Save The Animals!

Kill the planet. That appears to be exactly what is happening as incresed populations of animals like deer, geese and raccoons increase dramatically in suburban settings. The waste they producs has become a major contributer to water pollution.

Does a bear leave its waste in the woods?

Of course. So do geese, deer, muskrats, raccoons and other wild animals. And now, such states as Virginia and Maryland have determined that this plays a significant role in water pollution.

Scientists have run high-tech tests on harmful bacteria in local rivers and streams and found that many of the germs — and in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, a majority of them– come from wildlife dung. The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers.

Part of the problem lies with the unnaturally high populations of deer, geese and raccoons living in modern suburbs and depositing their waste there. But officials say it would be nearly impossible, and wildly unpopular, to kill or relocate enough animals to make a dent in even that segment of the pollution.

That leaves scientists and environmentalists struggling with a more fundamental question: How clean should we expect nature to be? In certain cases, they say, the water standards themselves might be flawed, if they appear to forbid something as natural as wild animals leaving their dung in the woods.

"You need to go back and say, 'Maybe the standards aren't exactly right' if wildlife are causing the problem," said Thomas Henry, an Environmental Protection Agency official who works on water pollution in the mid-Atlantic.

….

In the Potomac and the Anacostia, for instance, more than half of the bacteria in the streams came from wild creatures. EPA documents show that similar problems were found in Maryland, where wildlife were more of a problem than humans and livestock combined in the Magothy River, and in Northern Virginia tributaries such as Accotink Creek, where geese were responsible for 24 percent of bacteria, as opposed to 20 percent attributable to people.

This was almost too funny. It must be the day for animal irony! So what to do about a situation like this? My guess is that at some point sanity will have to prevail and the standards will have to be altered. But there may well come a time when we are going to have to deal with severe overpopulations of some animals by killing them. Because nature has its own way of dealing with overpopulations. It is called starvation and disease. When populations get too high, nature will step in. Then we may be forced to act out of self protection.

Dealing With Terrorist Squirrels

Here's something that Drudge linked about squirrels in a California park attacking people, including children (H/T Santay in comments). Normally, this kind of thing would set me off on yet another "animal uprising" item, which people seem to enjoy and are fun to go rambling off onto. However, this article struck a different note for me. First, the gist of the story:

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — An aggressive squirrel pounced on a 4-year-old boy in an attack last week in Cuesta Park in Mountain View, Calif.

The attack happened as the boy's mother unwrapped a muffin during a picnic.

The boy had to get rabies shot after the attack. He is still getting the shots.

The attack is not the first one reported at the park.

Mountain View Community Services Director David Muela said that as many as six people have been bitten or scratched by squirrels since May, and that the attacks have become more ferocious in the last month.

In response to attacks, the city of Mountain View has announced it plans to start trapping and killing the aggressive tree squirrels.

Over the next three weeks, park workers will set tube-like traps in the trees of Cuesta Park and euthanize captured squirrels "in a humane way," said David Muela, Mountain View's community services director.

Ironically, efforts to curb the behavior may have exacerbated the squirrels' aggressive tendencies, Muela said.

This summer, the city installed new trash receptacles featuring metal tops with a latch that makes it nearly impossible for an animal to rummage through the can in search of food. Increased park ranger patrols and flier distributions cautioning against feeding the animals might have further cut the squirrels' food supply, prompting them to act more assertively in their quest for food.

What struck me here is that these squirrels are becoming increasingly aggressive against park visitors as a direct result of efforts to curb their behavior. Anyone notice certain similarities to events in other parts of the world involving human terrorism? A stretch, you say? Really? Look at the responses to the program to trap and kill the dangerous animals:

Wildlife advocates also oppose the unusual measure of killing the animals and said it won't solve the problem.

"The squirrels will be back," South Bay wildlife rehabilitator Norma Campbell said. "For every one you take out, two more will come in. It could be a never-ending project that isn't going to accomplish anything."

Officials said the increasingly brazen behavior stems from years of being fed by park visitors.

The state Department of Fish and Game recommends against relocating habituated squirrels, he said, because their fear of humans has diminished and the problem is likely to remain. Instead, the department recommends the animals be put to sleep, Muela said.

Muela said the city couldn't afford to wait and see if the squirrels' aggressive behavior goes away eventually, because of the threat posed to public health and safety.

Emphasizing his concern for the welfare of park visitors, Muela said, "We will need the public's cooperation on this, because as long as they continue to feed the squirrels it will exacerbate the problem."

Oddly, here is the entire debate on terrorism and how to deal with it in a microcosm involving squirrels in a California park. Almost identical arguments being used on both sides of the issue. How very odd.

UPDATE: Okay, so I didn't make this into an animal uprising story. But that doesn't mean others haven't! StikNstein has all the details. Including a quote from the Council of American Rodent Relationships (CARR).

Kangaroo Invasion Of Europe Continues

The last report was from Ireland, now it's France. More krazed killer kangaroos on the loose. This time they say the beasts escaped from a "children's reform center".

LYON, France (AFP) - Two kangaroos escaped from a children's reform centre in France were seen bounding off in their newfound freedom near the eastern city of Lyon.

Around 20 officers and firemen and two sniffer dogs were tracking the bouncy marsupials, native to Australia, and driving them slowly back to their enclosure police said Friday.

An officer was standing by with a tranquiliser dart in case the animals — which can use their powerful hind legs as weapons — became dangerous.

Do you realize the implications here? These killers were being kept in a prison. The authorities are downplaying this. These are krazed kriminal killer kangaroos. Why, they are probably known assassins. Maybe it's time to do a sequel to The Day of the Jackal. The day of the Kangaroo……

Technical Difficulties

David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, says that Iran is encountering a number of technical difficulties in their uranium enrichment facility and that their progress is slower than many feared.

Western analysts had expected that the Iranians would move quickly to expand the enrichment effort to meet their near-term goal of having six cascades of 164 centrifuges each, or a total of nearly 1,000 centrifuges. The danger here was technological mastery rather than raw output of uranium. Even with 3,000 centrifuges operating, intelligence analysts estimate that it would take two to three years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb. Iran's eventual goal is a massive array of more than 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz.

But problems surfaced this summer. The Aug. 31 IAEA report, marked "Restricted Distribution," noted that since June, Iran had been feeding uranium into a small 20-centrifuge test cascade "for short periods of time," and that it had conducted various tests in June, July and August of the initial 164-centrifuge cascade. "The installation of a second 164-machine cascade is proceeding," the report noted, but it added that Iran planned to test the second cascade in September without injecting uranium.

What happened to slow the expected pace? IAEA analysts have told U.S. and European officials that it appears the centrifuges are overheating when uranium gas is injected. "The Iranians are unable to control higher temperatures, and after a short period they must stop because of higher temperatures. So far they haven't been able to solve this," says one Western intelligence official who has been briefed on the IAEA findings. In addition, this official said, some centrifuges "are simply crashing — 10 or so have broken down and must be replaced."

Ignatius argues that this means the West has more time to try diplomacy. Let's assume that the information in the unpublished report is completely accurate. It should be pointed out that the report is detailing past failures. The Iranians may well have figured out the problems literally yesterday. It is, at best, wishful thinking to assume this gives us more time in the future. What this tells us is why the Iranians have been dragging their feet up until now.

Frankly, after Ahmadinejad's statements yesterday, there is little doubt that the Iranian government has no intention of stopping this program unless the West stands together and faces them down. The time to do that is running out whether or not the Iranians are having technical difficulties.

Students Prove Smarter Than Professor

Some students at the University of New Hampshire are proving they are smarter than one of the professors who is supposed to be teaching them. Or the university administration for that matter. They are gathering signatures on a petition asking for the removal of 9/11 denialist psychology professor William Woodward.

DURHAM, N.H. — A small group of students has started a petition to remove a University of New Hampshire professor who believes that Bush administration officials planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or knew about them and allowed them to happen.

"Basically, we watch professors to just ensure they're doing their job … they're not biased in the classroom and are not teaching what they are not supposed to teach," said Bill Hunt, chairman of the newly formed and unrecognized organization Students for Academic Integrity.

The group has set its sights on psychology professor William Woodward for "pushing his personal agenda on … students."

The members have been gathering signatures for more than a week. Hunt did not say how many students have signed.

"There are some students who strongly support me and shake my hand and thank me for doing this," said Hunt. "Other people are in utter disbelief that (we) want this man fired."

Hunt said the Students for Academic Integrity are considering bringing audio and videotape recorders to class to prove their case.

"I've heard from several students that (Woodward is) indoctrinating them," he said. "He claims that he wants everyone to have an opinion. The fact is, he doesn't."

Woodward, a tenured professor, belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members question the official story about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and contend that the U.S. government either had knowledge of the attacks or had a role in them.

Gov. John Lynch called Woodward's beliefs "completely crazy and offensive" and asked the trustees to investigate.

The administration apparently did investigate and didn't do anything about the situation. Hence the petition drive. As I have repeated pointed out, this is not a freedom of speech or academic freedom issue. This is a straight employment issue. To the extent the professor teaches his beliefs instead of the subject he is paid to teach, he is effectively stealing that time from the students and his employers. Would there be any doubt of that if he were teaching his religious beliefs? Or talking about auto repairs instead of psychology? His absurd 9/11 beliefs are not what he is paid to teach.

The only way his beliefs would be relevant is if he were using them as an example of how otherwise intelligent people can be stupid enough to fall into idiotic and dangerous beliefs. Abnormal psychology, then.