Search

Yes, it’s a terrible idea to pick up or interfere with wild animals – especially baby wombats. Here’s why

<div class="theconversation-article-body">It was hard to watch. In a now-deleted Instagram reel, American influencer Sam Jones is filmed <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-12/us-influencer-removes-joey-wombat-from-mother/105041800">picking up</a> a young wombat, separating it from its mother, and running with it back to the car for a pose. In the background, the distressed mother tries to follow. At one point, Jones says: “Momma’s right there and she’s pissed. Let’s let him go.” We have spent our careers working with wildlife. Seeing a joey separated from her mother for social media content was unsettling. The encounter will have made stress levels soar for the baby and mother. Unfortunately, we are seeing a rise in people directly interacting with wildlife through <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.12958">feeding them</a> or <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13683500.2020.1828312">taking risks</a> to get close to them, often driven by the pursuit of social media attention. These interactions can hurt wildlife in <a href="https://theconversation.com/liked-to-death-the-social-media-race-for-nature-photos-can-trash-ecosystems-or-trigger-rapid-extinction-235951">many different ways</a>. While there’s a natural tendency to want to connect with wildlife, wild animals often see humans as a threat. When we get too close, we can trigger fear responses such as increased heart rates and heightened stress hormones. Indeed, the consequences of interfering with wildlife can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175106">far-reaching</a>. Jones was lucky not to have been injured – wombats weigh up to 40 kilograms and have teeth and claws they can use for defence. She could still come down with scabies – wombats often have mange, caused by the parasitic mite which gives us scabies. Others have been less lucky. People feeding dingoes on K'Gari <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/02/more-and-more-tourists-are-being-attacked-by-dingoes-on-queenslands-kgari-can-it-be-stopped">has brought</a> these wild canines closer to people, leading to attacks. In response, authorities have occasionally opted to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/jan/21/dingoes-pay-the-ultimate-price-on-kgari-but-some-believe-people-are-the-real-menace">kill</a> dingoes. Official approvals are required to capture and handle wildlife. Engaging in these activities without the necessary permits is typically illegal. These regulations are to safeguard wildlife from harm and protect humans as well. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3PhLPCXPseo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Instagram clip shows US influencer Sam Jones picking up a baby wombat.</figcaption></figure> <h2>What was wrong with the influencer’s behaviour?</h2> What many people found difficult to see in the clip was the clear distress seen in both joey and mother. Wombat joeys are fully dependent on their mothers for between 18 months and two years – one of the longest periods for any marsupial. Interfering with this bond stresses both animals. The incident also took place on a road, increasing their risk of being hit by a vehicle – one of the biggest <a href="https://theconversation.com/2-biggest-threats-to-wombats-revealed-in-new-data-gathered-by-citizen-scientists-215713">threats to wombats</a>. Wildlife are exactly that – wild life. When we interact with wild creatures, we interrupt what they are doing. This can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175106">harm</a> the individual – and often, the group – by inducing physical or psychological stress, and changes in behaviour. <h2>We want to connect – but it’s bad for the animals</h2> Many of us draw a mental line between our pets and wild animals. Our cats and dogs jump up for a pat and seek our affection. Wouldn’t wild creatures enjoy the same thing? It took thousands of years to domesticate dogs, cats and other animals. Wild animals, on the other hand, perceive us very differently – often as a potential threat. When we feed wildlife food they are not used to, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-you-can-help-not-harm-wild-animals-recovering-from-bushfires-131385#:%7E:text=In%20urgent%20cases%2C%20such%20as,wildlife%20veterinary%20hospitals%20for%20care.">it can make</a> them sick, or contribute to long term metabolic issues. Visitors often feed chips to quokkas on Rottnest Island, but these salty snacks can sicken the animals, which should be eating <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr03051">grasses, stems and leaves</a>. Tourists flock to areas with wild kangaroos and often offer them food. But as they become used to our presence, they can still lash out. People <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/02/kangaroo-attacks-on-tourists-prompt-warnings-to-stop-feeding-them-junk-food">have been injured</a>, some badly. <figure class="align-center zoomable">Touching animals comes with risks, from being scratched by koalas to being bitten by snakes. When a US wildlife expert was filmed touching a huge great white shark off Hawaii, dozens of people tried to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-18/conservationist-slammed-for-touching-huge-shark-off-hawaii/10725478">follow suit</a> – despite the risks.</figure> Then there’s the disease risk. Wombats suffer from <a href="https://theconversation.com/2-biggest-threats-to-wombats-revealed-in-new-data-gathered-by-citizen-scientists-215713">sarcoptic mange</a>, while other marsupials may have <a href="https://theconversation.com/toxoplasma-the-parasite-that-takes-over-our-brains-197100">toxoplasmosis</a>, which can trigger miscarriages and neurological issues. Handling wild birds can give us the dangerous disease <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psittacosis">psittacosis</a>. If you don’t have a permit, you should stay at a safe distance and watch the animal. The goal is to avoid interfering, and respect the animal’s autonomy and what it’s trying to do, whether that’s finding food, finding a mate, sleeping, or just lounging about. <h2>Are more people trying to interact with animals?</h2> After the COVID pandemic, many of us have been seeking outdoor experiences. Camping is <a href="https://www.austrade.gov.au/en/news-and-analysis/news/the-rise-of-nature-based-tourism-in-australia">on the rise</a>, as is ecotourism. At the same time, some influencers are trying to interact with wildlife, perhaps mimicking famous figures such as the late Steve Irwin. Irwin’s father, Bob, recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/06/queensland-urged-to-prosecute-would-be-influencers-who-enter-crocodile-habitat">called for</a> harsher penalties for influencers entering crocodile territory after many close calls. Watching trained wildlife handlers can give us false confidence. We might think: if they do it, why can’t I? The problem is, wildlife handling is risky. Bites are common, even for trained experts. When we undertake wildlife research, we use gloves, cages, hoods and so on to reduce the risk to us and the stress to the animal. Wildlife carers who take on the role of rearing wombat joeys have to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/AM24025">well trained</a> – and dedicated. Joeys need to be fed special milk <a href="https://theconversation.com/wallaby-joeys-and-platypus-puggles-are-tiny-and-undeveloped-when-born-but-their-mothers-milk-is-near-magical-207726">suited to marsupials</a> – cow’s milk is no good. They have to be fed round the clock in the early months. In many cases we are aware of, untrained individuals have attempted to rescue wombats or kangaroo joeys only to discover they can’t meet their specific care needs. Unfortunately, this often results in the joeys being abandoned or handed over to wildlife carers in poor condition. This doesn’t mean that interactions with animals are off-limits. Zoos and wildlife sanctuaries provide opportunities to handle captive animals under expert supervision. Volunteering with wildlife carers or training to become a carer are viable ways to engage with animals responsibly. Influencers don’t have to grab an animal from the wild to show how amazing it is. You can show natural behaviour by following an animal from a safe distance or use existing footage. If you can’t captivate an audience with the wonders of wildlife without harassing a wild animal, then perhaps it’s time to rethink and refine your social media strategy. When we are out in the bush, it’s natural to be fascinated by the presence of wild creatures. But we must find ways of building our connection with nature without harming what we see – and without risking harm to ourselves.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/252164/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julie-old-186935">Julie Old</a>, Associate Professor in Biology, Zoology and Animal Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-nimmo-15432">Dale Nimmo</a>, Professor in Ecology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/charles-sturt-university-849">Charles Sturt University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-stannard-560761">Hayley Stannard</a>, Senior Lecturer in Animal Anatomy and Physiology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/charles-sturt-university-849">Charles Sturt University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-davis-225195">Robert Davis</a>, Associate Professor in Wildlife Conservation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/edith-cowan-university-720">Edith Cowan University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-its-a-terrible-idea-to-pick-up-or-interfere-with-wild-animals-especially-baby-wombats-heres-why-252164">original article</a>. Image: WikiCommons </div>

Family & Pets

"Miraculous rescue": Renter saves stray dog trapped underground

An American renter was minding his own business at his rental home in Longview, Texas when he heard faint barking. The man, who chose to remain anonymous, initially thought the barking was coming from outside, but soon realised that it was coming from below his floorboards. Animal control officer Bobby Jumper was called to the scene and "was very shocked" to find a dog trapped at the bottom of an almost four-metre-deep well underneath the house. The renter did not know there was a well under the house. "I've been doing this for over seven years and that's the first time I've ran into something like this," the animal control officer told the Washington Post. Jumper immediately called in back up from the local fire brigade, who built a makeshift sling to pull the stray dog out from safety. "It took multiple people and a lot of different tools and equipment," he said. The rescue took three hours and the team did consider ripping up the floorboards, but managed to find a way into the house without damaging it. Rescuers said the stray pup, a Basset hound mix, had been trapped for days without food or water, but luckily came out unscathed. The pup was taken to the Longview Animal Care and Adoption Centre and given the name Timmy, after the character known to fall down the well on the TV show Lassie. Timmy has since been adopted by a loving family, with the adoption centre sharing the "rescue story of a lifetime" on Facebook. "We witnessed a heartwarming tale of bravery and kindness that we just had to share," they wrote. "Thanks to the quick thinking and heroic efforts of our local firefighters and animal control team, the dog was safely brought to the surface, shaken but unharmed!" "Thank you to everyone who played a part in this miraculous rescue," the post continued. "It's a true reminder of the incredible bond between humans and animals and how a community comes together in times of need!" Images: Facebook

Family & Pets

RSPCA investigates Perth man over "distressing" act

Wildlife experts are outraged after a Perth man allegedly attacked a swan by lifting it from the water and over his head during Australia Day. In the video posted to Instagram, the man appears to jump from a boat to the swan and lifts the bird by its legs up and out of the water while his friends cheer. WA Seabird Rescue, a not-for-profit rescue group, was informed of the video and have since passed it onto the RSPCA. “Here in the Mandurah estuary, we do have a large population of black swans, and they are very humanised, so unfortunately, people feed them, which means they often come up to the boat,” rescue volunteer Rachel Olsen said. "Two swans had approached the boat, and one of the blokes jumped from the boat onto the swan," she added. “We invest a lot of time and energy to try and do what we can for our native wildlife, and it is distressing that we do see huge increases in these types of behaviours over school holidays and public holidays,” the rescue volunteer continued. She said that these types of incidents unnecessarily added to an already busy time for the wildlife group. “We had four black swans that were hooked and entangled in one week over Christmas,” she said. The RSPCA have since released a statement saying that they are investigating the report. “RSPCA WA had received a report about an alleged incident involving a swan on the Mandurah estuary and is investigating,” a spokesman said. Image: Instagram

Family & Pets

Aussie woman fined $20,000 for illegal wildlife trade

A woman in Queensland has been slapped with a $20,000 fine for illegal wildlife trade. After a tip-off from a member of the public, officers with Queensland's Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) attended a residence in Nambour in January, where they found and seized 18 reptile eggs and 26 reptiles — many of which were found to be in poor health. DETSI officers said the discovery highlights a more pressing issue, which is the "increasing trend in people seeking to profit from high prices" that "our unique wildlife" fetch on domestic and international markets. The woman was found in possession of a northern blue-tongue lizard, a Woma python, carpet python, shingleback lizard, inland bearded dragon, children’s python, broad-shelled turtle and Centralian carpet python, among others. Senior Wildlife Officer Jonathan McDonald condemned the woman's behaviour, as she didn't provide adequate care for the snakes and reptiles to stay healthy in captivity. "Sadly, several of the reptiles were in poor condition and needed to be humanely euthanised," McDonald said. "The surviving reptiles can never be released to the wild as they may have been exposed to disease while they were in captivity." An independent veterinary exam of the reptiles seized revealed medical conditions like necrosis, dehydration, neurological defects and general poor health. The woman admitted to knowingly keeping the animals without valid licences, purchasing them from unlicensed sellers and operating a reptile business. She also could not provide mandatory records of sale for 13 of her purchased animals. Globally illegal wildlife trafficking is estimated to be worth $27 billion a year, ranking fourth in the world's illegal trades after drugs, counterfeit products, and human trafficking. Images: DETSI

Travel Trouble

Why are we seeing more pandemics? Our impact on the planet has a lot to do with it

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/olga-anikeeva-1522907">Olga Anikeeva</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-stanhope-1129888">Jessica Stanhope</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peng-bi-1522908">Peng Bi</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-weinstein-882901">Philip Weinstein</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a> Pandemics – the global spread of infectious diseases – seem to be making a comeback. In the Middle Ages we had the Black Death (plague), and after the first world war we had the Spanish flu. Tens of millions of people <a href="https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/review_article/pdf/69273/20211019-25919-an4y6h.pdf">died from these diseases</a>. Then science began to <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2011.00053/full">get the upper hand</a>, with vaccination eradicating smallpox, and polio nearly so. Antibiotics became available to treat bacterial infections, and more recently antivirals as well. But in recent years and decades pandemics <a href="https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/review_article/pdf/69273/20211019-25919-an4y6h.pdf">seem to be returning</a>. In the 1980s we had HIV/AIDS, then several flu pandemics, SARS, and now COVID (no, COVID isn’t over). So why is this happening, and is there anything we can do to avert future pandemics? <h2>Unbalanced ecosystems</h2> Healthy, stable ecosystems provide services that keep us healthy, such as supplying food and clean water, producing oxygen, and making green spaces available for our <a href="https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf">recreation and wellbeing</a>. Another key service ecosystems provide is disease regulation. When nature is in balance – with predators controlling herbivore populations, and herbivores controlling plant growth – it’s more difficult for pathogens to emerge in a way that causes pandemics. But when human activities <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rWozz12K1aUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=planetary+overload&ots=c9mWuESUXN&sig=-1iP3uSOWazvC2OFLk4vginWbQQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=planetary%20overload&f=false">disrupt and unbalance ecosystems</a> – such as by way of climate change and biodiversity loss – <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/58/8/756/381265">things go wrong</a>. For example, climate change affects the number and distribution of plants and animals. Mosquitoes that carry diseases can move from the tropics into what used to be temperate climates as the planet warms, and may infect more people in the months that are normally disease free. We’ve studied the relationship between weather and dengue fever transmission in China, and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27883970/">our findings</a> support the same conclusion reached by <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0008118">many other studies</a>: climate change is likely to put more people at risk of dengue. Biodiversity loss can have similar effects by disrupting food chains. When ranchers cleared forests in <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/6/5/1911">South America</a> for their cattle to graze in the first half of the 20th century, tiny forest-dwelling, blood-feeding vampire bats suddenly had a smörgåsbord of large sedentary animals to feed on. While vampire bats had previously been kept in check by the limited availability of food and the presence of predators in the balanced <a href="https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000797648461952">forest ecosystem</a>, numbers of this species exploded in South America. These bats carry the rabies virus, which causes <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies">lethal brain infections</a> in people who are bitten. Although the number of deaths from bat-borne rabies has now fallen dramatically due to vaccination programs in South America, rabies caused by bites from other animals still <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3168224/">poses a global threat</a>. As urban and agricultural development impinges on natural ecosystems, there are increasing opportunities for humans and domestic animals to become infected with pathogens that would normally only be seen in wildlife – particularly when people hunt and eat animals from the wild. The HIV virus, for example, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1076/jmep.27.2.163.2992">first entered human populations</a> from apes that were slaughtered for food in Africa, and then spread globally through travel and trade. Meanwhile, bats are thought to be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X20319434">the original reservoir</a> for the virus that caused the COVID pandemic, which has killed more than <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/">7 million people</a> to date. Ultimately, until we effectively address the unsustainable impact we are having on our planet, pandemics will continue to occur. <h2>Targeting the ultimate causes</h2> Factors such as climate change, biodiversity loss and other global challenges are the ultimate (high level) cause of pandemics. Meanwhile, increased contact between humans, domestic animals and wildlife is the proximate (immediate) cause. In the case of HIV, while direct contact with the infected blood of apes was the proximate cause, the apes were only being slaughtered because large numbers of very poor people were hungry – an ultimate cause. The distinction between <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02207379">ultimate causes and proximate causes</a> is important, because we often deal only with proximate causes. For example, people may smoke because of stress or social pressure (ultimate causes of getting lung cancer), but it’s the toxins in the smoke that cause cancer (proximate cause). Generally, health services are only concerned with stopping people from smoking – and with treating the illness that results – not with removing the drivers that lead them to smoke in the first place. Similarly, we address pandemics with lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing and vaccinations – all measures which seek to stop the spread of the virus. But we pay less attention to addressing the ultimate causes of pandemics – until perhaps very recently. <h2>A planetary health approach</h2> There’s a growing awareness of the importance of adopting a “planetary health” approach to improve human health. This <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60901-1/fulltext?nr_email_referer=1">concept</a> is based on the understanding that human health and human civilisation depend on flourishing natural systems, and the wise stewardship of those natural systems. With this approach, ultimate drivers like climate change and biodiversity loss would be prioritised in preventing future pandemics, at the same time as working with experts from many different disciplines to deal with the proximate causes, thereby reducing the risk overall. The planetary health approach has the benefit of improving both the health of the environment and human health concurrently. We are heartened by the increased uptake of teaching planetary health concepts across the environmental sciences, humanities and health sciences in many universities. As climate change, biodiversity loss, population displacements, travel and trade continue to increase the risk of disease outbreaks, it’s vital that the planetary stewards of the future have a better understanding of how to tackle the ultimate causes that drive pandemics. This article is the first in a series on the next pandemic.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226827/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/olga-anikeeva-1522907">Olga Anikeeva</a>, Research Fellow, School of Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-stanhope-1129888">Jessica Stanhope</a>, Lecturer, School of Allied Health Science and Practice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peng-bi-1522908">Peng Bi</a>, Professor, School of Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-weinstein-882901">Philip Weinstein</a>, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-seeing-more-pandemics-our-impact-on-the-planet-has-a-lot-to-do-with-it-226827">original article</a>. </div>

Body

Leaked footage shows Olympic star's horrific animal abuse

The extent of dressage star Charlotte Dujardin's "error of judgement" has been revealed, just hours after she made the snap decision to withdraw from the Olympics just days before its commencement. The British dressage star, who is a three-time gold medallist and the joint most-decorated British female Olympian, withdrew and accepted a provisional six-month ban when coming clean about her acts of <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/no-excuse-olympic-legend-quits-days-before-paris-games-commence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">animal abuse</a> in the lead up to the Paris Games. Just hours after announcing her withdrawal from the equestrian events, a disturbing video of a training session began to circulate, in which she is alleged to have beaten a horse with a long whip 24 times in one minute. The video, first released by Good Morning Britain, was taken four years ago and allegedly showed the 39-year-old mistreating a horse when trying to get the animal to slowly trot during a lesson with a young student. With the trainee rider mounted on the horse, Dujardin can allegedly be seen whipping the horse’s legs repeatedly. The video has outraged many, with hundreds of people taking to social media to voice their shock and horror at the acts. Leading British social commentator David Kurten wrote on X, “The cruel abuse of this horse by Charlotte Dujardin is horrific and a stain on our nation." “Two urgent questions need answers: Did she whip horses regularly? Are dozens or hundreds of other dressage horses regularly whipped and abused by other trainers?” Former editor of Horse and Hound Lucy Higginson also added, “It has profoundly shocked everybody in the equestrian world.” The video was sent anonymously to the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (FEI), who made the choice to suspend Dujardin just days before the Paris Olympics are set to begin. “The FEI has officially announced the provisional suspension of British Dressage athlete Charlotte Dujardin effective immediately from the date of notification, 23 July 2024,” it said in a statement. “This decision renders her ineligible to participate in the upcoming Paris 2024 Olympic Games or any other events under the jurisdiction of the FEI.” “According to the information received, the footage was allegedly taken several years ago during a training session conducted by Ms Dujardin at a private stable,” the organisation said. The governing body said Dujardin had confirmed she was depicted in the video and had acknowledged that her conduct was “inappropriate”. “Charlotte Dujardin requested to be provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigations and voluntarily withdrew from the Paris 2024 Olympic Games and also confirmed that she will not participate in any competitions pending the outcome of the FEI’s investigation,” it said. “The FEI condemns any conduct contrary to the welfare of horses and has robust rules in place to address such behaviour.” When announcing her withdrawal from the Games, Dujardin said she made an "error of judgement", saying there was "no excuse" for her behaviour. She wrote in a statement on Instagram, “What happened was completely out of character and does not reflect how I train my horses or coach my pupils, however there is no excuse. I am deeply ashamed and should have set a better example in that moment.” Image credits: Instagram / Good Morning Britain

Legal

What the fox! Driver finds wild animal trapped in his car

A motorist has shared the startling moment a fox got trapped in the front grill of his car, after he accidentally hit the wild animal while travelling at 80km/h. While driving down a country road in South Australia on Saturday night, the man behind the wheel said he was shocked when he felt something slam into the car. When he later checked the vehicle, he was astonished to find the angry fox trying to break free from behind the front grill of the car. “Y’all thought you had a bad day,” he can be heard saying while filming the animal furiously biting the front grill in an attempt to escape. In a series of videos posted to TikTok, the man documented the fox's attempts at escape, before informing his followers that he had enlisted the help of a local vet to help free the animal. “Took him to the vet, they sedated him and we got him out safely, the poor guy,” he said, adding he was glad — and impressed — the fox was alive after such a high-speed impact. Throughout his videos, many took to the comments to offer their advice to free the fox, as one person suggested "popping the lid", with the driver explaining that he did but “couldn’t even see him through the bonnet”. The saga has been viewed more than 400,000 times in the past 24 hours, with numerous people saying they were stunned the fox wasn’t seriously injured. “How does this even happen?” one person wondered. “What in the fox is going on here!” another joked, while others pondered how the man would explain the incident to his insurance company. “Insurance would never believe you if you didn’t have that video,” someone else added. Image credits: TikTok

Travel Trouble

Why do we love to see unlikely animal friendships? A psychology expert explains

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shane-rogers-575838">Shane Rogers</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/edith-cowan-university-720">Edith Cowan University</a> The internet is awash with stories and videos of unlikely animal friendships, often with many millions of views. This content typically shows animals from different species showing affection to one another, signifying a bond or even a “friendship”. These relationships have been captured in people’s homes, such as with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-10/meet-unlikely-friends-peggy-the-dog-and-molly-the-magpie/100447022">Molly the magpie and Peggy the dog</a>, in zoos, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-04/bear-lion-and-tiger-make-an-affectionate,-gentle-family/7222462">such as with</a> Baloo the bear, Leo the lion and Shere Khan the tiger, and even <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BvB0182xag&t=2300s">in the wild</a>, such as one case of <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-cat-friendship_n_4268629">a fox and cat living together</a> in Turkey. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fdxU6CpvUgg?wmode=transparent&start=19" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> A plethora of research on <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66407-w.pdf">primates</a>, <a href="https://blog.mybirdbuddy.com/post/can-birds-form-friendships">birds</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-social-lives-of-kangaroos-are-more-complex-than-we-thought-213770">kangaroos</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/male-dolphins-use-their-individual-names-to-build-a-complex-social-network-97780">dolphins</a>, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/11/191">horses</a>, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/1/126">cats</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05669-y">dogs</a> has shown many non-human animals can develop deep social bonds with their own kind. And while inter-species bonding hasn’t been studied to the same extent, videos like those mentioned above show animals from different species displaying the same affection to each other as they would to their own, such as through cuddling, playing and grooming. Why do we, as people, find these stories so enjoyable? Answering this question requires us to consider some of the nicer aspects of our own nature. <h2>When animals reflect us</h2> Witnessing animals get along well together isn’t just cute, it can also make us feel like we have things in common with other species, and feel more connected with the other life on the planet. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976/full">Decades of research</a> reveals how feeling connected to nature fosters happiness in humans. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PrJi-P61aLY?wmode=transparent&start=7" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> While the mechanisms behind inter-species bonding are not fully understood, <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.994504/full">one 2022 research review</a> suggests the mechanisms that operate in other animals’ brains during social interactions with their own are similar to those that operate in human brains. The researchers suggest that, due to the evolution of common brain mechanisms, animals engaged in social interaction may experience similar emotions to humans who engage with their own friends or loved ones. So while it’s very hard to know what this subjective social experience is like for other animals – after all, they can’t report it on a questionnaire – there’s no reason to think it isn’t similar to our own. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZVMsdz7aZpk?wmode=transparent&start=102" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Humans like co-operation and pleasant surprises</h2> Humans have <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.0128">evolved to enjoy co-operation</a>, which might also help explain why we enjoy seeing co-operation between different animal species. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/lifematters/competition-versus-cooperation:-which-human-instinct-is-stronge/10291360">Some scholars</a> suggest the human instinct for co-operation is even stronger than our instinct for competition. Another reason we may be drawn to unlikely animal friendships is that they are, in fact, so unlikely. These interactions are surprising, and research shows humans <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuroscientists-learn-why/">enjoy being surprised</a>. Our brain has <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/239331/study-reveals-human-brains-have-evolved/">evolved to be incredibly efficient</a> at categorising, solving problems and learning. Part of the reason we’re so efficient is because we are motivated to seek new knowledge and question what we think we know. In other words, we’re motivated to be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635443/">curious</a>. Inter-species friendships are indeed a very curious thing. They contradict the more common assumption and observation that different species stick with their own kind. We might think “cats eat birds, so they must not like each other”. So when we see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGsN7jzp5DE">a cat and a bird</a> getting along like old pals, this challenges our concept of how the natural world works. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bGsN7jzp5DE?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Neuroscientists have documented that, when surprised, humans experience a release of brain chemicals responsible for making us <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unexpected-brain-chemistry-is-behind-the-element-of-surprise/">more alert</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627320308539">sensitive to reward</a>. It is this neurochemical reaction that produces the “pleasantness” in the feeling of being pleasantly surprised. <h2>A desire for peace and harmony</h2> Perhaps another explanation for why humans are so intrigued by inter-species friendships is because they feed a human desire for peace and harmony. These connections may be symbolic of what many people yearn for: a world where differences can be put aside in favour of a peaceful co-existence. These friendships might even prompt us to imagine, consciously or subconsciously, a future in which we become more enlightened as a species. One could argue a key reason behind the success of the TV series <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANnFNfVuZeM">Star Trek</a> is its <a href="https://jacobin.com/2023/08/star-trek-solidarity-utopianism-technology-postcapitalism">optimistic take on the future of humanity</a>. Inter-species co-operation is a central theme of the show. Inter-species friendships may serve as a concrete example of breaking free of the “natural” way of being for a more peaceful way of being. And while it might only be a dream, it’s nice to watch cute animal videos that help us feel like this dream might be possible.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/230548/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_BvB0182xag?wmode=transparent&start=1880" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shane-rogers-575838">Shane Rogers</a>, Lecturer in Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/edith-cowan-university-720">Edith Cowan University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-love-to-see-unlikely-animal-friendships-a-psychology-expert-explains-230548">original article</a>. </div>

Family & Pets

Elephant tourism often involves cruelty – here are steps toward more humane, animal-friendly excursions

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-szydlowski-1495781">Michelle Szydlowski</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/miami-university-1934">Miami University</a> Suju Kali is a 50-year-old elephant in Nepal who has been carrying tourists for over 30 years. Like many elephants I encounter through my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2022.2028628">research</a>, Suju Kali exhibits anxiety and can be aggressive toward strangers. She suffers from emotional trauma as a result of prolonged, commercial human contact. Like Suju Kali, many animals are trapped within the tourism industry. Some venues have no oversight and little concern for animal or tourist safety. Between 120,000 and 340,000 animals are used globally in a variety of wildlife tourism attractions, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138939">endangered species</a> like elephants. Over a quarter of the world’s <a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/45818198">endangered elephants</a> reside in captivity with little oversight. Wildlife tourism – which involves viewing wildlife such as primates or birds in conservation areas, feeding or touching captive or “rehabilitated” wildlife in facilities, and bathing or riding animals like elephants – is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2022.2156523">tricky business</a>. I know this because I am <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YbweA2MAAAAJ&hl=en">a researcher studying human relationships with elephants</a> in both tourism and conservation settings within Southeast Asia. These types of experiences have long been an <a href="https://kathmandupost.com/money/2021/06/17/tourism-is-nepal-s-fourth-largest-industry-by-employment-study">extremely popular and profitable</a> part of the <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074">tourism market</a>. But now, many travel-related organizations are urging people not to participate in, or <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2018/04/27/animal-welfare-travelers-how-enjoy-wildlife-without-harming/544938002/">calling for an outright ban on, interactive wildlife experiences</a>. Tourism vendors have started marketing more “ethical options” for consumers. Some are attempting to truly improve the health and welfare of wildlife, and some are transitioning captive wildlife into touch-free, non-riding or lower-stress environments. In other places, organizations are attempting to <a href="https://www.fao.org/documents/card/es/c/b2c5dad0-b9b9-5a3d-a720-20bf3b9f0dc2/">implement standards of care</a> or create manuals that outline good practices for animal husbandry. This marketing, academics argue, is often simply “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.11.007">greenwashing</a>,” <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2280704">applying marketing labels to make consumers feel better</a> about their choices without making any real changes. Worse, research shows that some programs marketing themselves as ethical tourism may instead be widening economic gaps and harming both humans and other species that they are meant to protect. <h2>No quick fix</h2> For example, rather than tourist dollars trickling down to local struggling families as intended by local governments, many tourism venues are owned by nonresidents, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v2i1.26746">meaning the profits do not stay in the area</a>. Likewise, only a small number of residents can afford to own tourism venues, and venues do not provide employment for locals from lower income groups. This economic gap is especially obvious in Nepalese elephant stables: Venue owners continue to make money off elephants, while elephant caregivers continue to work 17 hours a day for about US$21 a month; tourists are led to believe they are “<a href="https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781800624498.0000">promoting sustainability</a>.” Yet, there are no easy answers, especially for elephants working in tourism. Moving them to sanctuaries is difficult because with no governmental or global welfare oversight, elephants may end up in worse conditions. Many kindhearted souls who want to “help” elephants know little about their biology and mental health needs, or what it takes to keep them healthy. Also, feeding large animals like Suju Kali is pricey, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14010171">costing around $19,000 yearly</a>. So without profits from riding or other income, owners – or would-be rescuers – can’t maintain elephants. Releasing captive elephants to the jungle is not a choice – many have never learned to live in the wild, so they cannot survive on their own. <h2>Hurting local people</h2> Part of the problem lies with governments, as many have marketed tourism as a way to fund conservation projects. For example in Nepal, a percentage of ticket sales from elephant rides are given to community groups to use for forest preservation and support for local families. Increasing demand for <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Tourism-and-Animal-Ethics/Fennell/p/book/9781032431826">wildlife-based tourism</a> may increase traffic in the area and thus put pressure on local governments to further limit local people’s access to forest resources. This may also lead to <a href="https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/latest/news/un-world-tourism-organisation-urged-create-better-future-animals/">increased demands on local communities</a>, as was the case in Nepal. In the 1970s, the Nepalese government removed local people from their lands in what is now Chitwan National Park as part of increasing “conservation efforts” and changed the protected area’s boundaries. Indigenous “Tharu,” or people of the forest, were forced to abandon their villages and land. While some were offered access to “buffer zones” in the 1990s, many remain poor and landless today. In addition, more and more desirable land surrounding conservation areas in Nepal is being developed for tourist-based businesses such as hotels, restaurants and shops, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v2i1.26746">pushing local poor people farther away</a> from central village areas and the associated tourism income. Some activists would like humans to simply release all wildlife back into the wild, but <a href="https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10.1079/9781800624498.0000">there are multiple issues</a> with that. Elephant habitats throughout Southeast Asia have been transformed into croplands, cities or train tracks for human use. Other problems arise from the fact that tourism elephants have <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315457413">never learned</a> how to be elephants in their natural elements, as they were <a href="https://www.pugetsound.edu/sites/default/files/file/8342_Journal%20of%20Tourism%20%282009%29_0.pdf">separated from their herds</a> at an early age. So tourism may be vital to providing food, care and shelter to captive elephants for the rest of their lives and providing jobs for those who really need them. Because elephants can live beyond 60 years, this can be a large commitment. <h2>How to be an ethical tourist</h2> To protect elephants, tourists should check out reviews and photos from any venue they want to visit, and look for clues that animal welfare might be impacted, such as tourists allowed to feed, hold or ride captive wildlife animals. Look for healthy animals, which means doing research on what “healthy” animals of that species should look like. If a venue lists no-touch demonstrations – “unnatural” behaviors that don’t mimic what an elephant might do of their own accord, such as sitting on a ball or riding a bike, or other performances – remember that the behind-the-scenes training used to achieve these behaviors can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845415051-014">violent, traumatic or coercive</a>. Another way to help people and elephant is to to use small, local companies to book your adventures in your area of interest, rather than paying large, international tourism agencies. Look for locally owned hotels, and wait to book excursions until you arrive so you can use local service providers. Book homestay programs and attend cultural events led by community members; talk to tourists and locals you meet in the target town to get their opinions, and use local guides who provide wildlife viewing opportunities <a href="https://nepaldynamicecotours.com/">while maintaining distance from animals</a>. Or tourists can ask to visit <a href="https://www.americanhumane.org/press-release/global-humane-launches-humane-tourism-certification-program/">venues that are certified</a> by international humane animal organizations and that <a href="https://www.su4e.org/">do not allow contact</a> with wildlife. Or they can opt for guided hikes, canoe or kayak experiences, and other environmentally friendly options. While these suggestions will not guarantee that your excursion is animal-friendly, they will help decrease your impact on wildlife, support local families and encourage venues to stop using elephants as entertainment. Those are good first steps.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219792/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-szydlowski-1495781">Michelle Szydlowski</a>, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Project Dragonfly, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/miami-university-1934">Miami University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/elephant-tourism-often-involves-cruelty-here-are-steps-toward-more-humane-animal-friendly-excursions-219792">original article</a>. </div>

Travel Tips

10 million animals die on our roads each year. Here’s what works (and what doesn’t) to cut the toll

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/graeme-coulson-1378778">Graeme Coulson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helena-bender-98800">Helena Bender</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> There’s almost no warning. A dark shape appears on the side of the road, then you feel a jolt as something goes under the car. Or worse, the shape rears up, hits the front of your vehicle, then slams into the windscreen. You have just experienced a wildlife-vehicle collision. This gruesome scene plays out <a href="https://www.bbcearth.com/news/australias-road-kill-map">every night across Australia</a>. When these collisions happen, many animals become instant roadkill. An <a href="https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/23121/Thesis%20updated%20for%20library%20submission.pdf?sequence=1">estimated 10 million</a> native mammals, reptiles, birds and other species are killed each year. Others are injured and die away from the road. Some survive with <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-million-animals-are-hit-on-our-roads-each-year-heres-how-you-can-help-them-and-steer-clear-of-them-these-holidays-149733">terrible injuries and have to be euthanised</a>. The lucky ones might <a href="https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/who-should-i-contact-about-injured-wildlife/">be rescued</a> by groups such as <a href="https://wildliferescue.net.au/">Wildlife Rescue</a>, <a href="https://www.wildlifevictoria.org.au/">Wildlife Victoria</a> and <a href="https://www.wires.org.au/">WIRES</a>. Wildlife-vehicle collisions also increase the risk to whole populations of some threatened species, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17143">Lumholtz’s tree-kangaroo</a> on the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland. People are affected, too. Human <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13361">deaths and injuries</a> from these collisions are rising, with motorcyclists at greatest risk. Vehicle repairs are <a href="https://www.mynrma.com.au/-/media/wildlife-road-safety-report--final.pdf">inconvenient and costly</a>. Added to this is the distress for people when dealing with a dead or dying animal on the roadside. How can we reduce the wildlife toll on our roads? Many measures have been tried and proven largely ineffective. However, other evidence-based approaches can help avoid collisions. <h2>Evidence for what works is limited</h2> Many communities are worried about the growing impacts of wildlife-vehicle collisions and are desperate for solutions. Recent reports from <a href="https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1822182/FULLTEXT01.pdf">Europe</a> and <a href="https://westerntransportationinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/4w7576_Huijser_etal_WVC_ConnectivityLiteratureReview_PooledFundStudyFinalReport_2021.pdf">North America</a> review the many methods to reduce such collisions. Do these findings apply to Australia’s unique fauna? Unfortunately, we don’t have a detailed analysis of options for our wildlife, but here’s what we know now. Well-designed fences keep wildlife off our highways but also fragment the landscape. Happily, animals will use crossing structures – overpasses and <a href="https://theconversation.com/good-news-highway-underpasses-for-wildlife-actually-work-187434">underpasses</a> – to get to food and mates on the other side of the road. Fences and crossings do work, but are regarded as too costly over Australia’s vast road network. As for standard wildlife warning signs, drivers <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494358/">ignore most of them</a> after a while, making them ineffective. Signs with graphic images and variable messages get <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3041142">more attention</a>, but we need road trials to assess their effect on drivers and collision rates. <h2>Whistling in the dark</h2> Some drivers install cheap, wind-driven, high-pitched wildlife whistles on their vehicles. Tests in the United States 20 years ago found humans and deer <a href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1582071">could not hear any whistling sound</a> above the road noise of the test vehicle. Yet these devices are still sold in Australia as kangaroo deterrents. The Shu-Roo, an Australian invention, is an active wildlife whistle. It is fitted to the bumper bar, producing a high-pitched electronic sound, which is claimed to scare wildlife away from the road. Sadly, <a href="https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3c3154e0-2f48-5b73-a6cd-a7423c2a75ee/content">our tests</a> show the Shu-Roo signal can’t be heard above road noise 50 metres away and has no effect on captive kangaroo behaviour. We also recruited fleets of trucks, buses, vans, utes and cars to field test the Shu-Roo. Nearly 100 vehicles covered more than 4 million kilometres across Australia over 15,500 days. The drivers reported just over one wildlife-vehicle collision per 100,000km travelled, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2021.042">there was no difference in the rate</a> for vehicles fitted with a Shu-Roo versus those without one. The virtual fence is the latest attempt to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. It uses a line of posts spaced along the roadside, each with a unit producing loud sounds and flashing lights aimed away from the road. Vehicle headlights activate the units, which are claimed to alert animals and reduce the risk of collision. Early results from Tasmania were encouraging. A 50% drop in possum and wallaby deaths was reported, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/AM19009">this trial had many design flaws</a>. Recent trials in <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/10/752">Tasmania</a>, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/10/1323">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://www.redland.qld.gov.au/downloads/download/292/virtual_fence_to_reduce_vehicle_collisions_with_wallabies_on_heinemann_rd_-_final_report_2020">Queensland</a> show no effect of virtual fencing on collisions with possums, wallabies or wombats. Our concern is that this system is being <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/wildlife-fence-trial-underway-in-queensland-and-phillip-island/12268110">rolled out</a> in <a href="https://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/about-council/news-and-publications/media-releases/2023/june/councils-innovative-trial-helping-keep-local-wildlife-safe">many</a> <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-26/nsw-south-coast-council-first-virtual-fence-to-protect-wildlife/101571600">parts</a> of <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-stealth-tech-aiming-to-stop-roos-from-becoming-roadkill-20231222-p5etda.html">Australia</a>. It gives the impression of action to reduce collisions with wildlife, but without an evidence base, solid study design or adequate monitoring. <h2>A very messy problem</h2> The problem has many dimensions. We need to consider all of them to achieve safe travel for people and animals on our roads. At a landscape level, collision hotspots occur where wildlife frequently cross roads, which can help us predict the collision risk for species such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13465">koalas</a>. But the risk differs between species. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01530">on Phillip Island</a> most wallaby collisions happen on rural roads, while most involving possums and birds are in urban streets. Traffic volume and speed are key factors for many species, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2306">kangaroos</a>. Driver training and experience are also important. In the Royal National Park in New South Wales, <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/6/40">half the drivers surveyed</a> had struck animals, including wallabies and deer. Yet most still <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-million-animals-are-hit-on-our-roads-each-year-heres-how-you-can-help-them-and-steer-clear-of-them-these-holidays-149733">weren’t keen</a> to slow down or avoid driving at dawn and dusk. Road design has a major influence on wildlife-vehicle collions too, but the planning process too often <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.959918">neglects wildlife studies</a>. Smarter cars are <a href="https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1822182/FULLTEXT01.pdf">being developed</a>. One day these will use AI to spot animal hazards, apply automatic emergency braking and alert other drivers of real-time risk. To explore potential technological solutions, Transport for NSW is running a <a href="https://www.eianz.org/events/event/symposium-using-technology-to-reduce-wildlife-vehicle-collisions">symposium</a> at the University of Technology Sydney on May 21. The symposium will cover wildlife ecology and the evidence base for options to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions in Australia. <hr /> If you see an injured animal on the road, call <a href="https://www.wildliferescue.net.au/">Wildlife Rescue Australia</a> on 1300 596 457. for specific state and territory numbers, go to the <a href="https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/who-should-i-contact-about-injured-wildlife/">RSPCA injured wildlife site</a>.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222367/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/graeme-coulson-1378778">Graeme Coulson</a>, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of BioSciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helena-bender-98800">Helena Bender</a>, Senior Lecturer, Environmental Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-million-animals-die-on-our-roads-each-year-heres-what-works-and-what-doesnt-to-cut-the-toll-222367">original article</a>.

Domestic Travel

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The best 100 cities on the planet have been revealed, with three Aussie cities making the final list. The list was compiled by as part of an annual report by <a href="https://www.worldsbestcities.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resonance Consultancy</a>, who rated major capital cities on three main factors: liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs, walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums, as well as ratings from TripAdvisor and Google. The top ten chart features four cities on the Asian continent, four in Europe and two in the U.S. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were all featured in the list, coming in at numbers 31, 35 and 57 respectively. Taking out the number one spot this year is London, dubbed the "capital of capitals" that "reigns over all global cities" as the best metropolis in the world. The study proclaims it as the most liveable and the most lovable mecca, solidified by its winning culture and education attainment. The report concludes, "Despite crippling Covid lockdowns and economic devastation. Despite Brexit. Despite a war in Europe. The city is more indomitable and part of the global discourse than ever. From the Queen's death, to last autumn's chaotic drama at 10 Downing Street that finally calmed down with Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister, only to take heavy local election losses this spring, London is rarely quiet these days." Here's the full list of top 100 cities in the world. 1 - London, England 2 - Paris, France 3 - New York, USA 4 - Tokyo, Japan 5 - Singapore 6 - Dubai, United Arab Emirates 7 - San Francisco, USA 8 - Barcelona, Spain 9 - Amsterdam, Netherlands 10 - Seoul, South Korea 11 - Rome, Italy 12 - Prague, Czechia 13 - Madrid, Spain 14 - Berlin, Germany 15 - Los Angeles, USA 16 - Chicago, USA 17 - Washington, D.C., USA 18 - Beijing, China 19 - Istanbul, Turkey 20 - Dublin, Ireland 21 - Vienna, Austria 22 - Milan, Italy 23 - Toronto, Canada 24 - Boston, USA 25 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 26 - Budapest, Hungary 27 - São Paulo, Brazil 28 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29 - Stockholm, Sweden 30 - Munich, Germany 31 - Melbourne, Australia 32 - Lisbon, Portugal 33 - Zürich, Switzerland 34 - Seattle, USA 35 - Sydney, Australia 36 - Doha, Qatar 37 - Brussels, Belgium 38 - San Jose, USA 39 - Bangkok, Thailand 40 - Warsaw, Poland 41 - Copenhagen, Denmark 42 - Taipei, Taiwan 43 - Austin, USA 44 - Oslo, Norway 45 - Osaka, Japan 46 - Hong Kong, China 47 - Tel Aviv, Israel 48 - Athens, Greece 49 - Frankfurt, Germany 50 - Vancouver, Canada 51 - San Diego, USA 52 - Orlando, USA 53 - Helsinki, Finland 54 - Miami, USA 55 - Buenos Aires, Argentina 56 - Hamburg, Germany 57 - Brisbane, Australia 58 - Kuwait, Kuwait 59 - Las Vegas, USA 60 - Montreal, Canada 61 - Glasgow, Scotland 62 - Shanghai, China 63 - Rio de Janeiro, USA 64 - Auckland, New Zealand 65 - Atlanta, USA 66 - Houston, USA 67 - Busan, South Korea 68 - Philadelphia, USA 69 - Naples, Italy 70 - Denver, USA 71 - Nashville, USA 72 - Manchester, England 73 - Dallas, USA 74 - Liverpool, England 75 - Minneapolis, USA 76 - Mexico City, Mexico 77 - Minsk, Belarus 78 - Lyon, France 79 - Portland, USA 80 - Rotterdam, Netherlands 81 - Bogotá, Colombia 82 - Kraków, Poland 83 - Valencia, Spain 84 - Santiago, Chile 85 - Birmingham, England 86 - New Orleans, USA 87 - Bucharest, Romania 88 - Leeds, England 89 - Muscat, Oman 90 - Ottawa, Canada 91 - Cologne, Germany 92 - Charlotte, USA 93 - Calgary, Canada 94 - Nagoya, Japan 95 - Düsseldorf, Germany 96 - Hanoi, Vietnam 97 - Gothenburg, Sweden 98 - Sapporo, Japan 99 - Bilbao, Spain 100 - Baltimore, USA Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

Handkerchief or tissue? Which one’s better for our health and the planet?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-patrick-taylor-11394">Mark Patrick Taylor</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hester-joyce-122106">Hester Joyce</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Maybe you have hay fever, COVID, a cold or the flu, and are reaching for a tissue or handkerchief. But which one’s better at stopping infections spreading? Which has a smaller environmental impact? Is it the hanky, which has been with us since at least Roman times? Or the more recent and widely-used paper tissue? You might be surprised at the results. <h2>A short history of the handkerchief and tissue</h2> Today, we think of hankies as something to wipe noses, and catch coughs and sneezes. But such a simple square of cloth has a complex history. In the first century, the Romans <a href="http://margaretroedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/HandkerchiefHist.pdf">used</a> a sudarium (Latin for sweat cloth) to wipe off sweat, or to mask the mouth and face. Over time, people have used what we now call a handkerchief or hanky, as a head covering, as a veil and for disguise, to clean hands, for wounds and to staunch blood. Wealthy people have used them to signify class and manners, and for discretely wiping away phlegm rather than smearing snot on sleeves or down skirts. Royalty have used them to indicate wealth and power through their gifts of fine linen and silk handkerchiefs to favoured subjects. Henry VIII owned an extensive collection, some embossed with gold and silver. Handkerchiefs have also been <a href="https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/italian-handkerchief">markers of</a> love, fidelity and sexual preferences. In the late 19th century the “handkerchief code” was a system of colour coding and handkerchief placement used to indicate sexual preferences, <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-au/lgbtq-secret-handkerchief-code-language">which is still active</a> in LGBTQ+ communities today. We can <a href="https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/epub/10.3366/cult.2020.0214">trace the origins</a> of paper tissue to China in the 2nd century BC. But it wasn’t until the 1920s that tissue as we know it today <a href="https://www.kleenex.co.uk/kleenex-history">was developed</a> to remove make-up and wipe runny noses from hay fever. <h2>So, which one is better for our health?</h2> More than 100 years ago, a cloth hanky was considered a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248216/pdf/hosplond73063-0008b.pdf">little flag of Death</a>” because of the germs it carried and how it contaminated pockets it was left in. Later, we were urged to use a hanky <a href="http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101449736">as</a> “coughs and sneezes spread diseases”. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> Today, we know nasal secretions harbour cold-type viruses that can be <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.22027">transferred</a> to a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2011/06/02/3231404.htm">range of surfaces</a> – hands, handkerchiefs, tissues, door knobs, keyboards – sometimes surviving <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113473">long after</a> the initial exposure. So blowing your nose into a reusable cotton hanky, then touching another object, means these viruses can spread. Even if you put your cotton hanky in the wash immediately, you’d likely contaminate surfaces on the way, such as doorknobs, and use your infected hands to operate the washing machine. Viruses don’t tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/146.1.47">survive so long</a> on tissues. As long as you throw tissues away after using them, and don’t leave them lying around for others to pick up, the chance of passing germs to others from a used tissue is far lower. Then there’s the question of whether hankies or tissues are effective barriers to coughing and respiratory spray. Basic cloth coverings, such as handkerchiefs or bandannas, can catch sputum, as can tissues. But several studies have shown they do not effectively <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211">filter</a> <a href="https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf">respiratory aerosols</a>, or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/153567601001500204">stop you inhaling</a> pollutants, pathogens or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.03.012">small airborne particles</a>. <h2>Which one is better for the planet?</h2> If you want to look at environmental considerations, US company Ecosystem Analytics <a href="https://ecosystem-analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Complete-LCA-Facial-Tissue-Handkerchief.pdf">compared</a> resusable cotton hankies to disposable paper tissues using a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505">lifecycle analysis</a>. It considered four measures of environmental impacts associated with production, transport, use and disposal: <ul> <li> climate change (sum of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, nitrous oxide and CFCs) </li> <li> ecosystem quality (chemical pollution of land and water) </li> <li> human health (carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic toxicity to humans) </li> <li> resources (total energy requirements of non‐renewable energy and mineral extraction). </li> </ul> The verdict? Across the four measures, a cotton hanky had five to seven times greater impact than an equivalent tissue. And, by far, the greatest impacts were related to the production of each of these products, rather than using or disposing of them. If you’re still keen to use a cotton hanky, you could opt for organic cotton, which has a <a href="https://www.sei.org/publications/ecological-footprint-water-analysis-cotton-hemp-polyester/">lower ecological footprint</a> compared to standard cotton produced in the same location. But organic cotton production has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/is-organic-cotton-better-for-the-environment/">lower yields</a> than its conventional equivalent, meaning more land is needed to produce an equivalent amount, compounding the total environmental impact. If you want to feel better about using tissues, ones made from recycled material may be a better option. Their manufacture leads to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0597-x">fewer</a> greenhouse gas emissions compared with making regular tissues. <h2>The verdict</h2> Wiping our noses with paper tissues we dispose of properly after use (and don’t store in our pocket), made from recycled material, is preferable from both a health and environmental perspective. But tissues don’t quite have the same panache as the historic and versatile cloth hanky.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213065/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-patrick-taylor-11394">Mark Patrick Taylor</a>, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hester-joyce-122106">Hester Joyce</a>, Adjunct Associate Professor, Creative Arts, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/handkerchief-or-tissue-which-ones-better-for-our-health-and-the-planet-213065">original article</a>.

Caring

Our planet is burning in unexpected ways - here’s how we can protect people and nature

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-kelly-159658">Luke Kelly</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-bowman-4397">David Bowman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ella-plumanns-pouton-1470045">Ella Plumanns Pouton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grant-williamson-109967">Grant Williamson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-shawn-fletcher-99786">Michael-Shawn Fletcher</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> People have been using fire for millennia. It is a vital part of many ecosystems and cultures. Yet human activities in the current era, sometimes called the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-anthropocene-start-in-1950-or-much-earlier-heres-why-debate-over-our-world-changing-impact-matters-209869">Anthropocene</a>”, are reshaping patterns of fire across the planet. <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">In our new research</a>, published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, we used satellite data to create global maps of where and how fires are burning. We calculated about 3.98 million square kilometres of Earth’s land surface burns each year. We also examined research spanning archaeology, climatology, ecology, Indigenous knowledge and paleoecology, to better understand the causes and consequences of fires. Our international team found strong evidence fires are burning in unexpected places, at unusual times and in rarely observed ways. These changes in fire patterns are threatening human lives and modifying ecosystems. But the future does not have to be bleak. There are many opportunities to apply knowledge and practice of fire to benefit people and nature. <h2>Here’s how fire patterns are changing</h2> Exploring multiple approaches and scales enables a deeper understanding of where, when and how fires burn. Satellite data provide evidence of changes in fire patterns at a global scale. <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020RG000726">Annual fire season length</a> increased by 14 days from 1979 to 2020 and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04325-1">night fires</a>, which indicate fires that cannot be quickly controlled, increased in intensity by 7.2% from 2003 to 2020. Other changes are apparent only when we look at data from particular regions. An increase in fire size and the frequency of large fires has recently been observed in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2103135118">forests and woodlands of the western United States</a>. Meanwhile fire-dependent grasslands and savannahs across <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14711">Africa</a> and <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082327">Brazil</a> have experienced reductions in fire frequency. It’s also important to consider the timescale and type of fire when interpreting changes. In Australia, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27225-4">satellite records show</a> the frequency of very large forest fires has increased over the past four decades. At longer time scales, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-020-01339-3">charcoal and pollen records</a> indicate the frequency of low-intensity fires <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2395">decreased in parts of southeastern Australia</a> following British colonisation in 1788. <h2>Changes in fire affect air, land and water</h2> Many animals and plants have evolved strategies that enable them to thrive under particular fire patterns. This means changes to fire characteristics can <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb0355">harm populations and ecosystems</a>. <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12905">Large and intense fires</a> are reducing the available forest habitat preferred by the greater glider. But a <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-fire-is-pushing-88-of-australias-threatened-land-mammals-closer-to-extinction-185965">lack of fire can be problematic too</a>. Threatened species of native rodents can benefit from food resources and habitats that flourish shortly after fire. There is evidence that emissions from recent fires are already modifying the atmosphere. The historically exceptional 2019–20 Australian wildfires produced <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe1415#:%7E:text=Intense%2C%20widespread%20bushfires%20in%20Australia,from%20a%20moderate%20volcanic%20eruption.">record-breaking levels of aerosols</a> over the Southern Hemisphere, as well as substantial carbon emissions. The <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00610-5">wildfire smoke-related health costs</a> of the 2019–20 wildfires in Australia included an estimated 429 smoke-related premature deaths as well as 3,230 hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disorders. Changes in fire patterns are modifying water cycles, too. In the western United States, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2009717118">fires are reaching higher elevations</a> and having strong impacts on <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2200333119">snow</a> and water availability. New studies are revealing how the air, land and water that support life on Earth are connected by fires. Smoke plumes from the 2019–20 Australian wildfires transported nutrients to the Southern Ocean, resulting in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03805-8">widespread phytoplankton blooms</a>. <h2>Humans are responsible for the changes</h2> Human drivers such as climate change, land use, fire use and suppression, and transportation and extinction of species <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">are causing shifts in fire patterns</a>. Increasing global temperatures and more frequent heatwaves and droughts increase the likelihood of fire by promoting hot, dry and windy conditions. A pattern of extreme fire weather outside of natural climate variation is already emerging in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15388">North America</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1183-3">southern Europe</a> and <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1e3a/meta">the Amazon basin</a>. Humans modify fire regimes by changing land use for agricultural, forestry and urban purposes. Until recent decades, large fires in tropical forests were uncommon. But <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03876-7">deforestation fires</a> used to clear primary forest for agriculture often promotes more frequent and intense uncontrolled fires. Humans have transported plants and animals across the globe, resulting in novel mixes of species that modify fuels and fire regimes. In many parts of the world, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1908253116">invasive grasses</a> have increased flammability and fire activity. Social and economic changes propel these drivers. Colonisation by Europeans and the displacement of Indigenous peoples and their skilful use of fire has been linked with fire changes in <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2395">Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116264119">North America</a> and <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174">South America</a>. <h2>Using knowledge and practice of fire to achieve sustainability goals</h2> <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">The pace and scale of these changes</a> represent challenges to humanity, but knowledge and practice of fire can help to achieve sustainability goals. This includes: <ul> <li><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174">good health and wellbeing</a>, by supporting community-owned solutions and fire practices that increase social cohesion and health</li> <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479718314658">sustainable cities and communities</a>, by designing green firebreaks and mixed-use areas with low fuels, strategically located in the landscape</li> <li><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam7672">life on land</a>, by tailoring use of fire to promote and restore species and ecosystems</li> <li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00867-1">climate action</a>, by applying low-intensity fire to promote the stability of soil organic matter and increase carbon storage</li> <li><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3921">reduced inequalities</a>, by allocating resources before, during, and after wildfires to at-risk communities and residents.</li> </ul> As the world changes, society as a whole needs to keep learning about the interplay between people and fire. A deep understanding of fire is essential for achieving a sustainable future – in other words, <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">a better Anthropocene</a>.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213215/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-kelly-159658">Luke Kelly</a>, Associate Professor in Quantitative Ecology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-bowman-4397">David Bowman</a>, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ella-plumanns-pouton-1470045">Ella Plumanns Pouton</a>, PhD candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grant-williamson-109967">Grant Williamson</a>, Research Fellow in Environmental Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-shawn-fletcher-99786">Michael-Shawn Fletcher</a>, Professor in Biogeography, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-burning-in-unexpected-ways-heres-how-we-can-protect-people-and-nature-213215">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Is it okay to kiss your pet? The risk of animal-borne diseases is small, but real

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-mclean-1351935">Sarah McLean</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/enzo-palombo-249510">Enzo Palombo</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Our relationship with pets has changed drastically in recent decades. Pet ownership is at an all-time high, with <a href="https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/media-release/more-than-two-thirds-of-australian-households-now-own-a-pet/">a recent survey</a> finding 69% of Australian households have at least one pet. We spend an estimated A$33 billion every year on caring for our fur babies. While owning a pet is linked to numerous <a href="https://www.onehealth.org/blog/10-mental-physical-health-benefits-of-having-pets">mental and physical health benefits</a>, our pets can also harbour infectious diseases that can sometimes be passed on to us. For most people, the risk is low. But some, such as pregnant people and those with weakened immune systems, are at <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/specific-groups/high-risk/index.html">greater risk</a> of getting sick from animals. So, it’s important to know the risks and take necessary precautions to prevent infections. <h2>What diseases can pets carry?</h2> Infectious diseases that move from animals to humans are called zoonotic diseases or <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html">zoonoses</a>. More than <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3668296/#B18">70 pathogens</a> of companion animals are known to be transmissible to people. Sometimes, a pet that has a zoonotic pathogen may look sick. But often there may be no visible symptoms, making it easier for you to catch it, because you don’t suspect your pet of harbouring germs. Zoonoses can be transmitted directly from pets to humans, such as through contact with saliva, bodily fluids and faeces, or indirectly, such as through contact with contaminated bedding, soil, food or water. Studies suggest <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500695/">the prevalence of pet-associated zoonoses is low</a>. However, the true number of infections is likely <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3789">underestimated</a> since many zoonoses are not “<a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/notification-of-illness-and-disease">notifiable</a>”, or may have multiple exposure pathways or generic symptoms. Dogs and cats are major reservoirs of zoonotic infections (meaning the pathogens naturally live in their population) caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites. <a href="https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/rabies">In endemic regions in Africa and Asia</a>, dogs are the main source of rabies which is transmitted through saliva. Dogs also commonly carry Capnocytophaga bacteria <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/capnocytophaga/index.html">in their mouths and saliva</a>, which can be transmitted to people through close contact or bites. The vast majority of people won’t get sick, but these bacteria can occasionally cause infections in people with weakened immune systems, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/capnocytophaga/signs-symptoms/index.html">resulting</a> in severe illness and sometimes death. Just last week, such a death <a href="https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/tracy-ridout-perth-mum-dies-11-days-after-rare-bacterial-infection-from-minor-dog-bite-c-11748887">was reported in Western Australia</a>. Cat-associated zoonoses include a number of illnesses spread by the faecal-oral route, such as giardiasis, campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis and toxoplasmosis. This means it’s especially important to wash your hands or use gloves whenever handling your cat’s litter tray. Cats can also sometimes transmit infections through bites and scratches, including the aptly named <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/diseases/cat-scratch.html#:%7E:text=Cat%20scratch%20disease%20(CSD)%20is,the%20surface%20of%20the%20skin.">cat scratch disease</a>, which is caused by the bacterium Bartonella henselae. Both dogs and cats are also reservoirs for <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10122942/">methicillin-resistant bacterium Staphylococcus aureus</a> (MRSA), with close contact with pets identified as an important risk factor for zoonotic transmission. <h2>Birds, turtles and fish can also transmit disease</h2> But it’s not just dogs and cats that can spread diseases to humans. Pet birds can occasionally transmit <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/pneumonia/atypical/psittacosis/">psittacosis</a>, a bacterial infection which causes pneumonia. Contact with <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animal-health-literacy/pet-turtles-source-germs">pet turtles</a> has been linked to Salmonella infections in humans, particularly in young children. Even pet fish have been linked to a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pets/fish.html">range of bacterial infections</a> in humans, including vibriosis, mycobacteriosis and salmonellosis. Close contact with animals – and some behaviours in particular – increase the risk of zoonotic transmission. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19398275/">A study from the Netherlands</a> found half of owners allowed pets to lick their faces, and 18% allowed dogs to share their bed. (Sharing a bed increases the duration of exposure to pathogens carried by pets.) The same study found 45% of cat owners allowed their cat to jump onto the kitchen sink. Kissing pets has also been linked to occasional zoonotic infections in pet owners. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298380/">In one case</a>, a woman in Japan developed meningitis due to Pasteurella multicoda infection, after regularly kissing her dog’s face. These bacteria are often found in the oral cavities of dogs and cats. Young children are also more likely to engage in behaviours which increase their risk of <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/specific-groups/high-risk/children.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fhealthypets%2Fspecific-groups%2Fchildren.html">getting sick</a> from animal-borne diseases – such as putting their hands in their mouth after touching pets. Children are also less likely to wash their hands properly after handling pets. Although anybody who comes into contact with a zoonotic pathogen via their pet can become sick, certain people are more likely to suffer from serious illness. These people include the young, old, pregnant and immunosuppressed. For example, while most people infected with the toxoplasmosis parasite will experience only mild illness, it can be life-threatening or <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/pregnancy/what-are-the-risks-of-toxoplasmosis-during-pregnancy/">cause birth defects in foetuses</a>. <h2>What should I do if I’m worried about catching a disease from my pet?</h2> There are a number of good hygiene and pet husbandry practices that can reduce your risk of becoming sick. These include: <ul> <li>washing your hands after playing with your pet and after handling their bedding, toys, or cleaning up faeces</li> <li>not allowing your pets to lick your face or open wounds</li> <li>supervising young children when they are playing with pets and when washing their hands after playing with pets</li> <li>wearing gloves when changing litter trays or cleaning aquariums</li> <li>wetting bird cage surfaces when cleaning to minimise aerosols</li> <li>keeping pets out of the kitchen (especially cats who can jump onto food preparation surfaces)</li> <li>keeping up to date with preventative veterinary care, including vaccinations and worm and tick treatments</li> <li>seeking veterinary care if you think your pet is unwell.</li> </ul> It is especially important for those who are at a higher risk of illness to take precautions to reduce their exposure to zoonotic pathogens. And if you’re thinking about getting a pet, ask your vet which type of animal would best suit your personal circumstances.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210898/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-mclean-1351935">Sarah McLean</a>, Lecturer in environmental health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/enzo-palombo-249510">Enzo Palombo</a>, Professor of Microbiology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-okay-to-kiss-your-pet-the-risk-of-animal-borne-diseases-is-small-but-real-210898">original article</a>.

Family & Pets

An expert’s top 5 reasons why dogs can be considered exceptional animals

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melissa-starling-461103">Melissa Starling</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> Dogs are important to a lot of humans, but what makes them so? Apart from being warm, soft and capable of inspiring our unconditional love, there are a number of unique characteristics that set dogs apart from other animals. As a dog researcher, animal behaviour consultant and canophile (which means I love dogs), let me share five traits that I think make dogs so special. <h2>Dogs are hypersocial</h2> We all know those golden retriever-type dogs that appear absurdly delighted to meet any new social being. It’s hard not to be taken in by their infectious friendliness. These furry, hypersocial creatures have some key genetic differences even to other domestic dogs. Most fascinatingly, these genetic differences are in the area of the genome <a href="https://www.insidescience.org/news/rare-human-syndrome-may-explain-why-dogs-are-so-friendly">associated</a> with hypersociability in people with a genetic condition called Williams-Beuren syndrome. Although people with this syndrome experience negative health effects, they also tend to be very open, engaging and sociable. Not all dogs fall into this hypersocial category – but even those that don’t are unusually accepting of unfamiliar people and dogs. Unlike other social wild canids such as wolves, domestic dogs can quite happily live in harmony with different species, as well as individuals of their own species that aren’t from their family. This is what makes it so easy to slot dogs into our lives. <h2>Dogs are wired to understand us</h2> Humans have selectively bred dogs for many generations. And in many cases, we’ve bred them to take direction to help us in a wide variety of jobs – including being companions to us. This has led to domestic dogs being born with an interest in humans. From an early age, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221006023">puppies are attracted</a> to human faces. While dogs are as co-operative as wolves, they tend to be submissive towards humans and follow our directions – whereas wolves are bolder and more likely to lead when <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1709027114">co-operating with humans</a>. Dogs also learn to follow our gaze, and show a left-gaze bias when looking at human faces. This means they spend more time looking at the left side of our faces (which would be the right side from our perspective). This bias emerges in several species when they are processing emotional information, which shows that dogs are <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152393">reading our faces</a> to figure out how we’re feeling. For a while it was also thought dogs were particularly attentive to human gestures such as pointing – but recent research suggests many domestic species and some wild animal species can also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7555673/">follow pointing</a>. <h2>Dogs come in countless shapes and sizes</h2> No other species comes in such a huge variety of shapes and sizes as domestic dogs. Not even cats or horses display the same diversity. The largest dogs may be close to 25 times the size of the smallest! Beyond that, we have dogs with drop ears and prick ears and everything in between, tails and no tails, or bob tails, short legs and long legs, long noses and short noses – and a huge variety of coat colours, lengths and textures. For dogs, this huge variation might mean they have more to learn than other animals when it comes to understanding their own kind. For example, owners of herding breed dogs may find their dog a bit confused, or even defensive, when meeting a very different short-faced breed such as a bulldog. For us, it means we should appreciate how the size and shape of dogs can influence <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149403">their behaviour</a> and experiences. For instance, dogs with longer noses have sharper vision, while dogs with a lighter build tend to be more energetic and fearful. <h2>Dogs form deep emotional bonds</h2> Domestic dogs have been shown to form attachment bonds with human caregivers that are very similar to those formed between <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065296">children and parents</a>. This may partly explain why they can read our <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426098/">emotional signals</a>, why they become distressed (and try to help us) when <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231742">we are distressed</a>, and why MRI studies show dogs are happy when they smell <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635714000473">their owners</a>. It may also be why they panic when separated from us. Dogs’ attachment to humans goes beyond being hypersocial. To them, we are a lot more than the food we provide and the balls we throw. We are an attachment figure akin to a parent. <h2>Dogs can help us be our best selves</h2> Most dog owners would agree their dog brings out the best in them. They can confide in their dog and love them unconditionally – sometimes more easily than they can another human. Dogs are playing important roles in animal-assisted therapy, where their nonjudgmental presence can be a calming influence and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-019-00188-5">facilitate social interactions</a>. They can even help children <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-022-01392-5">learn to read</a> and <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/21/5171">alleviate anxiety</a>. Although assisting humans with their emotional problems can be a difficult task for such an emotionally sensitive species, research suggests the right dogs can rise to the task if their workload is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787818302193">managed carefully</a>. Horses are also used in animal-assisted therapy, as are some smaller furry animals. However, dogs are more portable and can remain at ease in stimulating environments such as courtrooms, schools and airports. They are uniquely placed to accompany us wherever we go. <h2>Paws for thought</h2> We might like to think dogs are special for some of the traits we value in humans, such as intelligence, selflessness or a loving nature. But really dogs are exceptional for simply being dogs. They are social acrobats that can find social harmony wherever they go. They have rich emotional lives in which they co-exist with different species and can even forge bonds <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89dCR3VinMM&ab_channel=WCCO-CBSMinnesota">outside of their own species</a>. They are also generally tolerant of our primate ways – and good at receiving our love. And for me that’s enough.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211832/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melissa-starling-461103">Melissa Starling</a>, Postdoctoral Researcher in Veterinary Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-experts-top-5-reasons-why-dogs-can-be-considered-exceptional-animals-211832">original article</a>.

Family & Pets

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Last week, scientists announced that for the first time on record, Antarctic ice has failed to “substantially recover” over winter, in a “once in 7.5-million-year event”. Climate change is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/antarctica-is-missing-a-chunk-of-sea-ice-bigger-than-greenland-whats-going-on-210665">most likely culprit</a>. Petra Heil, a sea ice physicist from the Australian Antarctic Division, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204">told the ABC</a> it could tip the world into a new state. “That would be quite concerning to the sustainability of human conditions on Earth, I suspect.” And in March, a senior United Nations disarmament official <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm">told the Security Council</a> the risk of nuclear weapons being used today is higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Both warnings speak to concerns about Earth’s security. Will our planet be able to support human life in the future? And if not, will humanity have another chance at survival in space? <h2>‘Billionauts’ and how to choose who goes</h2> Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the rise of the “billionaut”. The ultra-wealthy are engaged in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/billionaire-space-race-the-ultimate-symbol-of-capitalisms-flawed-obsession-with-growth-164511">private space race</a> costing billions of dollars, while <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/12/21/billionaire-space-race-turns-into-a-publicity-disaster/?sh=79056f7e5e4d">regular citizens often condemn</a> the wasted resources and contribution to global carbon emissions. Space – described in the <a href="https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html">Outer Space Treaty</a> as being the “province of all mankind” – risks instead becoming the playground of the elite few, as they try to escape the consequences of environmental destruction. But if we have to select humans to send into space for a species survival mission, how do we choose who gets to go? In Montreal last month, the <a href="https://irg.space/irg-2023/">Interstellar Research Group</a> explored the question: how would you select a crew for the first interstellar mission? A panel led by <a href="https://www.erikanesvold.com/">Erika Nesvold</a>, a co-editor of the new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space</a>, discussed the perspectives of gender minorities, people with disabilities and First Nations groups regarding the ideal composition for an off-world crew. I was on the panel to discuss my contribution to the book, which explores how we can promote procreation in our new off-world society, without diminishing the reproductive liberty of survivors. <h2>The ultra-wealthy and reproductive slavery</h2> The first step in deciding how to allocate limited spaces on our “lifeboat” is identifying and rejecting options that are practically or ethically unacceptable. The first option I rejected was a user-pay system, whereby the wealthy can purchase a seat on the lifeboat. A 2022 Oxfam report showed the investments of just 125 billionaires collectively contribute 393 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year: <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person#:%7E:text=Recent%20data%20from%20Oxfam's%20research,%C2%B0C%20goal%20of%20the">a million times more</a> than the average for most global citizens. If the ultra-wealthy are the only ones to survive an environmental apocalypse, there’s a risk they would just create another one, on another planet. This would undermine the species survival project. The second option I rejected was allowing a reproductive slave class to develop, with some survivors compelled to populate the new community. This would disproportionately impact cis-gender women of reproductive capacity, demanding their gestational labour in exchange for a chance at survival. Neither a user-pay system nor reproductive slave labour would achieve the goal of “saving humanity” in any meaningful way. Many would argue preserving human values - including equality, reproductive liberty, and respect for diversity - is more important than saving human biology. If we lose what makes us unique as a species, that would be a kind of extinction anyway. But if we want humanity to survive, we still need to build our population in our new home. So what other options do we have? <h2>Reproduction and diversity</h2> How can we avoid discrimination on the basis of reproductive capacity – including age, sexuality, <a href="https://theconversation.com/infertility-through-the-ages-and-how-ivf-changed-the-way-we-think-about-it-87128">fertility status</a> or personal preference? We could avoid any questions about family planning when selecting our crew. This would align with <a href="https://www.seek.com.au/career-advice/article/illegal-interview-questions-what-employers-have-no-right-to-ask">equal opportunity policies</a> in other areas, like employment. But we would then have to hope enough candidates selected on other merits happen to be willing and able to procreate. Alternatively, we could reserve a certain number of places for those who agree to contribute to population growth. Fertility would then become an inherent job requirement. This might be similar to taking on a role as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/surrogacy-laws-why-a-global-approach-is-needed-to-stop-exploitation-of-women-98966">surrogate</a>, in which reproductive capacity is essential. But what if, after accepting such a position on the mission, someone changed their mind about wanting children? Would they be expected to provide some sort of compensation? Would they be vulnerable to retaliation? The more we focus on procreation, the less diversity we will preserve in the species as a whole – especially if we deliberately select against diverse sexualities, disabilities and older people. A lack of diversity would also threaten the long-term viability of the new society. For example, even if we exclude all physiologically or socially infertile people from the initial crew, these traits will reappear in future generations. The difference is: these children would be born into a less accepting community. Cooperation will be essential for the new human society – so promoting hostility would be counterproductive. So, what options are left? Using a random global sample to select travellers might alleviate concerns about equity and fairness. But the ability of a random sample to maximise our survival as a species would depend on how large the sample can be. A global sample would minimise bias. But there’s a risk it might yield a crew without doctors, engineers, farmers or other essential personnel. <h2>Random selection versus a points-based system</h2> The best balance between competing needs might be a stratified random sampling method, involving randomly selecting survivors from predetermined categories. Reproductive potential might be one category. Others might focus on other elements of practical usefulness or contribution to human diversity. Another option is a points-based system, whereby different skills and characteristics are ranked in terms of their desirability. In this system, an elderly person who speaks multiple languages may score higher than a physiologically fertile young person, due to their ability to substantially contribute to language preservation and education. This does not entirely eliminate the potential for discrimination, of course. Someone would need to decide which traits are most desirable and valuable to the new human society. However we determine our lifeboat candidates, it should be carefully considered. In our attempt to “save humanity”, we must avoid sacrificing the very things that make us human. <hr /> Evie Kendal is a contributor to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space: Progressive and Multicultural Visions of Space Exploration</a> (Oxford University Press)<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210647/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, Senior lecturer of health promotion, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-world-were-coming-to-an-end-what-would-be-the-most-ethical-way-to-rebuild-humanity-off-planet-210647">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

The 7 most addictive (and delicious) foods on the planet

Why we can't get enough What is it about the three Cs: Chocolate, cheese and chips? For some reason, we can never get enough of them. But wanting to chow on a particular food is one thing, being addicted to it is another. Fact is, you can become addicted to a certain food, and you can blame your brain’s response to it. That’s because certain foods elicit a release of dopamine in the brain, which can lead to more cravings for that particular treat, especially when it comes to foods that are high in sugar, salt and/or fat. Addictive foods are ones that hit your brain right in its pleasure centre, ostensibly telling you that you need more, more, more. “When this pleasure/reward centre is stimulated, the brain starts secreting dopamine and other chemicals that make us enjoy the experience even more,” says registered dietitian Ashvini Mashru. “Because your brain loves the sensation caused by that dopamine release, it seeks more of it by creating cravings, that if listened to can cause a vicious cycle of addiction.” Chocoholics take note That bowl of Smarties sitting on your colleague’s desk is a delicious temptation, a crunchy chocolatey treat that’s hard to resist. What we know is that chocolate is one of the most addictive foods around because it binds to the same pleasure centres in the brain as alcohol and certain drugs, according to a 2011 study conducted by Drexel University. It also boasts a nice ‘mouth feel’, which stimulates oxytocin production, another feel-good hormone, according to Dan DeFigio, author of Beating Sugar Addiction for Dummies. “Over time, our brains start looking for that dopamine hit, and every time we eat chocolate, it reinforces that ‘wiring,’” he says. More cheese please If you’ve hovered over a cheese platter and piled up the cubes, you’ll be relieved to know that it’s not just you. Cheese, which is generally high in fat and cholesterol, also contains a substance called casomorphin that binds to the opioid or feel-good receptors in the brain. “Casomorphins attach to neurotransmitters in our brains and release dopamine, feel-good chemicals, that often lead us to wanting more,” says Dr Neal Barnard, author of The Cheese Trap. “While cheese does have its health benefits, it also can be seriously addictive.” Carb fix Reach into that bowl of potato chips, tortilla chips or pretzels over and over again, and you’ll know something is happening on the addiction front. And, while there’s no particular compound in these foods that bind to specific brain receptors to cause a euphoric, stimulating, or addictive behaviour, there’s something else at play. “Simple carbohydrates are seen as ‘addictive’ because they cause a quick glucose release, and this quickly increases a person’s energy, says nutritionist Celina Jean. “This energy will quickly be used up, and then you’ll be forced to eat more simple carbohydrates to keep your blood sugar raised.” Oh, sweet sips Not only do sugary soft drinks (including sweet tea) provide us with very little nutrients, but one 375mL can contain a staggering 43 grams of sugar. Like sugary treats, fizzy drinks can stimulate the release of dopamine. Add caffeine and you’re getting a double-energy hit. “Once you’re hooked on caffeine, you can suffer symptoms of withdrawal if you try to stop, including sluggishness, headaches and emotional distress,” says Mashru. Pass the fries Hot chips or French fries are typically crisp, hot and salty. This is a triple-threat that signals the tongue and the brain to eat more, Mashru says. The fat content in fries triggers receptors in our mouths that send a signal to our brain and gut reinforcing the desire to eat more. “These little potato sticks are also a comfort food,” Mashru says. “Therefore, every time you go through the line in a restaurant and see them on the menu, you may find the urge to order them as a side to your entrée irresistible.” Ice cream, you scream Cravings for ice cream can be insatiable – it’s all about the sugar content and creamy texture, and researchers agree that foods like ice cream, which is basically cream and milk, stimulate the brain in the same way drugs do, inducing behaviours that resemble addiction, says dietitian Keri Glassman. “The sugar ‘highs’ and ‘lows’ you experience are consistent with sugar ‘dependency’,” she says. “When your body gets used to sugar, you feel out of sorts when you consume less, which causes you to eat more.” Pizza Whether it’s the stringy salty mozzarella cheese, the fluffy dough or the sugar in the tomato sauce, pizza ranks first in food addiction, according to a recent University of Michigan study. That’s because when you eat it, your blood sugar zips up quickly and then when it drops, you feel hungry again and want more. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/food-home-garden/the-most-addicting-foods-on-the-planet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Food & Wine

10 reasons humans kill animals – and why we can’t avoid it

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/benjamin-allen-100036">Benjamin Allen</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> As long as humans have existed, they’ve killed animals. But the necessity of some types of animal killing are now questioned by many. So can humans ever stop killing animals entirely? And if not, what’s the best way forward? <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723039062">New research</a> I led investigates these questions. My colleagues and I identified the ten main reasons why humans kill animals. We found the need for some types of animal killing is questionable, but several forms are inescapable – a necessary part of humanity’s involvement in a single, functioning, finite global food web. But the debate doesn’t end there. Even if humans must kill animals in some cases, they can modify their behaviours to improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, and to reduce an animal’s suffering when it is killed. Doing so may improve the lives of animals to a greater extent than efforts to eliminate human killing entirely. <h2>Why humans kill animals</h2> Critics of animal-killing come from a variety of perspectives. Some oppose it on <a href="http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)03906-2/rf0005">moral grounds</a>. Others claim animals should have <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13494">rights equal</a> to humans, and say animal killing is a criminal act. Many people view any animal killing as <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13126">cruel</a>, regardless of whether the animal suffers. But as valid and important as these views might be, they largely fail to address why humans kill animals – and why in many cases, it can’t be avoided. Our research sought to shed light on this. We focus our discussion on vertebrate animals which are almost universally recognised as “sentient” (or able to perceive and feel things). We identified ten main reasons humans kill animals: 1. Wild harvest or food acquisition: such as killing wild animals for meat 2. Human health and safety: such as reactively killing an animal when it attacks you 3. Agriculture and aquaculture: such as killing that occurs in the global meat industries, or killing required to produce crops 4. Urbanisation and industrialisation: such as clearing bushland to build homes 5. Wildlife control: such as programs that eradicate introduced animals to stop them killing native ones 6. Threatened species conservation: such as unintentionally killing animals when relocating them 7. Recreation, sport or entertainment: such as trophy hunting or bull fighting, and animal killing required to feed domestic pets 8. Mercy or compassion: such as euthanasing an animal hit by a car 9. Cultural and religious practice: such as animal sacrifice during the Islamic celebration of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/01/sydney-muslims-take-eid-al-adha-livestock-sacrifice-into-their-own-hands">Eid al-Adha</a>, or those associated with the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1594756">Yoruba</a> religion of West Africa 10. Research, education and testing: such as the laboratory use of rodents or primates. <h2>Understanding human killing behaviour</h2> So how best should we understand the above types of animal killing? Our research considers them in ecological terms – as behaviours consistent with our predatory and competitive roles in the global food web. Such behaviours are intended to improve human prospects for acquiring food or to protect and enhance life. These are innate life objectives for any sentient animal. Maintenance of all life on Earth requires obtaining, using, disposing of and recycling chemical elements. Ecosystems can be thought of as a “battleground” for these elements. <a href="https://theconversation.com/peter-singers-fresh-take-on-animal-liberation-a-book-that-changed-the-world-but-not-enough-205830">Some people argue</a> that directly killing animals is unacceptable, or that adopting certain lifestyles or diets, such as veganism, can eliminate or greatly reduce animal killing. But in our view, achieving a no-killing lifestyle is a physical and ecological impossibility. For instance, most plant foods come from crops grown on land where animals have been <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/5/1225">killed or displaced</a>. And while an animal-free diet for humans might temporarily reduce the number of animals killed, this won’t last forever. As human populations continue to grow, more land will eventually be needed to meet their food requirements. At that point, humans will have to directly or indirectly kill animals again or risk dying themselves. Humans also need space to live, which <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723039062?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7e2e8f44ae1aaae3#bbb1045">results in</a> animal killing when habitat is razed. Of course, in rare cases an individual human may live without killing animals directly. Perhaps they live in a cave in the forest, and get sustenance from wild berries and mushrooms. But that human still lives inside the food web, and is competing against other animals for finite resources. In these cases, other animals may suffer and die because the human’s use of berries and caves leaves less food and space for them. Even if that human could do no harm at all to any animal, it’s still impossible for societies at large to live in this way. Some forms of animal killing are certainly not essential for human existence. Good examples are recreational hunting, euthanasia or keeping pets (which requires killing animals to feed them). And we certainly do not condone direct human participation in all forms of animal killing. It’s also important to note that in many cases, current levels of animal killing are <a href="https://www.opsociety.org/stop-unsustainable-fishing/">unsustainable</a>. Human populations have increased to the point where animals must be killed on enormous scales to feed, house and protect ourselves. If this continues, animal <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723039062?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7e2e8f44ae1aaae3#bbb0905">populations</a> will <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723039062?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7e2e8f44ae1aaae3#bbb0910">crash</a> – and with them, human populations. Nevertheless, we maintain that the overall necessity of animal killing is an unavoidable reality for humanity as a whole. A variety of direct and indirect forms of animal killing will undoubtedly remain an ongoing human endeavour. <h2>Taking responsibility</h2> So what are the implications of all this? We hope our research leads to a constructive dialogue, which starts with accepting that human existence on Earth is dependent on animal killing. It should then focus on the nuances of animal welfare and sustainability. Humans are the only known animals with an ethical or moral conscience. That means we have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723039062?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=7e2e8f44ae1aaae3#bbb0650">a responsibility</a> to assume a stewardship role over all other animals, to resolve negative interactions between them as best as possible, and to ensure good welfare for as many animals as we can. Directing our attention in this way is likely to improve the lives of animals to a greater extent than trying to prevent humans from killing animals altogether – efforts my colleagues and I believe will ultimately be in vain.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209218/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/benjamin-allen-100036">Benjamin Allen</a>, Wildlife ecologist, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-reasons-humans-kill-animals-and-why-we-cant-avoid-it-209218">original article</a>.

Family & Pets

Billionaire throws star-studded party for most famous names on the planet

The most famous names on the planet have all gathered for an exclusive party with billionaire Michael Rubin to celebrate the American independence day weekend. Congregating at a luxurious mansion in the Hamptons, the businessman and philanthropist hosted his annual white party, sharing a highlights reel of the star-studded day on Twitter. Among the famous faces were Leo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Beyonce and Jay-Z, Tom Brady, Kevin Hart and a plethora of Kardashians. The 350 A-listers in attendance were treated to musical performances by Usher and Ne-Yo, and $700 bottles of champagne and tequila as they partied from the 5pm kick-off all the way through until 4am. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> A literal movie - white party 2023 recap <a href="https://t.co/1D3vlpCNBq">pic.twitter.com/1D3vlpCNBq</a> — Michael Rubin (@michaelrubin) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelrubin/status/1676363041288462338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2023</a></blockquote> The famous guests were spotted pulling up in style in their parade of expensive cars and helicopters, and being escorted into the party by armies of valets and security guards. Among them was Affleck and Lopez, who brought along the actor’s 17-year-old daughter, Violet, whom he shares with ex-wife Jennifer Garner. Kevin Hart and his wife, Eniko Parrish, were spotted among the many celebrity couples drinking and dancing the night away, along with Justin Bieber and his model wife, Hailey. Rubin, 49, and his girlfriend, Camille Fishel, 32, hosted the star-studded event, sparing no expense when it came to looking after their guests, as they do each year. Rubin has an estimated fortune of more than $16 billion, making him one of the richest men in America. Image credits: Twitter

Beauty & Style

Disturbing footage of dingo attacks revealed

Disturbing footage of dingo attacks have been released by rangers following multiple attacks in a popular camping spot that occurred just weeks apart. Tourists have been warned to be wary of the wild animals after shocking footage emerged of a tourist being nipped while sunbathing. The video comes just weeks before a 10-year-old boy was attacked and dragged underwater by a dingo at K’gari Island – formerly known as Fraser Island – on June 16. The boy sustained puncture wounds to his shoulder and bruises to his collarbone because of the accident, which happened in front of a popular camping spot on the island. “The boy’s 12-year-old-sister who was nearby reacted quickly and ran to assist him,” Assistant principal ranger Danielle Mansfield said. “The family treated the boy for puncture wounds to his shoulder and arms and scratches and bruises on his collarbone and arm.” Mansfield also said that rangers were closely monitoring the dingo responsible for the attack, which had blood splatters across its face and paws following the attack, although there are currently no plans to euthanise it. Two months ago, a similar attack occurred where a primary school-aged girl was<a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/child-hospitalised-from-dingo-attack" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> hospitalised following a dingo attack</a> while swimming. The girl suffered bites to her head and fingers after the dingo attempted to drag her underwater. Rangers have also released dashcam footage of another dingo chasing a young boy and an adult male, in an area close to where the 10-year-old boy was attacked, just two weeks before the unfortunate incident. The dingo was euthanised for “poor behaviour”. This comes a few weeks after another dingo was euthanised following a string of attacks, including a sunbathing tourist, a seven-year-old boy and a 42-year-old woman. Dingoes are native to K’gari Island, but a few of them fail to show any wariness towards people, and are increasingly brazen as a result of people deliberately or unintentionally feeding them, rangers said. “We have increased patrols in the region to monitor the wongari’s (dingo’s) behaviour and pass on dingo-safe messaging to campers and visitors,” Mansfield said. “These animals are capable of inflicting serious harm, and they have bitten children and adults, and some are quite brazen and are not fleeing when yelled at or when someone brandishes a stick.” “People think it won’t happen to them, but it can happen to anyone and that’s why rangers are providing dingo-safe information to as many people as possible,” she added. “We don’t want any incidents on K’gari, and people must understand that dingoes are wild animals and should never be fed or interacted with.” Images: Queensland Department of Environment and Science / News.com.au

Travel Trouble

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Yes, it’s a terrible idea to pick up or interfere with wild animals – especially baby wombats. Here’s why

"Miraculous rescue": Renter saves stray dog trapped underground

RSPCA investigates Perth man over "distressing" act

Aussie woman fined $20,000 for illegal wildlife trade

Why are we seeing more pandemics? Our impact on the planet has a lot to do with it

Leaked footage shows Olympic star's horrific animal abuse

What the fox! Driver finds wild animal trapped in his car

Why do we love to see unlikely animal friendships? A psychology expert explains

Elephant tourism often involves cruelty – here are steps toward more humane, animal-friendly excursions

10 million animals die on our roads each year. Here’s what works (and what doesn’t) to cut the toll

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

Handkerchief or tissue? Which one’s better for our health and the planet?

Our planet is burning in unexpected ways - here’s how we can protect people and nature

Is it okay to kiss your pet? The risk of animal-borne diseases is small, but real

An expert’s top 5 reasons why dogs can be considered exceptional animals

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

The 7 most addictive (and delicious) foods on the planet

10 reasons humans kill animals – and why we can’t avoid it

Billionaire throws star-studded party for most famous names on the planet

Disturbing footage of dingo attacks revealed

Our Partners