Nature, Wildlife, Zoology, etc.

Wildlife rehabber, Oregonian, college student, queer.

Posts are usually tagged by family, complete scientific name, and common name.
"When a cocker spaniel bites, it does so as a member of its species; it is never anything but a dog. When a pit bull bites, it does so as a member of its breed. A pit bull is never anything but a pit bull.
You know one when you see one, in other words—and so the second irony proceeds from the first: You see a lot of them. The pit bull is not a breed but a conglomeration of traits, and those traits are reshaping what we think of as the American dog, which is to say the American mutt. 
The demographic shifts that are transforming America’s human population find a mirror in the demographic shifts that are transforming America’s canine one, with the same effect: More and more we become what we somehow can’t abide. We might accept pit bulls personally, but America still doesn’t accept them institutionally, where it counts; indeed, apartment complexes and insurance companies are arrayed in force against them. And so are we: For although we adopt them by the thousands, we aban don them by the millions. The ever-expanding population of dogs considered pit bulls feeds an ever-expanding population of dogs condemned as pit bulls, and we resolve this rising demographic pressure in the way to which we’ve become accustomed: in secret, and in staggering numbers. We have always counted on our dogs to tell us who we are. But what pit bulls tell us is that who we think we are is increasingly at odds with what we’ve turned out to be.”
READ MORE.

"When a cocker spaniel bites, it does so as a member of its species; it is never anything but a dog. When a pit bull bites, it does so as a member of its breed. A pit bull is never anything but a pit bull.

You know one when you see one, in other words—and so the second irony proceeds from the first: You see a lot of them. The pit bull is not a breed but a conglomeration of traits, and those traits are reshaping what we think of as the American dog, which is to say the American mutt. 

The demographic shifts that are transforming America’s human population find a mirror in the demographic shifts that are transforming America’s canine one, with the same effect: More and more we become what we somehow can’t abide. We might accept pit bulls personally, but America still doesn’t accept them institutionally, where it counts; indeed, apartment complexes and insurance companies are arrayed in force against them. And so are we: For although we adopt them by the thousands, we aban don them by the millions. The ever-expanding population of dogs considered pit bulls feeds an ever-expanding population of dogs condemned as pit bulls, and we resolve this rising demographic pressure in the way to which we’ve become accustomed: in secret, and in staggering numbers. We have always counted on our dogs to tell us who we are. But what pit bulls tell us is that who we think we are is increasingly at odds with what we’ve turned out to be.”

READ MORE.

Reblogged from retsyboss  90,991 notes

At what point do you take girls out of school altogether because boys can’t handle it? By

Parent of a female teen whose school banned leggings

#yesallwomen have a right to an education without fashion policing by sexist administrators

(via meetingsinthedesert)

^ this, tho… the message in these ridiculous dress codes remains “boys deserve an undistracted education, and you-GIRL-are a distraction… and your education comes second. You should be grateful, anyway… it’s really more than you deserve.” and i actually am not going to repeat how it reinforces rape culture because really, i’m just so damn tired of the messages we send young women about being nothing more than an accesory in a man’s life… fuck that. and fuck awful myopic dress codes… (via ginandbird)

This parent is right.  The school is sending a message that girls’ clothes are supposed to distract boys; that boys can use them as an excuse, that girls when assaulted should blame themselves because they must have worn the wrong thing, because their clothes made them unfit to mingle with their peers.  Have I got that right? (rhetorical)

Reblogged from retsyboss  36,582 notes
cognitivedissonance:

elwynbrooks:

betterbemeta:

the-exercist:

lindsaylohansmugshot:

the-exercist:

fitblrholics:

If you look at the ingredients list and it’s a bunch of words you don’t even know… neither does your body (x)

Just like if you break apples and grapefruit down into their chemical components, I’m willing to bet that most people wouldn’t recognize the “ingredients” either. It’s a bunch of words you don’t even know:

Don’t use these scare tactics - Chemicals aren’t inherently bad. Literally everything is made up chemicals. Trust me, your body knows what niacin is. It knows how to digest fructose and calcium sulfate. Even if you only consume the most basic and “real” foods that are pulled directly off the vine, you’re still ingesting a series of chemical compounds that you probably can’t pronounce. That’s okay. 

Despite that, there’s a difference between eating natural chemicals and artificially produced chemicals and you can’t really dispute that natural ingredients are better for you

Yes I can.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is present within many whole foods, yet it can kill you if ingested in significant doses. Poison ivy is natural, but it sure gives people a nasty rash. Peanuts are natural, but a solid percentage of the population is deathly allergic to them. Asparagus berries can make you incredibly sick. Even just looking at the example given in the first post, we have to consider apple seeds - They contain a small amount of amygdalin, which is a cyanogenic glycoside. It is very possible to eat enough seeds to cause a fatal overdose.
Compare it to artificial chemicals like the fluoride complex that is added into many water systems in order to prevent tooth decay. When we drink water, it’s presence is a huge benefit to the population. By the time you drink enough for the dose to hurt you, you’d already have experienced water poisoning. There’s also d-ascorbic acid, a synthetic version of vitamin C that works as an antioxidant. Don’t forget about iodized salt, which works to prevent iodine deficiencies (which effects roughly two billion people around the world and is currently the leading preventable cause of intellectual and developmental disabilities). From the first post’s example, enriched flour is the first cereal ingredient listed: This allows the consumer to get a serving of niacin, iron, folic acid and thiamin. These vitamins are a necessary part of a daily balanced diet, but if we only stuck with naturally produced foods, the average consumer would miss out on the full amount needed. This is called food fortification and it allows many people (especially those under the poverty line) to consume all their daily vitamins and minerals without overextending themselves and their budget. 
At the end of the day:
——-> “Natural” does not inherently mean “healthy” or “good.”
——-> “Artificial” does not inherently mean “bad.”
No one here is arguing that the above posted breakfast cereal is inherently and always going to be “better” for you than an apple. That would be ridiculous. But it’s also silly to say that an apple is automatically better just because it isn’t man made (which most sort of are, considering the history of orchard cultivation and grafting, but that’s for another post). What I’m saying here is that this “Chemicals are bad! Natural is good!” method of thinking is such a simplistic and dumbed-down way of looking at food. Don’t label foods as good or bad for everyone just because your eyes glaze over at any ingredient list longer than two syllables. 
Use technology and medical advances to your advantage! You don’t have to blindly eat what you find in nature anymore. We’re beyond that stage of civilization - Don’t let science frighten you. 

And to go even further with the “some people are inherently allergic to peanuts” stuff, by erasing everything we have learned about foods like their chemical composition, people are at risk. Not just for death, but for quality of life— My girlfriend has a fructose malabsorbtion problem and some fruits and vegetables make her ill. However, she CAN eat these foods to some capacity: in some cases, cooking can break down the fructose into glucose enough to tip the threshold for where she gets sick. In other cases, she can eat them if she eats an equal amount of other food. 
But if she doesn’t know what’s in each food she eats, she is at risk of getting sick— even for days afterward. What are the most common culprits? Not high-fructose corn syrup, which is almost always clearly marked on our handy Nutrition Facts.
It’s unmarked fruit juice, sometimes listed under “natural flavors” or “fruit sugar” or “natural sweetening” as a sweetener in items that proudly proclaim “All-natural!” or “Chemical-free!”
Another culprit is sometimes honey, which actually has nearly the same composition as high-fructose corn syrup. Maple sugar can be risky as well.
By not identifying that these things are in fact made of molecules, which have effects on the human body, harm is done to real people. All for the fantasy that things produced by a plant or a bee are magically better or aren’t made of matter or something else inane.


Chemical =/= carcinogen
Please recognise chemophobia and destroy it

I love everything about this.

cognitivedissonance:

elwynbrooks:

betterbemeta:

the-exercist:

lindsaylohansmugshot:

the-exercist:

fitblrholics:

If you look at the ingredients list and it’s a bunch of words you don’t even know… neither does your body (x)

Just like if you break apples and grapefruit down into their chemical components, I’m willing to bet that most people wouldn’t recognize the “ingredients” either. It’s a bunch of words you don’t even know:

image

Don’t use these scare tactics - Chemicals aren’t inherently bad. Literally everything is made up chemicals. Trust me, your body knows what niacin is. It knows how to digest fructose and calcium sulfate. Even if you only consume the most basic and “real” foods that are pulled directly off the vine, you’re still ingesting a series of chemical compounds that you probably can’t pronounce. That’s okay. 

Despite that, there’s a difference between eating natural chemicals and artificially produced chemicals and you can’t really dispute that natural ingredients are better for you

Yes I can.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is present within many whole foods, yet it can kill you if ingested in significant doses. Poison ivy is natural, but it sure gives people a nasty rash. Peanuts are natural, but a solid percentage of the population is deathly allergic to them. Asparagus berries can make you incredibly sick. Even just looking at the example given in the first post, we have to consider apple seeds - They contain a small amount of amygdalin, which is a cyanogenic glycoside. It is very possible to eat enough seeds to cause a fatal overdose.

Compare it to artificial chemicals like the fluoride complex that is added into many water systems in order to prevent tooth decay. When we drink water, it’s presence is a huge benefit to the population. By the time you drink enough for the dose to hurt you, you’d already have experienced water poisoning. There’s also d-ascorbic acid, a synthetic version of vitamin C that works as an antioxidant. Don’t forget about iodized salt, which works to prevent iodine deficiencies (which effects roughly two billion people around the world and is currently the leading preventable cause of intellectual and developmental disabilities). From the first post’s example, enriched flour is the first cereal ingredient listed: This allows the consumer to get a serving of niacin, iron, folic acid and thiamin. These vitamins are a necessary part of a daily balanced diet, but if we only stuck with naturally produced foods, the average consumer would miss out on the full amount needed. This is called food fortification and it allows many people (especially those under the poverty line) to consume all their daily vitamins and minerals without overextending themselves and their budget. 

At the end of the day:

——-> “Natural” does not inherently mean “healthy” or “good.”

——-> “Artificial” does not inherently mean “bad.”

No one here is arguing that the above posted breakfast cereal is inherently and always going to be “better” for you than an apple. That would be ridiculous. But it’s also silly to say that an apple is automatically better just because it isn’t man made (which most sort of are, considering the history of orchard cultivation and grafting, but that’s for another post). What I’m saying here is that this “Chemicals are bad! Natural is good!” method of thinking is such a simplistic and dumbed-down way of looking at food. Don’t label foods as good or bad for everyone just because your eyes glaze over at any ingredient list longer than two syllables. 

Use technology and medical advances to your advantage! You don’t have to blindly eat what you find in nature anymore. We’re beyond that stage of civilization - Don’t let science frighten you. 

And to go even further with the “some people are inherently allergic to peanuts” stuff, by erasing everything we have learned about foods like their chemical composition, people are at risk. Not just for death, but for quality of life— My girlfriend has a fructose malabsorbtion problem and some fruits and vegetables make her ill. However, she CAN eat these foods to some capacity: in some cases, cooking can break down the fructose into glucose enough to tip the threshold for where she gets sick. In other cases, she can eat them if she eats an equal amount of other food. 

But if she doesn’t know what’s in each food she eats, she is at risk of getting sick— even for days afterward. What are the most common culprits? Not high-fructose corn syrup, which is almost always clearly marked on our handy Nutrition Facts.

It’s unmarked fruit juice, sometimes listed under “natural flavors” or “fruit sugar” or “natural sweetening” as a sweetener in items that proudly proclaim “All-natural!” or “Chemical-free!”

Another culprit is sometimes honey, which actually has nearly the same composition as high-fructose corn syrup. Maple sugar can be risky as well.

By not identifying that these things are in fact made of molecules, which have effects on the human body, harm is done to real people. All for the fantasy that things produced by a plant or a bee are magically better or aren’t made of matter or something else inane.

Chemical =/= carcinogen

Please recognise chemophobia and destroy it

I love everything about this.