In Beijing, only one 'best friend' allowed


BEIJING: Wu Tianyu gave fair warning about the odor and then pushed open the heavy metal door to the ground-floor apartment. The smell rushed out, and so did the tiny dogs, tongues wagging, yipping, unaware of their central role in an issue gripping China's capital city.

The small apartment was the equivalent of a safe house: Wu, head of a local animal rescue association, had stashed about 10 strays and handicapped mutts. She said the dogs, one paralyzed, another recovering from a broken spine, should be exempt from a new "strike hard" campaign against dogs in Beijing. But she was not certain.

"They cannot move out these dogs!" she declared. But then she hesitated slightly, "How could they do it?"

Beijing is a city of at least 12 million people and at least a million dogs, about half of which are unregistered and deemed fugitives in the eyes of the local police.

The complication, of course, is that many of these fugitives are also beloved pets, so confrontation is almost inevitable and has been rising in recent weeks as the police have begun a swift and harsh crackdown against illegal dogs.

The police have already rejected applications by different pet advocacy groups to stage demonstrations. On Saturday, at least 100 police officers blocked roads as a large crowd congregated outside the city zoo. One participant said officers manhandled and detained more than 20 people who tried to hand out leaflets promoting animal protection. The people were released later the same day.

The conflict is over city regulations that limit households in eight designated districts to a single dog and also forbid people from owning large dogs like golden retrievers and huskies.

The regulations, considered misguided by many dog owners, were introduced in 2003 but have been only loosely enforced as the city's pet industry has boomed. Dogs in Beijing can now eat at a dog restaurant, be groomed at a dog boutique and swim in an outdoor dog lap pool.

Last Tuesday, though, Beijing newspapers carried a notice about the new campaign, under way since October, concerning "pet dog management work." It said households with too many dogs, or with big dogs, would have 10 days to relocate them. In essence, owners had 10 days to get rid of the dogs or the police would do it for them.

The note also promised to pay rewards to people who helped the police catch neighbors violating the dog rules.

Anxiety and outrage have quickly spread among dog owners. Several reported that the police were already apprehending large dogs in apartment compounds and had even entered individual apartments to seize some dogs. Web sites posted photographs of dogs crammed into holding pens at dingy city pounds. Another Internet posting warned that a slaughter of stray dogs and cats would begin next week.

"We are all worried," said a woman who owns several dogs and asked not to be identified for fear the police would try to seize her pets. She is building a kennel in her uncle's village in nearby Hebei Province to ensure that her dogs and others are not seized.

Rabies is the primary reason offered for the new crackdown. Nationally, China reported that 1,735 people died from the disease between January and August, a 29 percent increase from the period a year earlier. The Ministry of Health said growing numbers of people were taking dogs as pets without properly vaccinating them.

But what has horrified pet advocates worldwide is the brutal solution that some places in China have adopted to solve the rabies problem. This summer, officials in one section of Yunnan Province ordered an extermination campaign that led to the slaughter of more than 54,000 dogs. Another smaller extermination drive was held in Shandong Province.

Grace Ge Gabriel, the Asia director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said her group agreed that dog owners should vaccinate their pets and register them. But she said Beijing's current ban against big dogs was wrongheaded because it was based on the premise that they are more vicious.

She also said that using rabies to justify the crackdown was misleading because Beijing did not have a rabies problem, a point confirmed by a state media report.

Last Friday, at the Huayuan Street police precinct in the northeastern quadrant of the city, a red-and-white banner stated: "If You Have a Dog, You Need a License." Inside, at the Dog Management Office, Shi Chenhe said he had registered 10 new dogs in recent days and argued that rabies and dog bites were serious problems in Beijing.

He said officials wanted to ensure that no one was bitten and injured during the 2008 Olympics. "Of course, it is related to the Games," Shi said. "Everything needs to be cleaned up before the Olympics."

Shi said that officers in his precinct had not begun cracking down on illegal dogs but that each police district was handling the issue differently. "We're waiting to be notified," he said.

Wu, the head of the association for stray dogs, has been racing to different meetings with dog advocates, trying to find a solution, and some dog owners have told her they will defend their dogs at any cost.

"People are saying that if they have to, they will fight back," Wu said. "I told the young people that they shouldn't fight back. It is the order of the government. If you fight back, it will hurt the dogs in the long run."

Across town at a trendy pet store, Man Qingwei, 32, helped hold down his two border collies on Friday afternoon as an attendant cleaned the dogs' ears with a cotton swab. Man bought the dogs recently even though he knew their size violated city regulations. "Of course, we hide them," Mr. Man said as his girlfriend patted the collies. "I have to sneak them out quickly into my car."

Man said he wanted dog owners to organize to force the city to change the rules. "I think the one-dog rule is ridiculous," he said. "It's a matter of one's personal life and tastes. You should be able to have as many dogs as you like."

Man said that he and his girlfriend owned several dogs but that the new regulations were making ordinary tasks difficult. "We can no longer walk them," he said. "I'm thinking about buying them a treadmill."

Lin Yang contributed research.


by Jim Yardley
You have read this article with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://lettersfromladygodiva.blogspot.com/2007/08/in-beijing-only-one-friend-allowed.html. Thanks!

Cat on LSD




Effect of Mescaline Analogues on Behavior of Cats. This video could be offensive to some people.
We should stay away from drugs such as LSD.
You have read this article Animals / Movies with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://lettersfromladygodiva.blogspot.com/2007/07/cat-on-lsd.html. Thanks!

Amazing Mountain Passage

The awesome ice tunnel on the Mons Glacier.
You have read this article Beautiful Locations / Mountains / Picture Of The Week with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://lettersfromladygodiva.blogspot.com/2007/07/amazing-mountain-passage.html. Thanks!

Panda Prison Break



These are some very clever Pandas. Although I think they'll have a hard time disguising themselves once they make it outside in the real world.

The small panda is supposed to open the door for the big panda so they can escape. ;)
You have read this article Animals / FUNNY / Movies with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://lettersfromladygodiva.blogspot.com/2007/07/panda-prison-break.html. Thanks!

Generosity Among Rats


Rats that benefit from the charity of others are more likely to help strangers get a free meal, researchers have found.

This phenomenon, known as 'generalized reciprocity', has only ever been seen before in humans. A good example, says Michael Taborsky of the University of Bern, Switzerland, is what happens when someone finds money in a phone box. In controlled experiments such people have been shown to be much more likely to help out a stranger in need following their good luck.
In humans, such benevolence can be explained by cultural factors as well as by underlying biology, says Taborsky. But if similar behaviour can be found in other animals, he reasons, an evolutionary explanation would be far more likely.

To test for this behaviour in animals, Taborsky trained rats to pull a lever that produced food for its partner, but not for itself. Rats who had received a free meal in this way were found to be 20% more likely to help out an unknown partner than rats who had received no such charity1.
Taborsky believes this behaviour isn't confined to just rats and humans. "I'm convinced generalized reciprocity will be very widespread and found in many different animal species, as our study suggests that an underlying evolutionary mechanism is responsible."

"Generalized reciprocity is certainly underappreciated in animals," notes Laurent Keller, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. But with so little data in this area, he adds, "it is very difficult to make predictions about how prevalent it's likely to be."

Survival of the friendliest

Explaining why animals cooperate has long been a tricky area for evolutionary biologists. According to darwinian evolution, organisms are adapted to maximize their individual chances of survival, so how is it possible to account for acts of charity?
Among family members, it makes sense for one animal to help another in order to help their shared genes to get on in the world.

But when it comes to helping non-family members, things are more complicated. It might make sense for one animal to help another in exchange for receiving help themselves later on. But this is open to abuse by cheats who are happy to take, but not to give in return.

Highly intelligent animals — including humans — can judge whether or not to give help based on the individual track record of a specific potential partner. But this kind of 'direct' reciprocation between two individuals only happens under restricted conditions, says Taborsky. "Animals have to meet frequently and have to remember what other individuals have done and how they acted in the past. That means animals have to possess high cognitive abilities. And for these reasons it hasn't been demonstrated very often."

Another strategy, called 'generalized reciprocity', is for an animal to assume that its most recent interaction with any other individual is representative of how the whole community usually behaves. In that case, an animal only has to remember its last experience. "It's a simpler mechanism and therefore more likely to be evolutionarily important," says Taborsky.

Not-so-dirty rats

Taborsky thinks he has seen both types of reciprocity in his rats. In addition to being 20% more likely to help out an unknown partner if they had received a bit of charity, his study shows that rats were more than 50% more likely to help a specific rat who had helped them in the past1.
Taborsky thinks that it is likely that the two forms of reciprocity work together. If an animal can remember how generous another individual is it will use this information to decide whether it's wise to cooperate. But if not, then it can base its decision on more general recent experience — how helpful other animals have been towards it in the recent past. Other researchers point out that because rats typically live in family groups, it's hard to discount the idea that they're just trying to help their relatives out.

"What we need to understand now is the physiological and neurological mechanisms responsible," says Taborsky. He suspects that hormonal changes in response to charity might be behind the tendency to cooperate. "We are going to look at hormonal regulation, and we're also looking at other animals — cichlid fish at the moment."


www.nature.com

You have read this article Animals / Miscellaneous with the title . You can bookmark this page URL https://lettersfromladygodiva.blogspot.com/2007/07/generosity-among-rats.html. Thanks!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...