Captive tigers in the U.S. outnumber those in the wild. It's a problem.

Some are in roadside zoos. Some are pets. Many are abused. A lack of regulation on big cats is putting animals and humans at risk.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/11/tigers-in-the-united-states-outnumber-those-in-the-wild-feature/#close

WE HEARD THEM before we saw them.

Their squawks echoed from inside the neat, ranch-style home, sounding more like parrots than tiger cubs. Then James Garretson carried Hulk into the living room, where the McCabe family waited on the couch. The kids giggled as he placed the squirming cub on nine-year-old Ariel’s lap and pushed a baby bottle into its mouth. “Hold the bottle, just like that. You got it?” She nodded.

Everyone beamed, fondling Hulk’s rough, striped fur as Garretson hovered nearby. The 12-week-old, cocker spaniel-size cat clutched the bottle in his oversize paws, sucking with wild enthusiasm. When the bottle was empty, the cub wandered onto the coffee table and swatted our photo gear.

Garretson lured him back with another bottle to give Ariel’s five-year-old brother, James, a turn. Then the rambunctious cub leaped off the sofa, grabbed me from behind, gripped my legs with surprising strength, and tore five-inch scratches into my thighs. He sank his claws in and held on. Garretson peeled him off, and all made light of it with nervous laughs. Playful. Just acting like a kitten.

We met two more tiger cubs in a back room at the Ringling Animal Care Center in Oklahoma (which has no connection to the famous circus). Outside, we watched six adult tigers lounge in their pools or stalk one another, overweight but seemingly happy and living in clean enclosures.

Bhagavan “Doc” Antle (far right) poses with his staff (left to right), Kody Antle, Moksha Bybee, and China York, in a pool used in his tiger show at Myrtle Beach Safari in South Carolina. Young cubs are a big part of the business; packages for playing and having photos taken with them run from $339 to $689 a person. At about 12 weeks old, cubs are considered too big and dangerous for tourists to pet.

That was in September 2018.

I later learned that seven tigers under Garretson’s care at another facility had killed a woman in 2003. Court documents noted the cats were “extraordinarily hungry” and had reached through flimsy cattle fencing to rip Lynda Brackett’s arm off “in a feeding-like frenzy.” The 35-year-old, who worked there as a volunteer, bled to death. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) fined Garretson $32,560 and ordered him to never again exhibit, breed, buy, or sell animals that required U.S. federal licensing—including tigers. But by 2017 he was working at the Ringling center with new cats. The center was operating under a USDA license held by his girlfriend, Brittany Medina.

Four months after my visit, Garretson was evicted from the property, which was leased in his name. A team from Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge drove from Arkansas to rescue the six adult tigers. One, named Diesel, was too ill to stand. He died four days later of a treatable bacterial blood infection thought to be carried by fleas and ticks, says veterinarian Kellyn Sweeley, who treated him. Hulk and the two other cubs had disappeared.

My visit to the Ringling center with photographer Steve Winter was just one stop during a two-year investigation into why there are likely more tigers living in cages in the U.S. than remain in the wild. We wanted to find out who owned them, what their living conditions are, how lax regulation has allowed them to proliferate, and how they’re traded around the country.

Among other things, we found that most tigers in this country live in small zoos and animal attractions—known generally in the industry as “roadside” zoos—where care standards can vary widely, in some cases endangering the animals in them and the humans who visit them.

Tigers are in crisis. At the turn of the 20th century, when Rudyard Kipling penned The Jungle Book, about 100,000 of the majestic cats roamed across Asia. They were wiped out by trophy hunts in India, the 1960s fashion craze for fur in the United States and Europe, the cats’ shrinking habitat, conflicts with people, and poaching. Today perhaps 3,900 remain in the wild. Tigers hover closer to extinction than any other big cat.

After years of reporting on the illegal wildlife trade in Asia, I decided to look into tigers in America when I heard a talk by Carson Barylak, a policy specialist with the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

She said there may be 5,000 to 10,000 captive tigers in the United States. No one, including government officials, knows exactly how many there are, and there is no overarching federal law regulating big cat ownership.

Barylak showed a multicolored map illustrating a random patchwork of state laws. Some states ban private ownership. Others require a permit. Four have no statewide laws at all. In some places, it’s easier to buy a tiger than to adopt a kitten from a local animal shelter.

You can get a USDA license to exhibit or breed gerbils—and then exhibit or breed any animal you want, including big cats. Entertainment drives the breeding and trading of tigers in the U.S., specifically attractions that allow customers to pet, feed, and pose with tiger cubs. Commercial breeders provide a constant supply of babies. Within some states, such commercial activities are legal if properly licensed by the USDA, which is tasked with enforcing minimum care standards for animals under the Animal Welfare Act. But we found mistreatment of animals and a range of illicit activities, including illegal wildlife trafficking, at many facilities we visited.

Tiger cubs are a gold mine, especially white ones. Tourists hug, bottle-feed, and snap pictures with adorable babies at roadside zoos, county fairs, and safari parks. A quick photo op or five-minute cuddle runs $10 to $100. A three-hour zoo tour with cub handling can run $700 a person. Guests often are told they’re helping to save wild tigers. They leave happy and post selfies on social media.

ALL THE REST:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/11/tigers-in-the-united-states-outnumber-those-in-the-wild-feature/#close

John Robson: As long as the press eulogizes ex-Jesuit crackpots, we look stupid complaining about Trump

If we want better political debates we need better political hygiene, with everyone refusing to tolerate behaviour on “their side” they rightly deplore in partisan foes. But I increasingly believe better intellectual hygiene is even more urgent. For instance we should grab for the mental floss when we read in Britain’s normally reputable Daily Telegraph that “Salvador Freixedo, who has died aged 96, was a defrocked Spanish priest who became an authority on UFOs and the paranormal.” We’ve got to get that little green stuff out from between our ears.

Oddly, I consider myself an authority on UFOs, too. It all began decades ago when I wasn’t driving down a lonely road late one night and my car engine mysteriously didn’t conk out just as an eerie blue lack of light failed to shine through thick fog not enveloping me, casting no long spindly shadows from three invisible beings that weren’t even there.

Perhaps you dismiss this weird tale as mere anecdote or the result of the drugs I didn’t take that evening. The human brain is fallible, after all, and our senses can cheat. Which could explain why I failed to detect what Freixedo did and wrote some 30 books on: non-corporeal entities lurking in giant spaceships or caverns a kilometre deep, or wandering invisibly in our midst, masquerading as the one true God for centuries to drink our blood and feast on brainwaves caused by pain and suffering. But (gasp) I am not alone.

Oddly, I consider myself an authority on UFOs, too

 

An amazing number of other people have not detected aliens. Indeed, nearly 70 years ago physicist Enrico Fermi did a back-of-the-napkin calculation of how many habitable planets there should be, some surely with intelligent life, then noted the absolute lack of radio waves bringing I Love Xhtl from distant stars and asked “Where is everybody?”

That all our sensors missed them because they’re hiding in caves, which to be fair Freixedo said might be just 100 metres deep, is such rubbish you might ask whether I’m drivelling on about it because aliens probed my brain, found nothing, and left. No. It’s because this Obituary 9 from Outer Space appeared in real newspapers including Monday’s National Post. And as long as the press runs horoscopes and eulogizes ex-Jesuit crackpots, we look a bit silly complaining about Donald Trump.

Yes, it’s odd to have an American president who looks like the reassembly job after an alien probe went badly wrong, leading to a Neptunian ruckus about who forgot to take pictures beforehand of how the hair originally went. And surely Trump calling his conversation with the Ukrainian president “perfecto” emits a weird orange glow.

What of it? His partisans will jeer “told you so,” while Democrats express outrage that such a thing is possible depending on your definition of the word “is,” then nod gravely at Elizabeth Warren’s $20.5-trillion plan for free health care on the Brezhnev plan. And as Ottawa temperatures plunge to -10 by Thursday we’re told little plant food molecules are creating runaway heating that hides in the deep oceans and we can all fly to Tofino using wind power.

Oh dear. Was that snide? Well, I am a columnist. And even if we let Elvis RIP we’re going to have some frustrating arguments. Which is precisely why if you think there’s too much nonsense out there (if not, you clearly inhaled something), the place you have to start is in here. You must patrol your own brain for random bits of rubbish as well as tangled loops of pseudo-logic.

It’s not easy because of the cliché that I am principled, you are stubborn and she is ideological. Our own ideas seem clear and factual to us while our adversaries plainly have some form of mental disorder. And as the human brain is fallible we are never going to get rid of all its failings by using it; in life as in philosophy we are both doctor and patient. What’s worse, conspiracy theories have a lurid appeal because they make us feel important enough to be worth plotting against.

Conspiracy theories have a lurid appeal because they make us feel important enough to be worth plotting against

 

Still, there’s wrong and then there’s just plain stupid. Respectful tributes to a theological-freak, sociological-fool UFO “expert” are in the latter category. Along with anti-vaxxing, micronutrients, 63 genders, vegan diets, smoke enemas and pyramid power.

Much idiocy has to do with health, followed surprisingly closely by monetary policy. But it’s also found dangerously close to the public-affairs mainstream. Like glowing obituaries to former Communist Party USA head Gus Hall, an unrepentant Stalinist, when he died in 2000, including Peter Jennings intoning on ABC that “Even after his friends … abandoned the cause, Hall never wavered.” Neither did Himmler. Would you applaud him?

If not, why applaud someone whose faith in little green men outlived his faith in God? Is your brain lurking invisibly deep underground?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-why-laud-someone-whose-faith-in-little-green-men-outlived-his-faith-in-god#comments-area

Chapter Review: Core Skeptic Concepts, Memory and Perception Fallibility

“In the last two decades, while we’ve been fighting for science and reason, it seems like the stakes have only gotten higher. My own profession -- medicine -- has been thoroughly infiltrated by the pseudoscience of so-called “alternative” medicine. The very process of science is under attack. There are entire movements dedicated to denying and opposing the hard-won fruits of scientific discovery. And now it seems that truth and facts themselves are easily tossed aside as an inconvenience. .... “scientific” skeptics are not philosophical skeptics, professing that no knowledge is possible. We are also not cynics .... We are not contrarians who reflexively oppose all mainstream opinions. The term “skeptic” has also been hijacked by deniers who want to be viewed as genuine skeptics (asking the hard and uncomfortable questions) but are really just pursuing an agenda of denial for ideological reasons.”
--Steven Novella, The Skeptic’s Guide the the Universe

This is a review of the Introduction and Chapters 1-3 of Steven Novella’s 2108 book, The Skeptic’s Guide the the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Novella is a clinical neurologist (Yale University) and a well-known skeptic and pseudoscience critic. Several discussions that Novella posted on his blog, NeuroLogica blog, are the source of several discussions here, at least in part. His book is easy to read. It is intended to be a handbook that serves as “one giant inoculation against bad science, deception, and faulty thinking.” Novella is concerned about pseudoscience. He argues “good clean science blends imperceptibly into blatantly absurd pseudoscience,” making it easy for people to see truth and reality in the false and fantasy.

Chapter 1: Scientific Skepticism - Core Concepts

Chapter 1 describes the core concepts that scientific skepticism is based on. These ideas help skeptics parse reality from false, fake, fraudulent and fubar. The first concept, respect for knowledge and truth, is so fundamental and undeniable some may think it pointless to even mention it. The idea may be fundamental, but in both politics and science respect is almost universally claimed, but often not actually practiced to a large extent. The body of evidence showing flawed respect for knowledge and truth from cognitive and social science is large and now reasonably considered mainstream expert consensus belief.

Skeptics rely on another concept, science vs. pseudoscience, to help keep a focus on one of the main tasks Novella asserts for skeptics: “Skeptics are the first, and often the last, line of defense against incursions by pseudoscience.” He argues that the skeptic mindset is not common in academia.  Not only do skeptics need to know the science, they also need to understand how science goes wrong, leading people to form and defend false beliefs, even in the face of contrary evidence or logic.

One can imagine that many academic scientists would take exception to Novella’s argument that skepticism is not academia’s strong suit. Despite those complaints, Novella's argument has substance things in view of the replication crisis (scientists often cannot reproduce their results) and the weakness of the common statistical measure of what is “real” (p or probability measure; p ≤ 0.05 is considered more or less real[1]) and how the unconscious p-hacking bias often reaches that threshold, even when it is not true reality.

Novella describes several other core concepts, one of which, neurological humility, is quite important. This concept focuses on maintaining self-awareness of how easily we deceive ourselves: “Being a functional skeptic requires knowledge of the various ways in which we deceive ourselves, the limits and flaws of human perception and memory, the inherent biases and fallacies in cognition, and the methods that can mitigate all these flaws and biases.”

Chapter 2: Memory Fallibility

Memory drift: Decades of research has shown that memory is not a photographic or computer-like recall process. Memory formation and recall is a dynamic, distortion-inducing mental process. Memories are reconstructed each time they are recalled. Inherent biases and beliefs slowly change memories on each recollection. Vivid childhood memories from decades before are usually significantly or mostly false, sometimes completely false.

Novella writes:

“We don't have squishy camcorders in our skulls. Memories are constructed from imperfect perceptions filtered through our beliefs and biases, and then over time they morph and merge. Our memories serve more to support our beliefs than to inform them. In a way, they are an evolving story we tell ourselves.”

In other words, memories are flawed from the time we create them. Once created, they change over time to make them more consistent with our beliefs. One common error-producing process is fusion of details from different memories into a single memory. Another common error-producing process is confabulation, a process that Novella describes as just making stuff up. Our brains confabulate to make memories consistent and continuous, with gaps filled in with made-up events. We sometimes invent details of an event to emphasize its emotional significance.[2]

Memory implanting: On top of memory drift, memories can easily be implanted in our minds. That is the reason that witnesses in court cases are not supposed to talk to each other before testifying. when people discuss an event together, they generally change each other's recollection of the event. And, it is worse than that. Research shows that people simply imagining an event sometimes leads them to create a false memory that the event was real. Fortune tellers, clever lawyers, marketers and political propagandists can implant false memories into most people, including parties and witnesses testifying in trials, to help them get what they want. This happens all the time.

Novella writes:

“A 2015 study by Julia Shaw and Stephen Porter found that many adults can be convinced they committed an nonexistent crime after just three hours of interrogation by police. She reports: ‘Our findings show that false memories of committing crime can be surprisingly easy to generate, and can have all the same kinds of complex details as real memories.’ ....  Memories can be distorted by suggestion. Merely suggesting a detail to someone while they are recalling a memory may cause them to incorporate that detail into their memory. If, for example, they saw a hooded figure and couldn’t discern the figure’s gender, an interviewer referring to the person as ‘her’ could be enough for the memory to change to one of a hooded woman.” 

Another important aspect of memory is that there is no correlation between our level of confidence about a memory is and its actual accuracy. We tend to have high confidence that our memory of significant events is accurate, e.g., the Challenger shuttle explosion, but research evidence shows no correlation. Novella comments: “We tend to think that vividness and confidence predict accuracy, but they don't. The clear lesson here is that we all need to be humble when it comes to accuracy of our own memories.”

Chapter 3: Fallibility of Perception

Perception is an ongoing iterative process in near real-time. It is a complex process that is highly filtered by the brain. It is not a passive process like a camera simply recording incoming light. The process is open to illusions and misinterpretations. The relationship between the real world and what we perceive is imperfect.

A first part of the brain (1) interprets sensory inputs, e.g., from the eye, then (2) that processed information is sent to a second part which interprets it, and then (3) sends the processed information back to the first part, which then (4) adjusts what is perceived it better fit the interpretation and (5) sends the adjusted information back to the second part for further processing and adjustment. The process operates constantly under two brain-created illusions. The first is that perceptions are literally accurate and real, and the second being a belief it is all happening in real time. The reality of perceptions is limited to the serious limits on both our senses and our brain’s ability to process it in time.

Out of body experiences are illusions that can be created. Certain drugs can do this and so can certain kinds of brain seizures, Virtual reality goggles can also create out of body experiences.

“First, we feel like we are in our bodies because our brains compare what we see and what we feel. We literally see ourselves in our own body, and we feel the parts of our body, and when those things synch up, our brain constructs the sensation of being in our body. This construction can be disrupted, which results in an out-of-body sensation. .... The lesson here is that even the most basic components of your existence are actively constructed by your brain. each component can be disrupted and erased. How does all this affect critical thinking? Well, just as with memory, be wary of saying, ‘I know what I saw.’ Hmm ... no you don't.”

Footnotes:
1. The p-value for a scientific test of a hypothesis is the probability of obtaining the observed results of a test, assuming that the hypothesis being tested is correct. It is the probability of the observed results or event fits with the tested hypothesis. A p-value of 0.0382 means there is a 3.82% chance the observed results could be random or have happened by chance. There is more confidence that a test result is real when the  p-value is lower, for example less than 0.01 (a 1% chance the observed results could be random). There is growing criticism in the scientific community that 0.05 is not stringent enough for results to be considered reliable and instead, p-values less than 0.01 or even 0.001 should generally apply.

2. Novella cites the instance of Hillary Clinton claiming to have been under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. Videos of the event showed there was no sniper fire or any other danger. The event was actually uneventful. Her recollection of the event was simply false, or she was lying. Her brain could have confabulated sniper fire to accord with her understanding of the very real danger of being in Bosnia (details described here by fact checkers) at the time of her visit. It is thus possible that Clinton herself did not know why she said what she said years later about the event. The fact checkers did not take the possibility of memory confabulation into account and accorded Clinton’s statements about the trip Four Pinocchios, which is defined as ‘whoppers’.
 

On Faith

I don't put my faith in man because men let you down.

I don't put my faith in nations because nations crumble.

My faith isn't placed in anything of this world so it is untouchable.

This isn't a post about God, but maybe it should be.

Your politicians cannot deliver you to the proverbial promised land. Your neighbors might be assholes. Your country could be going off the rails. Knowledge is a pursuit where every answer raises more questions.

Over a long enough timeline faith in worldly things will inevitably let you down. Entropy is universal.

What now?

You might be better off placing your faith in the sunrise. It's something clear and infallible. You might be better off, if you're careful, placing your faith in a belief.

This isn't a post about God, but maybe it should be.

Don't Panic

I worry needlessly, especially in those quiet times immediately before sleep, or in the mornings when my mind has time to run me ragged.

I've developed some tools to help with that which I think can apply to most people who are frustrated with the current political landscape.

One helpful thing to do is to visualize a "sphere of concern" which represent the things in your life you care about or otherwise take care to acknowledge.

It's not helpful to have lots of things in your sphere that you cannot control. You want to keep that sphere as small as possible, but no smaller. Making it too small would mean placing things outside the sphere which you can and must control lest there be consequences.

When you worry, try to enumerate what you're worrying about. If the same few things keep eating you, make a list.

Now, cross off that list any entry you can't do anything about. Start there.

For those who spend a lot of time worrying about politics, this should really clear your plate.

Trump is in office. The Democrats are dragging their feet, and the system overall takes time. These are things you can do nothing about, so effectively, they don't need to be in your sphere of concern.

Instead, focus on the consequences of those things - the ones that actually impact you - those will be in your sphere of concern, assuming you can do anything about them. Use that list.

You'll find your politics get far more local, if you're doing this right. You'll also find there are numerous avenues for direct action at the community level and neighborhood level.

For the things on that list you can do, focus on the most readily addressable item, and take even one small step toward resolving it that day. It will make you feel better and it's real, tangible progress.

Ultimately, that list needs to be short or you're going to get lost. It's really easy for us to let worries steer the big picture for us, but then we're navigating from a position of fear instead of from clarity.

I work near a church sometimes, and this section of downtown where I worked the other day also has a couple of homeless shelters, and so the homeless folks congregate in the area, and are very visible, and here are families in their Sunday best, going along to church walking right on by the homeless people without giving them a second look. I know some of them from around, as I used to take the time to talk to them back before my mental illness and the people paranoia that came with it. These churchgoers are worried about shaping their children and bringing them up "right" and even potentially about some stupid afterlife when they're practically stumbling over Matthew 25:31-46 in their rush to get to the pews on time! The reason I bring it up is these folks are worried about the wrong things. If you're so worried about making the service that you trip over the homeless and instill that into your kids, not to mention it makes your faith community look rather self-absorbed you're probably doing it wrong. Jesus said look after the marginalized people in society first and foremost and Paul said present your faith well. So take some time out and at least say "hi" to the people on the sidewalk.  They're people too. It's the easiest thing in the world. Some people are so worried about the big picture they don't even see God working right there in the street.

So this isn't just about the obvious goal of making you calmer, but more focused on what truly matters.

It takes time to take stock, and we'd all do well to keep control of our worries before they control us. They can lead us astray in all kinds of ways.

I'm sure people are going to take a lot of issue with me saying this, but by and large, politics is a distraction, and it's one we don't usually need.

Vote as you like, but between those times, don't let the media and the politics work you into a lather. They don't deserve much of your attention - but they need it to survive. Their survival however, is not your problem. Just don't forget who needs what from who. They want to sell you on fear to keep themselves relevant and to spin a narrative you'll pay attention to. So worry worry worry. Or walk away. That doesn't mean you can't vote.

Local action in the end, makes a bigger difference. Even treating people like people, as radical an idea as that is (see above) makes a big difference. Especially to your kids. How many votes is that worth?

Benchmarking American Businesses: They Are Not Competitive

Arguments for freer markets and more deregulation point to the efficiencies that competition inherently brings as part of the rationale. But in some areas such as non-universal health care, the US system is significantly more expensive than comparable but universal healthcare in other industrialized countries.

Economist Thomas Philippon analyzed broadband and cell phone costs and again found that the US ranks near the top in costs compared to other countries, some of which subsidize the costs. A New York Times opinion piece comments:

“The consolidation of corporate America has become severe enough to have macroeconomic effects. Profits have surged, and wages have stagnated. Investment in new factories and products has also stagnated, because many companies don’t need to innovate to keep profits high. Philippon estimates that the new era of oligopoly costs the typical American household more than $5,000 a year.”

Subsidies are probably not the whole story. Philippon argues that companies in the US have grown leading to less competition and lower wages. By contrast, growth in Europe is more constrained by antitrust regulation, leaving more competition in place. He sees Europe as more market- and competition-based than comparable industries in the US. Other research comes to similar conclusions, e.g., “a market-based, pro-competition strategy would include both increased antitrust enforcement and also a broader pro-competition agenda.”