drove to presqu'isle (on lake ontario) yesterday for the annual "waterfowl festival" . it was an easy 1 1/2 hour drive - no one seemed to be in a hurry .
we had been to the festival last about 10 years ago . i remember how bitterly cold it was at that time . even though we were wearing parkas , we just had a quick look through the spotting scopes that had been set up around the bay and jumped back into our car .
there were thousands of ducks and other waterfowl bobbing and diving - not paying any attention to the cold .
yesterday it was relatively mild - about 2-3 C - though the wind made it feel colder .
when we arrived at the bay , we were rather disappointed : a few hundred ducks swimming about a mile off-shore and a few dozen mute swans - that was all that was left of the migration !
the volunteers looking after the visitors explained that most of the waterfowl had already left for the arctic by the end of february !
every year the waterfowl had been leaving a few days earlier - they simply did not like the "warm" weather we are now having .
so if we want to see the migration we'd have to be there by the middle of february next year .
NOT VERY LIKELY that we'll drive there in mid-february !
it was still nice to walk around the bay and climb up the observation tower and see the vast marshland .
we'll likely go back when it warms up a bit and the herons and shorebirds have settled in .
hbg
Clicked, and some mighty interesting articles to share. Spring here [turning cartwheels].
Robotic fish? What for? Read on
Monday, March 23, 2009; A07
Robofish Goes to Work
British scientists are planning to release a school of five-foot-long robotic fish into the sea off Gijon, in northern Spain, to monitor oxygen levels and detect oil spills or potentially hazardous leaks from underwater pipelines. The robots are larger than this carp-shaped prototype, which was tested in a tank at the London Aquarium, but they mimic the swishing movement of a real fish's tail, said Huosheng Hu, a University of Essex robotics specialist whose team developed the devices. The self-guided, battery-powered robots can swim for eight hours before returning to a power hub to recharge. They are equipped with chemical sensors and will surface periodically to transmit data to a control center. Each robot costs about $29,000.
0 Replies
sumac
4
Reply
Mon 23 Mar, 2009 08:58 am
Further evidence of our oceans in peril
Monday, March 23, 2009; A07
FEWER FISH IN CARIBBEAN REEFS
Populations of both large and small fish have been declining sharply across the Caribbean in the past 10 years, say researchers, who combined data from 48 studies of 318 coral reefs conducted over more than 50 years.
The data show that fish "densities" that had held steady for decades began to drop significantly around 1995, a trend not reported previously. Although overfishing has long taken a toll on larger species, the drop in smaller species that are not fished indicates that other forces are at work, said author Michelle Paddack of Simon Fraser University in Canada.
Drastic losses in coral cover and changes in coral reef habitats, driven by warming water temperatures and coral diseases, as well as sediment and pollution from coastal development could be among the factors. Overfishing may also have secondary effects by removing species that help keep reefs free of harmful algae.
"All these factors are stressing the reefs and making them less able to recover from disturbances such as hurricanes, which also seem to be occurring more frequently," Paddack said in a statement.
Paddack and her colleagues reported last week in the journal Current Biology that fish densities have been declining by 2.7 percent to 6 percent every year all across the Caribbean.
"If we want to have coral reefs in our future," the researcher said, "we must ensure that we reduce damage to these ecosystems," by such personal measures as not eating species that are in decline and by pushing lawmakers and resource managers for changes in how coral habitats are sustained and protected.
-- Nils Bruzelius
0 Replies
sumac
4
Reply
Mon 23 Mar, 2009 09:00 am
This is rather interesting although I found it somewhat hard to follow. Food chain of nature's ocean fish vs. farmed fish and domestic food for pets and agribusiness.
March 22, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Cat Got Your Fish?
By PAUL GREENBERG
MY cat Coco died recently. Actually we euthanized him to alleviate his suffering from cancer. And while this was a sad moment, it was made less sad because Coco’s death also alleviated ever so slightly the suffering of the sea.
Coco, like most American cats, ate fish. And a great deal of them " more in a year than the average African human, according to Jason Clay at the World Wildlife Fund. And unlike the chicken or beef Coco also gobbled up, all those fish were wild animals, scooped out of the sea and flown thousands of carbon-belching miles to reach his little blue bowl.
The use of wild fish in animal feed is a serious problem for the world’s food systems. Around a third of all wild fish caught are “reduced” into fish meal and fish oil. And yet most of the outrage about this is focused not on land-based animals like Coco but on other fish " namely farm-raised fish.
This is understandable. Ever since the Stanford economist Rosamond Naylor concluded in a 2000 paper in the journal Nature that it took three pounds of wild fish to provide enough food to grow one pound of farmed salmon, environmentalists have been apoplectic. They argue that the removal of wild “forage” fish threatens to starve whales, seals and other predators; that anchovies, mackerel and other “pelagic forage fish” should be used to feed humans; and that feed made from wild fish can give farm-raised fish higher levels of contaminants. As a result of all these issues, ocean preservationists have focused their ire on salmon farming. But in doing so they diverted attention from another problem of equal importance: the role played by those land-based creatures that also put their muzzles in the fish meal trough.
The pet food industry now uses about 10 percent of the global supply of forage fish. The swine industry consumes 24 percent of fish meal and oil " fish oil being considered the best way to wean piglets. Poultry meanwhile takes as much as 22 percent, which means that even when Coco ate chicken, indirectly he was still eating fish. (It’s worth pointing out, too, that the PCBs that concentrate in farmed salmon similarly concentrate in pigs and chickens. A PCB is the same persistent carcinogen no matter what form of flesh delivers it to the human digestive tract.)
Meanwhile, the aquaculture industry has taken the criticisms levied against it seriously. Through a combination of selective breeding of more efficient animals, the use of fish meal substitutes from soy, and greater efforts to retrieve uneaten pellets of fish meal at fish farms, the ratio of pounds of wild fish required for a pound of farmed salmon has dropped considerably since 2004. Yes, the overall number of salmon being farmed and the subsequent demand for wild fish meal from salmon farmers are rising, but they are clearly striving toward some kind of smaller footprint at least on an impact-per-animal basis.
I am not advocating the salmon industry be given a free pass. It still has work to do, particularly with limiting the escape of those efficient, selectively bred farmed fish into the wild. But salmon naturally eat other fish, while terrestrial livestock and pets eat them because humans have deemed it commercially expedient.
If we are serious about curtailing our impact on the oceans, we should insist that land-based farm animals stick to land-grown feed. Some moves in this direction have already taken place. The United States’ national organics standards now require producers to keep fish meal use to a minimum.
But limiting terrestrial use of fish meal in our country is not enough. Fish meal and oil are now a booming international commodity. The rising demand, particularly from Asia, is fueling a perilous trend to “reduce” bigger and more valuable wild fish into pig, chicken and fish feed.
If we are to stop this devastating practice, we must step up our research to find alternatives. Indeed, the Obama administration, in search of “shovel ready” projects for the forthcoming stimulus package, would be well advised to consider programs like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s research initiative to develop fish meal and oil substitutes from algae, agricultural byproducts and other nonfish sources. No doubt the swine and poultry industries will claim that fish substitutes are too far off and that cutting out fish meal and fish oil is not economically feasible. But similar arguments were once made by the agricultural interests that relied on whales for fertilizer.
As for pets like Coco, alternatives already exist. Several companies now make vegan cat food, though owners of vegan cats find they must supplement their pets’ diets with Vitamin A, Vitamin B12, niacin and other nutrients. But those who feel a vegan cat goes against nature (so says the A.S.P.C.A.) might rethink a pet’s potential footprint before acquiring one.
A carnivore, be it a cat, a dog or a salmon, is a heavy burden for the environment and should not be brought under human care lightly. In my family, this has become a topic of debate as we consider our next animal. Coco was an interesting and unique creature, and I argue that he cannot be replaced. To me, a vegetarian substitute is seeming more and more appealing. Lately, I’ve had my eye on a guinea pig.
Dan, was a rainy few days, then snow - cery cold - then during the a.m the snowstorm hit - moved quickly through the foothills - then rested in Tahoe. Was quite beautiful watching weather from the porch though.
I was soooo glad we only received a dusting of snow leaving tree buds intact. Hedges are having a bad hair day though - frost flattened new growth, but today temps will be 10-15 degrees warmer.
Beth, I'm beginning organic allergy stuff today. sniffle
How even with the cold and rain, pollen waits patiently for spring winds.
hb, those are very nice photos. Here, there are meadows where the snow geese land and share food with neighboring horses. Driving to town, there they are 'grazing' next to horses and deer. I haven't been to the river yet this year, but am looking forward to seeing the Harlequins. I'll have to research and see what other types of water fowl migrate/live in the Sierras.
Spring is definitely here! Wildclickers, enjoy Natures gifts.
The use of wild fish in animal feed is a serious problem for the world’s food systems. Around a third of all wild fish caught are “reduced” into fish meal and fish oil. And yet most of the outrage about this is focused not on land-based animals like Coco but on other fish " namely farm-raised fish.
The reduction of fish is also used as food for farmed fish. Versions of themselves are fed to the animals. You recall during the factory farm food issue, animals {cows, chickens, pigs, etc} were fed ground up animal parts - which none of the animals would eat on a good day normally. The result was mad cow disease.
Pet foods from places such as Thialand, China, and wherever else pet food companies have outsourced product, contain 'guess' ingredients.
I found the best kibble for the cats have pure ingredients, organic, and no grains. Organic chicken cooked for the cats, and only canned food with organic ingredients is all i feed the herd now. Can't trust where the foods coming from or who's processing, and wet foods sold at grocery or pet food stores is iffy at best.
Amanda will celebrate her 19th birthday this year. So far, so good.
looking out the window , it sure LOOKS like spring - beautiful sunshine ... but it was MINUS 8 C (windchill minus 16 c ) this morning .
rain expected by mid-week and more moderate temperatures coming .
hbg
the old lighhouse still guides (pleasure) boats from lake ontario into BRIGHTON HARBOUR .
mrs h standing to right of lighthouse .
Yes hamburger, the weathers appearance from the inside is misleading. Even the noise nature is providing. The robins are back too.
Clicked.
0 Replies
hamburger
4
Reply
Mon 23 Mar, 2009 11:02 am
@Stradee,
FEEDING CATS ... the old-fashioned way
....................................................................
i grew up in the port of hamburg/germany . there were plenty of rats and mice feasting on grains , prunes , raisins ... whatever the ships had brought in .
who to keep the rodents under control ?
well-fed cats were the preferred method . around and in the warehouses were we lived , there were as many as 10 t0 12 "ratcatchers" and "mousers" earning their keep .
one of the longshoremen would have the job of "keeper of the cats" .
he'd shop for fresh fish and tripe on his way to work and cook it up for feeding the cats . they were also given plenty of fresh milk - delivered every day .
the cats would usually only kill the rats - they might take a bite of a juicy mouse - but would really depend on the fresh food provided by the "cat-man" .
one cat - a big male - would usually deposit his catch in front of my parents' bedroom and wait to be praised for his efforts .
hbg
the "catman" with a pot of freshly boiled fish and tripe and a bottle of milk .
the cat-boxes were cleaned daily , and plates and saucers were washed also .
" HANNES " - he and his mother kept the area around our house free of rodents .
while he'd "do his duty" , he also liked to be cuddled and was ready for any extra treats coming his way - dried shrimps ( out of the chicken-feed barrel) were his favourite . if the lid of the feed barrel was left off , he'd climb up and pick the shrimp out of the chicken-feed himself .
Clicked. Great information and photos all. I love marshes and migratory anything. Robins stopped here briefly a couple of weeks ago, but basically I don't get much. Too far inland.
I have some 'stuff' to post, if you will all humor me by reading some of it.
Nature is reputed to be red in tooth and claw, but many arms races across the animal kingdom are characterized by restraint rather than carnage.
Competition among males is often expressed in the form of elaborate weapons made of bone, horn or chitin. The weapons often start off small and then, under the pressure of competition, may evolve to attain gigantic proportions. The Irish elk, now extinct, had antlers with a span of 12 feet. The drawback of this magnificent adornment, though, was that the poor beast had to carry more than 80 pounds of bone on its head.
In a new review of sexual selection, a special form of natural selection that leads to outlandish armament and decoration, Douglas J. Emlen, a biologist at the University of Montana, has assembled ideas on the evolutionary forces that have made animal weapons so diverse.
Sexual selection was Darwin’s solution to a problem posed by the cumbersome weapons sported by many species, and the baroque ornaments developed by others. They seemed positive handicaps in the struggle for survival, and therefore contrary to his theory of natural selection. To account for these extravagances, Darwin proposed that both armaments and ornaments must have been shaped by competition for mates.
In his view, the evolution of the armaments was driven by the struggle between males for females, whereas the ornaments arose from the choice, largely by females, of characteristics they prized in males. Modern biologists have devoted considerable attention to female choice and how it has led to such a riotous profusion of animal high fashion, from the plumage of birds to the colors of butterflies. Less attention has been paid to the equally rich diversity of animal weaponry.
Dr. Emlen said he became interested in animal armament after studying a species of dung beetle in Panama that specialized in monkey scat. He broadened his studies to dung beetles worldwide and noticed a pattern in their weaponry. Dung beetles may have started their highly successful career feeding on dinosaur ordure, and seem then to have diversified to that of mammals. They have two principal strategies. Some, like the scarabs, cut out pieces of dung and roll it away for private consumption. Other species dig under a deposit and draw it into their tunnels.
Dr. Emlen noticed that only the tunneling species of dung beetles had evolved horns, which the males use to protect their tunnels from other males. The beetles that push balls of dung away also fight all the time with other males, but are hornless.
“I became fascinated by animals with strange morphologies that make you wonder how in the world they could possibly have mated,” Dr. Emlen said. After collecting papers on “anything that had funky structures,” he began to see a pattern in who developed weapons and who did not. Whenever there was some resource that could be monopolized and used for reproductive advantage, males would develop weapons to fight off other males.
The cost of developing and carrying the weapon, Dr. Emlen inferred, was outweighed by the greater access to females gained by owning some prized possession like a food source or tunnel where females could lay eggs.
Dr. Emlen noticed a tendency for weapons to start out small, like mere bumps of bone, and then to evolve to more ornate form. The small weapons are actually quite destructive since their only role is to attack other males. But the more baroque weapons, even though they look more fearsome, seem to cause lesser loss of life.
The reason is that the more menacing weapons have often acquired a signaling role. Instead of risking their lives in mortal combat, males can assess each other’s strengths by sizing up a rival’s weapons, and decline combat if they seem outclassed. The ornate weapons also lend themselves to ritualized combat in which males may lock horns and assess each other’s strength without wounding each other.
“The most elaborate weapons rarely inflict real damage to opponents, but these structures are very effective at revealing even subtle differences among males in their size, status or physical condition,” Dr. Emlen writes in the current Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.
Since the weapons still have to be used from time to time, they are realistic signals of a male’s fitness. This information is of greatest interest to females, which are always looking for true, unfakeable signals of a male’s quality. Geerat Vermeij, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on the arms race between mollusks and their predators, said he agreed with Dr. Emlen that weapons began as soon as there was something to be defended. But Dr. Vermeij said he was “skeptical of the conclusion that initially harmful weapons turn into display weapons.” Crabs, for instance, lose claws a quarter of the time in combat, he said.
Scott Sampson, a dinosaur expert at the Utah Museum of Natural History, said that among hoofed animals, weapons often became less dangerous when the animals started to live in larger herds and males would cooperate in defending females against predators.
How much of this theory of male weaponry applies to a group not included in Dr. Emlen’s survey, that of primates, in particular humans?
People have pathetically puny teeth and claws compared with the armaments of other dominant species. This is a sign not of pacific intent but of the fact that they manufacture their weapons. The manufactured weapons, just like biological ones, have assumed a display function " think of the fearsome appearance of samurai helmets or armored knights, or the menacing tanks and rockets that paraded through Red Square in Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union.
Male primates of other species often use displays in competing with one another, and the displays “do seem to resolve disputes without actual physical violence,” said Robert Seyfarth, an expert on primate behavior at the University of Pennsylvania. Especially among baboons, the displays often take the form of yawns, which provide males the opportunity to exhibit their impressive canine teeth.
Another display used by baboons to intimidate rivals is their “wahoo” call, which can be heard over several kilometers and is one of the loudest given by any terrestrial mammal.
Among people, speech and other behaviors may have played roles along with weaponry in impressing other males and enchanting females. It is “very reasonable to assume that, as humans evolved and our culture became more complex, skills in tool making or other cultural behaviors took over from anatomical traits as ‘markers’ of a male’s competitive skill,” Dr. Seyfarth said.
But there is less reason to think that human weapons became less destructive as they grew more elaborate, as Dr. Emlen argues is the case with animal weaponry. Occasionally a new weapon has seemed too terrible for general use, like the crossbow, which the church ruled could be deployed only against Saracens and not against fellow Christians. But the restraints would soon disappear as the weapon grew familiar, and only in the modern age, with the advent of chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals, have people produced weapons they seriously hesitate to use.
“We have not reduced the lethality of our weapons, even though we do in fact bluster and use them for display as other animals do,” Dr. Vermeij said.
Dr. Emlen’s interest is not in how his evolutionary rules of weaponry might apply to people, but in why weaponry among animals is so diverse, from the gigantic horns of the rhinoceros beetle to the macelike tail of the ankylosaur and the saws on sawfish. His answer is that a variety of evolutionary processes drive the evolution of weapons, from competition between males to display functions and the general rapidity of sexual selection. The moral of the tale, at least for animals, is that a weevil that starts an arms race may end up with descendants armed like a rhinoceros beetle.
0 Replies
sumac
2
Reply
Tue 24 Mar, 2009 08:22 am
EPA Presses Obama To Regulate Warming Under Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01
The Environmental Protection Agency's new leadership, in a step toward confronting global warming, submitted a finding that will force the White House to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the nearly 40-year-old Clean Air Act.
Under that law, EPA's conclusion -- that such emissions are pollutants that endanger the public's health and welfare -- could trigger a broad regulatory process affecting much of the U.S. economy as well as the nation's future environmental trajectory. The agency's finding, which was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget without fanfare on Friday, also reversed one of the Bush administration's landmark decisions on climate change, and it indicated anew that President Obama's appointees will push to address the issue of warming despite the potential political costs.
In 2007, the Supreme Court instructed the Bush administration to determine whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, but last July, then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced that the agency would instead seek months of public comment on the threat posed by global-warming pollution.
Interest groups and experts across the ideological spectrum described the EPA's proposal yesterday as groundbreaking. But while environmentalists called it overdue and essential to curbing dangerous climate change, business representatives warned that it could hobble the nation's economic recovery.
"This is historic news," said Frank O'Donnell, who heads the environmental watchdog group Clean Air Watch. "It will set the stage for the first-ever national limits on global-warming pollution. And it is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving."
But William L. Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said an effort to regulate greenhouse gases based on the EPA's scientific finding "will be devastating to the economy."
"By moving forward with the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, EPA is putting in motion a set of decisions that may have far-reaching unintended consequences," he said. "Specifically, once the finding is made, no matter how limited, some environmental groups will sue to make sure it is applied to all aspects of the Clean Air Act."
The White House emphasized that the administration is simply fulfilling its legal obligations and will still press for a legislative solution to the question of curbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"The president has made clear that to combat climate change, his strong preference is for Congress to pass energy security legislation that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt. "The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must review whether greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health or welfare, and this is simply the next step in what will be a long process that engages stakeholders and the public."
OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer did not give a specific timeline for when the White House will decide on how to proceed.
Johnson's action came in rejection of his scientific and technical staff's recommendation. In December 2007, the EPA staff wrote the White House to urge that the agency be allowed to make the finding that global warming threatens human health and welfare, but senior White House officials rejected that proposal on the grounds that the Clean Air Act was not the best way to deal with climate-change issues.
Since then, however, federal officials have provided additional rationales for such a finding. Last month, Howard Frumkin, who directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health, testified before a Senate committee that the CDC "considers climate change a serious public health concern" that could accelerate illnesses and deaths stemming from heat waves, air pollution, and food- and water-borne illnesses.
But even those who support cutting greenhouse gases warn that doing so under the Clean Air Act could be complicated. "This would be a regulatory maze far exceeding anything we've seen before," said David Schoenbrod, a professor of environmental law at the New York Law School.
While the EPA's finding is not final, experts steeped in the Clean Air Act began debating yesterday what it would mean for utilities, vehicles, manufacturing plants and consumers. Kovacs predicted it could halt many of the projects funded under the just-passed economic recovery package. "This will mean that all infrastructure projects, including those under the president's stimulus initiative, will be subject to environmental review for greenhouse gases," he said.
EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said in a statement that if the administration goes ahead with the proposal, it will be subject to public hearings and comment before becoming final, adding that it "does not propose any requirements on any sources of greenhouse-gas emissions" and "does not impose any new regulatory burdens on any projects, let alone those funded" under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the EPA's proposal would allow the administration to tackle climate change if Congress does not limit carbon emissions through legislation. He added that even if the EPA were forced to regulate greenhouse gases, it would target emissions from coal-fired power plants and then vehicles -- which combined account for about half of the nation's global-warming pollution -- before requiring smaller operations to apply for new emissions permits.
"The way I see it, it's, in case of legislative gridlock, break open the Clean Air Act," Weiss said. "It's a backup option, not ideal, but it's a way to make progress on emissions reductions."
0 Replies
sumac
3
Reply
Tue 24 Mar, 2009 08:23 am
March 24, 2009
E.P.A. Moves Toward Regulating Greenhouse Gases
By FELICITY BARRINGER
The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to declare that greenhouse gases are pollutants that pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare. That determination, once made final, will pave the way for federal regulation of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
In February, the E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, hinted strongly in an interview with The New York Times that the agency would take action on the issue before April 2. That date marks the second anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling ordering the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
The Bush administration stalled in complying with the court order, opting for more study of the issue, although there was wide consensus among E.P.A. experts that such a determination was supported by scientific research.
The agency sent the finding on Friday to the Office of Management and Budget for review, according to a Web site that lists pending federal rules. Once the budget office clears the finding, it can be signed by Ms. Jackson.
The action, known as an endangerment finding, would allow federal regulation of motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. If further action is taken by the E.P.A., it could open the door to regulatory controls over power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other factories that emit such gases.
Although the agency’s action was widely expected, word that it was headed for the finish line stirred elation among environmental groups and Congressional Democrats and brought dire warnings of regulatory chaos from business groups.
“This finding will officially end the era of denial on global warming,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of a select committee on global warming.
John Walke, a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, welcomed the E.P.A.’s decision as the opening act of a new effort to tackle global warming, one that he hoped would ultimately culminate in federal legislation. “For some period we may have parallel efforts of Environmental Protection Agency pursuing or even adopting regulation while the eventual main show will be in Congress,” he said.
But Bill Kovacs, a specialist on global warming issues with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said that an endangerment finding would automatically provoke a tangle of regulatory requirements for businesses large and small, including, he predicted, small dairy farms whose cattle produce methane gas.
In February, the E.P.A.’s administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, hinted strongly in an interview with The New York Times that the agency would take action on the issue before April 2. That date marks the second anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling ordering the agency to determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
good grief
politics
The good news is finally the EPA's working for the enviornment again.
Today, with birds falling out of the air midflight, rodents carrying god-knows-what flea/disease, lizards a common health hazard for cats, and wildlife at risk from ferals, it is good reading a people care story - folks going above and beyond for abandoned animals.
