Car camping with a Prius 24

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   John former Marine Posted 10:38 pm
   14 Jul 2008

   Ah yes....run into any houses on wheels?I love those Cruise America RVs that you can rent in Phoenix once you've flown in from New York.  Then you proceed four hours northward, getting 5 miles a gallon, to the Grand Canyon.  You then cruise through one of the country's national treasures at least 10-15mph above the posted speed limit on narrow, winding roads.  You kill a snake, possibly a deer, and almost hit a couple of hikers and a bicyclist...but hey, you've never driven one of these beasts before...it's to be expected.  You then break the lower branches off half a dozen junipers and pinons while you're trying to park the bohemoth in the Desert View campground...which was designed back when people used to go camping with a tent.  Then a ranger comes around and tells you that he's going to be giving an educational program on the environmental history of the Grand Canyon at sunset at the rim.  You think...oh, what perfect timing...yeah, we're interested...we love the environment!
   
   Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

   Permalink

2. 

   caniscandida Posted 2:04 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Don't forget,there is that other annoying camp of human beings, the kind who bizarrely describe animals as though they were machines: cf. "bug in their programming," "operating envelope," "go off line."  : )
   As for the sex of your daughter's little friend, are you sure she has a male lizard?  From what I read, it seems that blue coloration is present in both sexes, but in females the blue area is not so extensive.  That might describe the confinement of the blue area in your daughter's area to just under the chin:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_fence_lizard.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:26 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Yes, Prius is the atatus symbolThis is definitely true at the trail running events.  Subaru is fading, SUVs have been uncool since last year with this ultra-green crowd.
   People who shun comfortable road running for rocks, roots, up and down wilderness pain and suffering, and actually enjoy it.  The extreme.  Hehey.
   But a plugin hybrid hypercar conversion would get the top spot.  Or a Velomobile.
   http://www.greatlakesendurance.com/race_info.htm
   There was one electric conversion of a Ford economy car at the first run, 30 miles range I think?
   Great run down on campground politics bio-d!  Great pictures too.  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 2:35 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Harassing WildlifeWildlife should not be touched except to eat it, unless it's mutually agreed to.  Catching snakes or other wildlife is harassment, both legally (as in the Endangered Species Act) and biologically.  If you don't believe this, just imagine how you'd feel if, say, a grizzly began "petting" you.
   And having kids is no excuse for doing this.  Kids should be taught to properly respect other forms of life by carefully observing them, but otherwise leaving them alone.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:36 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Yes CanisThose who mainly count populations, proffesional wildlife biologists and managers have a habit of looking down on the sentimental side of environmentalism.
   It's the old quantity versus quality of life dilemna.  In this proffession you are shunned for being a do-gooder environmentalist.  You prove your credentials by joking about trapping and hunting our beloved wilderness friends.
   It's offensive.  The older wildlife people understand our point of view better.  they are less defensive.
   I believe this was started by raygun policies of putting political appointees in charge in as many levels of government as possible, this continued and accelerated through the bushwacking years.
   Most of these people love animals too, the ones employed to count and collate, but they are afraid to be labeled un-proffessional tree hugging liberals.  It is career suicide.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 3:35 am
   15 Jul 2008

   WolverineWildlife should not be touched except to eat it, unless it's mutually agreed to.
   We asked the lizard for permission. It nodded its head in agreement and obviously enjoyed the attention, just as lap dogs do. You just have to know how to communicate with animals. I have to disagree about observing animals. This is an invasion of their privacy. If you can't ask their permission to be observed, you really shouldn't be doing it.
   In all seriousness, holding a lizard, turtle, bug or snake in hand makes a big difference to children. They already "observe them" in zoos and books. Nature has to be experienced.
   You may be right, Canis
   Thanks for sharing your Google search with us. The only definitive way to sex a lizard is to check their naughty parts. As with birds, females tend to be less colorful. Brightly colored dewlaps have evolved in many species of lizards.
   http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/135652139_e29b9a515c.jpg?v=0
   Photo by Stevens2005's via Flickr
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/steven2005/135652139/
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

7. 

   PermieWriter Posted 10:02 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Chicken off switchThe off-when-upside-down phenomena is very much like a computer glitch. It's something you really have to do to fully appreciate. Catch a fully aware chicken (not as easy as it sounds), wrestle it into a comfortable hold, then turn it upside down. It is very much like going into standby mode. They're still awake, but not accepting input until conditions change. The computer analogy is a good one.
   A biologist buddy of mine took us newt hunting a couple of years ago. He handled them with aplomb (too slimy for my tastes). Most folks should probably not be encouraged to handle the wildlife because they'll get themselves or the wildlife hurt, but well-informed types can do it safely.
   Thanks for the car camping with Prius report. I had suspected that they would perform admirably, and your experience certainly bears that up.
   
   Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

   Permalink

8. 

   caniscandida Posted 10:19 am
   15 Jul 2008

   human-being-off-switchAs I said, people from this camp are annoying.
   Many human beings have a curious characteristic of their own: They go totally morally comatose, once they discover they can easily get other animals into their control, and can exploit them as mechanistic resources.
   With all respect to Permie Writer, the "computer analogy" is chilling and unsatisfactory.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

9. 

   Wolverine Posted 11:10 am
   15 Jul 2008

   Teaching ChildrenBiod,
   While I fully agree that it's vitally important to teach children about nature and wildlife, the world doesn't revolve around human children.  It's more important for wildlife to be left alone than to "teach" children by allowing them to harass the wildlife.  Or maybe a mother grizzly should have her cubs "play" with your kids so they could learn about humans?
   Parents are often one of the worst groups of anti-environmentalists when it comes to the natural environment.  They support their children to the point of prioritizing their every wish, to the detriment of the rest of the planet.  While this attitude might work when living in small numbers as primitive hunter-gatherers that can't do much damage, it certainly does not work for the rest of the planet with grossly overpopulated humans who have machines and contraptions.  What human children really need is to be taught to properly respect other animals and plants, and one aspect of that respect is to keep their hands to themselves.
   And BTW, my mutually agreed to comment was in reference to the occasional wild animal that allows people to get very close and perhaps touch it.  I have always declined to touch these animals in fear that doing so might in some way harm the animal, but it couldn't be considered harassment if the animal consented.

   Permalink

10. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 11:15 am
    15 Jul 2008

    Canis,Your lap dog was genetically engineered via selective breeding (unnatural selection) by humans to sit in our laps to make us feel good (elicit endorphin releases). We pick them up, carry them around, incarcerate them in our houses, lead them outdoors on a string twice a day to void. Now that's chilling.
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 12:18 pm
    15 Jul 2008

    Mechanistic linear engineering mindsetIt maybe right behind self-loathing as the biggest problem facing human survival Canis.
    Combine it with self loathing!  Yikes.  That's the mess we are in now.  This industrial age seems to be built on it.  Freud used mechanistic thought to inculcate the principles of self loathing as a cultural, philosophical under current.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

12. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:23 pm
    15 Jul 2008

    How profound ...It's more important for wildlife to be left alone than to "teach" children by allowing them to harass the wildlife.
    Feel free to teach your children to keep a respectful distance from frogs, bugs, turtles and snakes. Get back to me after you have raised them. We can compare notes then.
    The idea that children across the globe are causing damage to the planet's biodiversity by catching the occassional bug or frog is, ah, pick a word for me.
    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/locust.JPGhttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/taratulahand.JPG
    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/mantis.JPGhttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/catepillargif.GIF
    
    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/boaholdgif.GIFhttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/ninabullgif.GIF
    
    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/samgif.GIFhttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/turtle2gif.GIF
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

13. 

    amazingdrx Posted 2:50 pm
    15 Jul 2008

    Best wayTo bust it up bio-d!  Get the kids in touch with life, real life.  Good work!  
    Symbiosis rules.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

14. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:40 am
    16 Jul 2008

    There you go, DrXI'm sure there must be a video game out there where you can catch virtual butterflys with a virtual butterfly net. Somehow, I just don't think it would be the same.
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

15. 

    Wolverine Posted 1:49 am
    16 Jul 2008

    It's About The AttitudeWhile I'm strongly opposed to kids harassing wildlife FOR ANY REASON, there's probably little or no ecological significant harm being done by kids capturing a few insects, amphibians, or reptiles.  But aside from the revulsion of that behavior, the problem is that you're teaching your kids that it's OK to harass wildlife.  In fact, what you're teaching them is that they're superior to wildlife and they can do whatever they want with other species.  I suggest you talk to some traditional natives about how they relate to and respect other species, and whether they think what you're doing is OK.  You'll find that they'll tell you basically what I said.

    Permalink

16. 

    infp Posted 2:24 am
    16 Jul 2008

    Get a Prius . . . DudeThe SUV-campers remind me of surfers in Orange County, CA. They tend to think of themselves as environmentalists and yet the beach parking lot is full of giant SUVs and pickups.

    Permalink

17. 

    David Roberts Posted 3:39 am
    16 Jul 2008

    Wolverine,It's nice that you're here to speak for the traditional natives. It's weird that they sound so much like self-parodic white environmentalists from affluent developed countries!
    
    grist.org

    Permalink

18. 

    Wolverine Posted 3:27 pm
    16 Jul 2008

    No Speaking For Others
    
    I never said I was speaking for traditional Native Americans or anyone else.  I said if you ask them, what they'll say, which they've said to me, is that it's disrespectful to touch an animal (wild) and their culture does not allow for doing this, aside for rare rituals and killing to eat.
    My information comes from Native Americans with whom I've worked on issues, a couple of whom became close enough friends that they stayed at my place.  They don't sound like me, we just have the same sensibilities when it comes to the natural world.  If this is what a "self-parodic white environmentalist" sounds like to you, well I guess you don't know any radical environmentalists who are wilderness and wildlife advocates.  You obviously don't know any traditional natives.
    
    

    Permalink

19. 

    caniscandida Posted 6:52 pm
    16 Jul 2008

    Right, Wolverine.You were plain enough at first.  Let us cut our excellent dear DR some slack for a bit, while he fancies himself running across the Alps in an apron, spinning around now and again, with a goofy smile, and singing, "The hills are alive!, with the Sound of Music! ... "
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

20. 

    caniscandida Posted 7:02 pm
    16 Jul 2008

    "harassment"There is no one whom I would sooner trust, to bring kids to encounter wildlife, and to teach them about wild ecosystems, than BioD.  Whatever happens to the weakening of such diapsids as lizards, crocs and chickens when they are turned upside down, we can be sure that BioD never abuses them in their time of vulnerability.
    BioD is a treasure, and I love him greatly.  As seriously boring as he may be, puttering around with his e-bike throughout most of the year ( : ) ), he is nevertheless doing beautiful work, to make the world a better place, by working with these kids.
    Hey BioD, what happened to the kid who is the animal prodigy?  You did not mention him in your post, though he was your star last year.
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

21. 

    caniscandida Posted 7:24 pm
    16 Jul 2008

    lifespansThe temporary confinement by human children of small animals, such as small vertebrates, and some invertebrates, is not a major subject of animal-rights ethics, but it deserves to be considered.
    Let us understand what "temporary confinement" might mean, purely quantitatively.
    Given:
    
    
    
    an average human lifespan is 70 years (VERY conservative; North Americans who survive past age 5 can expect to live rather longer);
    70 years sequentially is 53 years of 365 days, and 17 years of 366 days, hence 25,567 days in total;
    times 24 hours per day, that is 613,608 hours, for an average human lifespan (which does not sound like all that much, does it).
    
    
    Now, behold, an animal whose species has an average lifespan of, let us say, three years.  And we catch it, and confine it for four hours.  Then we release it unharmed.
    Those four hours are equivalent to 3.9 days, in the life of a human being with a 70-year lifespan.  Such a confinement, totally surprising and alienating, would be life-changing, for most of us.
    Presumably, BioD's kids did not hold on to their animals for anything like four hours.  Nevertheless, we should recall how fragile those animals are, and that some of them belong to species with lifespans much shorter than three years.
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

22. 

    spaceshaper Posted 11:18 pm
    16 Jul 2008

    "traditional natives"What condescending crap. The problem with Wolverine's feeble attempt at argument from authority is that there's no there there, no consistent environmental ethic practiced by this extraordinarily varied group of cultures other than simply what it takes to survive. In this they were no different from the euro-cultures that followed and largely displaced them. First nations traditions have certainly included examples of great kindness and hospitality and profound and durable symbiosis with the rest of the natural world; they have also included slavery, rape, mutilation, torture, and ritual sacrifice of their fellow human beings as well as hunting practices that were sometimes very far from the romantic vision to which Wolverine clings. The angelicization of the first nations is as contemptuous of their actual history and their present reality as was their demonization in a thousand western movies and other mainstream cultural artefacts of a couple of generations ago.
    So let's stick to the present reality and our present culture, of which we at least we have some direct first-hand knowledge. BioD's post shows children intentionally exposed, for deliberate educational purposes, to both the richness and the vulnerability of the wildlife around them. What does this mean? Do we think these kids are thence more likely to become mean and callous predators of their fellow creatures, or their generous and mindful protectors? If the latter, how does that balance against the harm (carefully limited, I would assume, by the adult mentors) that may have occurred to these creatures in the process? And how specifically can that balance be further improved?
    
    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

    Permalink

23. 

    caniscandida Posted 8:14 am
    17 Jul 2008

    "argument from authority"Right, SpaSh.  But Wolverine is my cousin, I like him, and I value and appreciate what he writes here, even if I do not always agree with him.
    In an earlier longish comment of mine posted to this thread, which infuriatingly got lost in the ether (as happens rather often, in my Gristmill experience), I wrote on that very subject, how Native Americans should not be taken as positive moral examples regarding the respectful treatment of animals.  Consider: Makah whaling; buffalo jumps; Mesoamerican Chihuahuivory.  We may hope that the Andean peoples treat their llamas well, but who knows?
    It is indeed true that Native Americans (in the large sense of course, from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego) have assigned great spiritual value to even small, apparently negligible animals, such as BioD's daughter's lizard.  And that is a great lesson that they may teach us.
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

24. 

    caniscandida Posted 8:25 pm
    17 Jul 2008

    genetic engineeringBioD,
    
    the evolution of dogs is a fascinating subject, very complicated and very controversial.
    What is the species of my own lap-dog, Little White?  Is it Canis familiaris, as I long believed?  Or, as some other experts say nowadays, recognizing the impossibility of truly distinguishing the genomes of wolves and dogs, is it Canis lupus familiaris? -- i.e., Little White is basically a wolf!  (And indeed, one of the names I give her is Pleistocene Carnivore.)
    There was, once upon a time, a very subtle and difficult initial intercourse, between the less fearful, more friendly (or cynically, more opportunistic), more domesticable wolves (Canis lupus), and the human beings who, as human beings tend to do, were producing a lot of garbage.  So, one thing led to another ...
    But knowledgeable breeding, selecting for traits in dogs, seems to be a fairly modern thing.  Charles Darwin himself was fascinated by the breeding of doves, and that is an important part of his "On the Origin of Species."  If you want to call that "genetic engineering," well, fine.
    "Engineering" and "mechanicization" work fine, to a point, even with manipulable little animals.  But that does not represent a good relationship between human beings and the other members of the community of living creatures which environmentalists recognize as the principal treasure on Earth that they are dedicated to preserving.
    In one story, a T. rex may destroy a visitors' center, and render a resort unvisitable: good.  But what is the lesson learned?  If it is only a matter of "genetic engineering," then the engineers can move in and re-wire the wiring, so to speak.  But then, when we return and see the tweaked T-rex, would we not have a case if we complained that this was just Disneyland?
    We need to understand that mechanistic, practical, hard-ware-ish/soft-ware-ish thinking is great, to some extent.  But when we apply it by way of exploitation to living creatures, we are doing an injustice, both to those other living creatures, and to ourselves.
    We are better than this.  We can try harder.
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink