Thursday, December 15, 2011

Why You Should Never Feed Wild Animals

A sign warning visitors to not feed the animals.
It's actually a very common sight to see people feeding wild animals. Usually, it is a kindhearted attempt be nice to the animals, especially if it appears hungry or is begging for food. However, most of these feeders have no idea what the potential ramifications of their actions may be. Very often, the animals themselves suffer from being fed, and the reasons for this are varied and numerous. Also, people who feed wild animals are putting their own health and well being, and even their lives, on the line.

Lyme disease is carried by ticks
To begin, feeding wild animals can be potentially hazardous to the feeders' health. For one, coming in close contact with a wild animals comes with a risk of contracting numerous infectious diseases and other nasty things. Wild animals often carry some form of parasite (such as ticks or tapeworms), and may also be harboring other forms of life like bacteria, protists, or fungi (as well as non-life like viruses and prions) that may not really affect them, but could potentially kill you. By coming in close contact with the animals, especially if you actually touch them, you could become very sick.

More dangerous, however, are the changes in behavior so often seen after an animal is fed. Fed animals loose their natural fear of people, as as such are more likely to come up to people and to enter populated areas. This comes with a major set of dangers for the animals, and people too. Depending on where the animal is feed, it may stay on or near a roadway, and as such be put at risk of being hit by a car, which may easily result in the death of the animal, the driver, or both. Also, when entering developed areas, animals will often cross roadways, with the same potential risk. More risk to the animal comes from the potential for them to approach the wrong person or the wrong area, and thus possibly ending up being shot, attacked by domestic pets, or otherwise injured or killed.

I sure wouldn't want to face an angry 'gator.
Another major behavior change so often witnessed is increased aggression. Since the animal has now lost its fear of people and is begging for food, it will also expect that when people are around it will be fed. If no food comes, the animal may become angered by this, especially if it is in fact hungry. This can often lead to the animal attacking, resulting in injury or even death of the person being attacked. Feeding an herbivore may not be all that dangerous (depending on its size), but large carnivores that have been fed are extremely dangerous.

If those reasons aren't good enough to stop you from feeding wild animals, here are some more. Human food in notoriously bad for animals. Many of them have very specific dietary needs, and receiving an improper diet can lead to all sorts of issues. Tooth decay and ulcers are just a few of the fairly minor problems that may come from feeding the animal. Other concerns include such things as weakened immune systems and blockage of the digestive tract. In fact, some animals have very narrow dietary constraints, and an improper balance can be dangerous. The wrong diet can kill an animal. Ever heard of colic in horses? It's a very similar concept (though not necessarily involving the same biological reasons).

This opossum was eating trash
Major concerns continue with the potential for the animal to ingest foreign bodies. In an object, such as trash, smells like food it may very well be eaten. As you can imagine, eating trash is horrible for the animal, as it can lead to major damage or blockage of the digestive tract. If neither of these occur, there remains the potential for hazardous chemicals to enter the blood stream when the animal is trying to digest, say, plastic. All of these can kill. Trash is also one of the ways in which animals may become trapped, such as having its head stuck in a peanut butter jar, quite often leading to injury or death.

Rabies is of frequent concern.
Disease is also a serious issue in animals that are being fed. One would think that feeding the animal would make it healthier, but in fact the opposite is true. On top of the potential for the food to trash their bodies due to it being improper, and the potential for the ingestion of non-food substances, there is an increased risk of disease. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Since nearly all animals have a natural fear of people, approaching areas that are frequented by people is pretty unusual. The first to approach a person offering food may very well be sick to begin with. On top of that, putting animals that may very well be more solitary in nature into a group situation (which, let's face it, is almost always the situation when wild animals are fed) increases the risk of disease transmission between individuals of the species. The potential for a severely weakened immune system from the food only compounds this. Also, diseases can be transferred to and from domestic animals and people.

There is also always the concern of dependence. Fed animals will often become dependent on the food they are being given, and thus will be unable to fend for themselves in the wild. If the food supply runs out, then there is little the animal can do except starve to death. It may also exhibit many of the undesirable behaviors listed above, such as becoming aggressive or venturing into urban areas in an attempt to obtain food. This is especially sad for endangered species, since in most cases every effort is being put into helping the animals bounce back from their trip to the edge of nothingness. If the animals cannot fend for themselves, then a truly wild population can never be brought into being.

Sadly, the most humane thing for a fed animal is for it to be put it to sleep. All of this is because someone was trying to be "nice." Never feed wild animals! Help keep them wild.

Sources are the Center for Wildlife Information, Office of Environment & Heritage of the Government of New South Wales, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Northfield News, Huffington Post, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Images are from Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons licensing or are copyright free: one, two, three, four, five.

Heterochromia

This Siberian husky has heterochromia.


I received this suggestion recently and I thought it would make a good topic. Heterochromia is, very simply, when an individual has two different eye colors. One may be blue and the other brown, or many of a number of other combinations. It may even be partial, where only a part of the eye is differently colored. Though uncommon in people, it is quite common in dogs, cats, and certain other animals.

This merle dog has heterochromia
In dogs, of course, there are a number of causes of heterochromia, either partial or complete. Merle is, of course, a very common source of this phenotype. The merle gene causes eumelanin pigment (i.e. black, and the dilutes thereof) throughout the body to be randomly diluted, while other areas will remain fully colored. This not only involved the coat, but also the skin and eyes as well. Thus, it is very common for merle dogs to have pink spots on their noses, pads, lips, or around their eyes. Also, it is very common for merle dogs to have blue spots in their eyes. In both cases, a complete loss of pigment from a select area is not unheard of, such as a completely blue eye or eyes or a completely pink nose. This is especially true of double merles, but is still very possible in dogs with a single copy of the gene.

This extreme piebald dog has a blue eye
Another gene in dogs that can cause blue eyes is the white spotting gene. It has numerous forms, as several different alleles control the amount of color on the body. Anything from Irish white to extreme white piebald can result in dogs with either one or two blue eyes. Again, like merle the white spotting gene causes a loss of pigment on the body. This may only affect the coat, or it may go on to affect the skin and eyes as well. This is why breeds with substantial white markings tend to have puppies with one or more blue eyes born far more often than breeds who are always solidly colored. It is usually considered quite startling to find a dog that is solid, especially solid black, with blue eyes, and that is due to the relative rarity of this occurance

This husky shows classic "bi-eyes"
The third major reason why a dog will have blue eyes is due to a specific inherited gene that controls eye color. This is what causes "husky blue eyes," where dogs will have a blue eye or eyes regardless of their color or markings. Both partial and complete heterochromia are seen, sometimes even on the same dog. Or at least depending on how you're defining the color different. Due to the this gene mainly being found in huskies and other spitzes, it is very common for a dog to be suspected to be a husky mix simply based on its eye color. However, since other breeds can have dogs crop up with one or two blue eyes, and sometimes just a speck of blue in an otherwite brown-eyed dog, it is likely that the gene is present in the domestic dog population as a whole. Either that or there is new mutation occurring to cause the surprise blue eyes.

I will be expanding on this soon with a follow-up post on heterochromia in humans and other animals. In addition, I will look at heterochromia and how it relates to disease and also certain specific types of mutation.


Images are from Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons licenses: one, two, three, four.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Interesting Animals: Salps

A diver swims with a chain-like colony of salps

I love salps, and all of the other weird creatures out there with unexpected phylogenetic relationships. Salps are grouped in with Tunicates, or sea squirts as they are more commonly known. Salps and their relatives look rather a lot like jellyfish due to their soft, see-through bodies, but a closer examination shows numerous major differences. Where as jellies are very simple animals with few specialized tissues, salps are far more complex. In fact, as larvae they look remarkably like tadpoles. It is during the transition to adulthood that they loose their tail and other features and become specialized filter feeders. As hard as it may seem, larval traits such as a postanal tail, dorsal hollow nerve cord, notochord, and pharyngeal gill slits firmly sets these strange creatures into the Phylum Chordata. Chordata, of course, also includes such animals as fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals like us. However, salps are non-vertebrate chordates, and thus distinctly different from the fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, and other vertebrates. About fifty species of salps are known.

As adults, salps are quite efficient filter feeders, taking in water with one of the two siphons and expelling it through the other after filtering out food particles. They are usually found in colonies, and are able to reproduce either through sexual or asexual reproduction. Salps are able to swim by forcing water out of one of their siphons. Though they can be rather large in size, their free-floating, weak-swimming nature makes them plankton. In certain areas, salps can be so abundant that they become the second most commonly seen planktonic animals. Despite the fact that most people associate the term "plankton" with small living things, it is very possible for plankton to be a meter or more in length. By definition, this category encompasses any organism that is unable to swim against a strong current, which includes such things as jellyfish (including some truly massive species). Plankton that is over twenty millimeters in length is called megaplankton.

Sources are Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Biology of the Invertebrates. Image is from Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license.