never learn exactly what it is and how it got here, and I was OK with that. This movie was about flight and survival...or not.

#4a King Kong (1933)
#4b King Kong (2005)
I can't pick one, so I'm including both. The original is, well, the original. It was way ahead of its time, and more than 70 years later provided sufficient inspiration for a genius like Peter Jackson to put his own spin on it, with the benefit of modern technology. Unlike the decent but not list-worthy 1976 re-make, Jackson stuck to the original story and time period, but took Skull Island and its inhabitants to a whole new level with the special effects tools at his disposal. The Kong vs T. rex X 3 battle might be the best action scene I've ever seen in a movie. Jackson's version goes on a bit too long before we see the big ape, but the original portrays Carl Denham as too much of a hero and not enough as a scumbag. So neither is perfect, but both are great.

#3a Anaconda (1997)
#3b Lake Placid (1999)
The late 1990's gave us a magnificent trinity of animals-gone-awry movies with these two gems as well as Deep Blue Sea (1999). Unfortunately, the latter does not qualify for this list because the sharks weren't abnormally large, only abnormally smart. But a big-ass snake and a big-ass crocodile are good enough. I can't separate these two. In my experience, there is probably a slight edge in popularity to LP, but I'm not ready to pick one over the other. Both are loaded with witty tongue-in-cheek performances by ensemble casts of great B-list actors. Both mock themselves and have fun doing it. And both feature great big scary animals. Three out of three ain't bad.

#2 Jaws (1975)
I am so close to making this #1 I can taste it. A classic movie in every way, with a maritime theme to boot. The characters are unique and brilliantly acted. The dialogue and relationships that develop among Brody, Quint and Hooper are superb: at times witty, touching, macho or acerbic. The movie actually begins as more of a horror movie than a monster movie, since at first we don't see much of the shark, only the bloody remnants of its carnage as it lurks invisible in the depths. But by the end we see the big fella in all his glory, and he is a magnificent beast. Ultimately, he is no longer simply hunting as he had been for most of the movie, but going to battle against his human foes. He attacks not for food but for victory, and does so with an almost boyish delight (yes, I can read emotion in the face of a 30-foot mechanical shark). I never tire of watching this movie.

#1 Godzilla versus Megalon (1973)
How could the top spot go to anyone but the King of the Monsters??? I love Godzilla. I mean, alot. I have a weird boy crush on him. I wish he was real and that he was my friend. I could deal with him smashing a few buildings around my neighborhood so we could hang out together. There are many Godzilla movies I could have put in this spot (although NOT any of the movies made after the 1970s - garbage; but check out this collection of Godzilla's co-stars, and other movie monsters - cool collage), but it was never going to be any one other than GvM. It was made the year I was born, and when it made it to the States a few years later and dad took me to see it, it became the first movie I ever saw in a theater, just beating out Star Wars. When I Googled it, I found this fantastic page on the movie, which was also the author's first cinematic experience. Godzilla is the good guy in this one (he bounces back and forth from movie to movie), teaming up with the robot Jet Jaguar (a character that apparently was created by an elementary school boy in a contest, according to the IMDB page) to defeat the beetle-like Megalon and his partner-in-crime Gigan. It's not on DVD yet, but it should be if there's any justice in the world.

So there you have it: My Top 5 list, in which I managed to squeeze 7 (or 9 if you count the HMs). See them all. And stay tuned for my next post on the Stimulus Package! Woo hoo!!!

Caught between two legacies

In just over 12 hours, Barack Obama will take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States. In less than one hour, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day will pass for another year. And yet, my guess is that tomorrow's inauguration would mean a hell of a lot more to Dr. King than his own holiday, and it no doubt means a great deal to those for whom he fought and those he inspired (myself certainly included). As Tavis Smiley noted on Meet the Press this past Sunday, Obama's election is not the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream, but rather another down payment on it. But it is the most significant down payment our nation has made since the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.

Of course, Tavis also urged us not to give Obama a free pass. His election and forthcoming inauguration are profound moments in our collective history and psyche, and should be celebrated as such. But the new president must be held accountable. However, we must also remember that he is inheriting some of the most severe messes ever handed to an incoming president. The legacy of Dr. King that makes this moment so important unfortunately will be compromised by the legacy of George Bush that will limit what can be done with the moment at hand.

Still, I head into tomorrow with a hope that is genuine and not simply a campaign slogan. Part of that hope comes from the man who will take the oath of office. I see his intellect, trust his integrity, and believe that he will take measured but meaningful steps to move our country and our world forward, more often than not with success. But more of my hope comes from a sense that something has been awakened in the nation. That something is a belief that we are not powerless, that we can take our destiny into our hands, and that we can all act to make this world a better place. Barack is ultimately fairly moderate, and even where he is more progressive he will be constrained by the problems he is now charged with fixing. But the other 300 million of us, despite not holding the highest office in the land, are less constrained, if only by the strength of our numbers. It is now our choice as to whether we let his rhetoric, which channels that of Dr. King, be simply the text of a political stage show or instead be a call to arms to build the world and the future that we want.

Science and the environment: what was and what will be

I had planned for many weeks to compose an indictment of the Bush administration's record on science and the environment, a post-mortem of sorts on eight long, long years, and an examination of the final flurry of efforts to undermine science and abuse the environment. Indeed, the record is long and inglorious. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) provided a comprehensive look at scientific integrity (or, more precisely, the lack thereof) in policymaking in the first term of the Bush White House. Since then, UCS has examined media policies concerning science in government agencies under Bush.

The UCS assessments were not positive, to say the least. To rectify this disturbing trend, they called upon both the White House and Congress to codify policies of freedom within, transparency of, and support for science as a central component of responsible government. Not surprisingly, the Administration did not respond. Instead, Bush et al. planned a broad slate of rollbacks on environmental regulations. Most disturbing among those proposals, in my mind, was a plan to allow federal agencies planning actions that might harm endangered species to determine for themselves whether harm will come to the species in question, rather than consulting the agencies with both the expertise and the legal mandate to assess threats and protect species (i.e., the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service). This is disturbing not only because it puts biodiversity, ecosystems, and the jobs and communities that depend upon them at risk, but also because it continues the dangerous trend of suppressing and marginalizing sound science.

However, events have unfolded that make me feel less interest and urgency in outlining and critiquing this disgraceful record. One was Bush's decision to declare 200,000 square miles of ocean within the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone as three new national monuments. Combined with Bush's earlier designation of a national monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, this recent action raises the total area of the marine environment protected under Bush to around 350,000 square miles. Let me repeat that number: 350,000 square miles, and all very remote and pristine, major repositories of biodiversity, and generally free from severe anthropogenic impacts (climate change aside). That is a mind-boggling step forward for conservation, and one for which I am - and I can't quite believe I'm about to write these words - incredibly grateful to President Bush.

Do these bold steps negate or offset the other detrimental actions Bush has taken to politicize science and threaten the environment? Of course not. But these ocean protections will have more permanence than those other actions. Monuments generally remain as part of our natural heritage, while regulations and processes can and do change. And, the second event (or series of events, actually) suggests those needed changes might be coming.

In her blog for the New York Times, Dr. Olivia Judson issued a call to arms to President-elect Obama to restore the role of and respect for science in policymaking. Our next President has answered the call so far. Obama held a high-profile meeting after the election with former Vice President Al Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men ever to hold the office of President or Vice President, and a tireless crusader for meaningful action to curb global climate change. This seemed to signify that his earlier pledge to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a high priority was genuine. Obama then went on to nominate a suite of top scientists to key positions, signaling the very central role that science will play in his administration.


The final event that quelled my once seething drive to craft a lengthy and scathing condemnation of the Bush record on science and the environment was that mid-January rolled around. And with mid-January comes both my birthday and that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Thinking about Dr. King, his work, his dream, his death, tomorrow's inauguration, and my own path forward in life all make any more energy and emotion directed toward Bush seem rather like a waste.

Farewell to an imperfect genius

Before I turn my attention to the aftermath of the elections and the environmental policy road ahead, I need to say a few words in the wake of the passing of sci-fi author Michael Crichton. Dr. Crichton's books are some of my favorite works of contemporary fiction. He wrote a type of science fiction that was distinct from the Star Wars/Trek mode of robots and aliens and spaceships and lasers. Crichton's sci-fi takes place in the here and now, and is built upon current scientific knowledge. His work is in the tradition of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and reading Crichton made me go back and re-discover those earlier sci-fi masters. He studied an area of science, understood the state of the game, and then made some leap or tweak to what we know or what is possible in order to craft a tale beyond the realm of the possible (or at least beyond the realm of the probable). His books are each about some scientific discipline: Jurassic Park is not about dinosaurs, it's about genetic engineering and cloning. The Lost World is also not about dinosaurs either, it's about community ecology. Unfortunately, the movie adaptations of his books rarely did justice to them (JP is a notable exception). That his main characters are generally ordinary scientists who become heroes by finding themselves in extraordinary circumstances is an element that certainly resonates with me: It fed my longstanding dream of being Indiana Jones!



Of course, Dr. Crichton's last years were defined less by his creative work and more by the role he adopted as a critic of global climate change. State of Fear, his second to last book, tells a tale of a plot hatched by environmentalists desperate to prove the veracity of human-induced climate change in order to reap the financial and political gains that come with a crisis connected to their issue. As a work of fiction, this is an intriguing and potentially interesting concept, and one I might have even picked up despite the implicit indictment of people in my line of work. After all, it's a story, and I can stomach being made into a villain for storytelling purposes. The problem, however, was that Crichton didn't stop there. He accompanied the novel with a manifesto of sorts decrying the predominate theory of anthropogenic climate change. And he then began a speaking crusade that included a series of lectures on the topic and, most significantly, testimony before the U.S. Congress. Given that manifesto and his activism, it became clear that the book was not simply a story, perhaps with a message or perhaps simply a test to see how seriously environmentalists take themselves and whether they can cope with being fictional villains. Rather, the book was part of, indeed the launch of, a propaganda campaign.



Now, I am not opposed to famous people using their celebrity to speak on public policy issues. After all, in a democracy, we all have the right to express our views, and we should all take advantage of any opportunity afforded us to voice our ideas and opinions. The fact that those opportunities are presented disproportionately to the famous is not their fault (in fact, it is the fault of the rest of us), and they should not willingly avoid the platform presented. In a nation of 300 million people with a complex chorus of perspectives, anyone should seize any chance to be heard.



Nor is my grievance with Dr. Crichton's climate change campaign his use of his art to convey his message. This is what artists have done throughout time. For example, Bob Dylan, on the left, and Charlie Daniels, on the right, have sung songs that convey their critiques of American politics. At the moment, I am working my way through the Genesis of Shannara trilogy of novels by fantasy writer Terry Brooks. Terry and his wife Judine have become friends of mine, and I know that he is an avowed environmentalist. The Genesis books are set in a post-apocalyptic world brought about by war, disease and rampant environmental degradation. There is an unmistakable political message in the books, and if asked in front of a camera or microphone I have no doubt that Terry would very clearly make his views known on what we need to do differently.



The difference, however, is that Terry speaks directly and through his work as an advocate, but not as a specialist. He speaks as a citizen with a point of view that is worth hearing. Crichton, on the other hand, crossed a line from advocacy to technical advisor. He used his fame and credentials to speak as a technical expert. The problem is that he is not a technical expert. His background is in medicine and genetics, not in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, ecosystem ecology, or any of the other disciplines at the core of understanding global climate change and its consequences. Dr. Crichton had a remarkable ability to learn the state-of-the-game in a scientific discipline, to a point where he could craft mesmerizing tales of adventure with a believability stemming from his homework on the core subjects. But learning a discipline well enough to write a plausible sci-fi novel does not make one an expert on the subject. That requires years of study and research, of probing the inner workings of a system (the global climate, a coral reef, the human body...whatever), understanding as much as possible how it works, identifying where the key uncertainties lie, and working to answer those questions, all the while continuing to revisit and challenge the working paradigm. When it came to climate change, Dr. Crichton did not have those bona fides. But somewhere along the line, Dr. Crichton either willingly adopted the guise of climate change specialist or fooled himself into thinking he was an expert, and subsequently set out into the policy arena as an expert in sheep's clothing.



I have now written one paragraph celebrating Dr. Crichton's craft and the joy it brought me, and several more criticizing his work against action on climate change. I feel somewhat badly about that, and do not want to belabor the point. But I feel it is an important illustration of the difference between being a citizen with a view and a voice versus acting as an uncredentialed technical expert, and a caution against others trying to blur that line. Ultimately, however, I want to thank Dr. Crichton for (most of) the body of work he left behind and the hours of joy his tales have brought me.

Three things

It's been just shy of 5 months since my "Happy Oceans Day!" post. I believe that's a new record for a gap in posting by the staff at Running On. But I have to say it feels good to see the old Blogger window again, and to have words flowing from my finger tips, through the keyboard, across cyberspace, and into all of your hearts and minds.

What finally precipitated my logging back into the control center of everyone's favorite blog and (once again) trying to build some momentum? Well, there are three things:

Firstly, while walking through Boston's Public Gardens this past Saturday, I had the pleasure of watching two red-tailed hawks perched amidst the autumn foliage, flying from tree to tree, and occasionally eyeing with intent squirrels foraging out on the open lawns. They seemed relatively unconcerned with the human passersby, and would perch and fly fairly low, affording fantastic views of these beautiful birds. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see them catch any of the smaller park residents, but they were a joy to watch nonetheless. Of course, my *&%#$@ camera died earlier this summer after a horribly misnamed "dry bag" allowed it to be inundated with seawater while kayaking in Santa Barbara (the final shot, of my colleague Scott on the tail end of nicely ridden wave, taken by that fine camera is situated above). But it was still a nice treat.

Secondly, later that same day, I picked up a copy of Boston's Weekly Dig and came across a little article therein, the contents of which I had to share. It seems that a company called Holistic Wisdom is producing - how to put this? - adult paraphernalia that is environmentally sustainable. As someone who has made his life's work the pursuit of greater balance between our species and the rest of the natural world (for the benefit of both, as discussed in the first ever RO post), I for one am thrilled to see the greening of the sex toy industry. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the emergence of a company like Holistic Wisdom is due in part to the work and advocacy of a non-profit organization, the Coalition Against Toxic Toys, or CATT. You may recall that in my February 1 post announcing the official Running On endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President, I cited as an important reason for my support of Senator Obama his call to arms for greater civic engagement by all of us, to not simply rely on the government to change the world but to get out and do it ourselves. I then went on to discuss how non-profit organizations are the ultimate embodiment of civic engagement, making it a full-time endeavor for their staff (regardless of whether an organization's aims are noble or nefarious). To see an organization like CATT bring about the sort of social change seen in a company like Holistic Wisdom is truly inspiring.

Speaking of the RO endorsement, the third thing bringing me back to the blogosphere is a little thing happening tomorrow in which the good people of the U.S. of A. head out to select a new leader. I'll have some thoughts on the winner of the Presidential election to be sure, but I also want to address a backlog of links I've been compiling on the environmental record of George W. Bush, and perhaps more importantly looking ahead at what might await us in his final months in office. Stay tuned...

Happy World Oceans Day!

Today, June 8, is World Oceans Day, so I thought I should post at least a little something (even if it will likely be my shortest post yet). And this seemed fitting, given the international scope of the story: The UN has apparently been reading Running On! Check my "Bad Idea" post of November 13, 2007 and then check the recent UN agreement to implement a global moratorium on ocean fertilization. As will be evident from the 11/17/2007 post, clearly I think this moratorium is a good idea.

Coincidentally, I was at the UN not long after this agreement was signed to give a seminar on a new report on management of the coastal ocean. Rest assured, once the final report is posted online, I'll provide the link...