natural history, photography, pleasures, science, topographical

London Zoo

1 Comment

We’re on holiday, but not away, this week and next. So we are trying to have a few days out, weather permitting which it didn’t on Monday and Tuesday.

Yesterday we went to London Zoo. I’ve not been to the Zoo since I was a teenager (the Snowdon Aviary wasn’t long open) – so over 40 years ago! And Noreen has never been despite having lived in London for over 30 years and done most of the tourist things.

What a disappointment. I’m glad I went, but to be honest I probably won’t bother again. Although we didn’t look at everything, we did see a large proportion. Now I know we’re all used to seeing animals in action in 5 second “vision bites” on TV, and that in reality most animals spend a lot of their day doing very little. But even allowing for that I found the “exhibits” dull. Why?

Many of the indoor enclosures looked drab, dull, unexciting and almost uncared for. Which I know does an injustice to the keepers, as they care greatly about giving their animals the best possible environment. The indoor spaces were frankly rather tatty and in need of a good coat of paint; not really surprising when you look at the number of pairs of feet walking round.

I suppose the thing which struck me most was the lack of variety. Sure there are birds and reptiles; fish; mammals of all types and sizes; insects and bugs. But I felt there was not enough variety of each, although of course space is very limited and one has to provide enough room for the number of visitors as well as the animals and staff as well as having some exhibit spaces empty and being refurbished. Nevertheless I felt that many of the animals are still kept in inadequately sized accommodation – specifically I don’t feel it ethical to keep an owl in an aviary where it doesn’t get a good long flightpath (20 x 30 x 8 feet high really doesn’t feel large enough!).

And the limitations of space, and even money, don’t excuse labels which were uninformative to anyone except a 10 year-old doing their school project. The science content of the labels for people like me was non-existent. OK, I set a high standard because I’m a scientist, but there should be something there to capture me too; I also need to be made to say “Heavens, I never knew that!” And by doing this you stretch other visitors and make them think. It’s a hard task; yes a lot of the labelling has to enthuse the school kids and the less well educated; that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be some (not all) information at a higher level.

And heavens the number of school kids! The whole place was crawling with school parties – all ages from 5 to 15 (or more). It’s a bit much when the noise of the kids drowns out the local starlings and the London traffic! Don’t get me wrong; it’s great that the kids are there and hopefully showing some interest (especially in a pair of turtles having it off! – the whole group of 8 year-olds had their mobile phones out taking photos!). Yes, they are the future and we need to catch ’em young and get them enthused about science in all forms. But it I would have felt more sanguine about it if I thought they were learning something and not just wandering round ticking boxes on the project sheet or meandering aimlessly. Most of the teachers didn’t seem too interested either, except to try to rein the kids in a bit; they weren’t doing any much teaching.

As a fishkeeper the area I really wanted to see was the Aquarium. Frankly I felt that this was a disgrace. Half the exhibit space appeared to be boarded off, with no word of explanation. Was it because it is being rebuilt; refurbished; closed because unrepairable (the building is old now); there isn’t the money to run it? Why? Nothing; just blank dark blue hoarding in a space so dark one could hardly see where one was walking. The tanks which were in use were to my mind unexciting and all too small. Yes there was a variety of freshwater and salt-water fish, tropical and temperate; but with a few exceptions (like large Tambaqui, fragile seahorses and quantities of anemones and corals) nothing a good amateur aquarist couldn’t keep at least as well. And almost nothing about crustaceans, shellfish, seaweed and no really good biotype displays.

So what was good? The staff were all helpful. The grounds are immaculately kept. Some exhibits were good. The penguins and meercats were an especial and unexpected delight. As was the large tiger dozing against the wall of his enclosure, literally just a foot the other side of the Plexiglas from us. Likewise the two very asleep, and very beautiful, Servals looking like oversized spotted domestic cats. The Lubetkin Penguin Pool is still there (it is Grade I listed) and refurbished but not in use (sad; I hope a use can be found for it other than for wire sculptures of insects). Noreen enjoyed the rainforest displays. The café is decent, even if not cheap (but then where is?). And the loos were spotless despite the hoards of kids.

I’m sure there is more that’s good – we didn’t see everything – but that doesn’t feel like a good return on the almost £20 admission price. Sad, really; very sad.

And there are a few of my photos of the animals over on Flickr; hopefully more to come later.

natural history, personal, photography, pleasures, science, topographical

Summer in England

1 Comment

How do you know it’s summer in England? No not because the sun is shining. Because it’s raining! It really is almost that predictable.

We’re on holiday for a couple of weeks at present; a badly needed break. Unfortunately we failed in our attempts to go away because we were unable to find anyone to feed the cats (none of our 3 cat feeders is available, nor is our local cattery; they’re all on holiday too!). So we’re staying home and trying to go out for days. But it’s raining! – nice steady summer rain which looks set for the day.

The two top things we want to do are go to London Zoo (I’ve not been since I was a child) and go to Kew Gardens. Both are largely outdoors. Which ain’t too much fun when it’s peeing down with rain. There are few things more miserable, in my mind, than being out for the day in the rain.

At least the rest of the week looks good. Meanwhile we’re at home doing a few odd jobs around the place and not much else.

Update, 1735 hrs. And it is still raining; don’t think it’s stopped all day! We’ve spent the day pottering about and clearing out all the old toot from our wardrobes.

beliefs, current affairs, medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Sex Education

There’s an interesting article in last week’s issue of New Scientist in which Hazel Muir questions why it is that governments (indeed whole societies) ignore scientific evidence when making policy. Of particular interest to me was the comments on federal funding of sex education programmes for teenagers. As the full article isn’t available to non-subscribers, I give you a couple of telling paragraphs …

Among other requirements, the [abstinence-only sex education] programmes must teach “that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects”. A 2004 report commissioned by a Democratic congressman concluded that four-fifths of the curricula contained false or misleading information, such as hugely exaggerating the risk of pregnancy or HIV transmission when condoms are used.

“The origin of this programme was not in science or research by any means, but in an ultra-conservative, ultra-religious ideology,” says James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a non-profit organisation in Washington DC that champions informed decision-making about sexual behaviour. “You could almost see the abstinence-only movement as the sexual health equivalent of creationism.”

Several studies, including a Congress-funded randomised controlled trial involving more than 2000 teenagers, showed the abstinence-only programmes were no more likely than conventional sex education to prevent or delay teenagers having sex, or reduce their number of sexual partners. Yet Congress continues to fund the programmes. Peer-reviewed studies of more than a dozen well-considered programmes for scientific sex education show these programmes can both make teenagers delay having sex and increase contraceptive use if they do have sex: “But how many of these would be eligible for federal funding? Zero,” Wagoner says.

Now why does the US have the highest rate of unplanned teenage pregnancy in the western world? Makes you think, doesn’t it!?

beliefs, current affairs, environment, food+drink, memes, science, thoughts

Agriculture Policy

I’ve posted before about the need for a paradigm shift in agriculture policy (see here and here). There is an article by Jeffrey D Sachs in the June 2008 issue of Scientific American which picks up on this theme – although to my mind he doesn’t go far enough. As the article isn’t (yet) online, here is an edited version:

Surging Food Prices and Global Stability
Misguided policies favor biofuels and animal feed over grain for hungry people

The recent surge in world food prices is already creating havoc in poor countries, and worse is to come. Food riots are spreading across Africa, although many have gone unreported in the international press. Moreover, the surge in wheat, maize and rice prices … has not yet fully percolated into the shops and … the budgets of relief organizations … In early 2006 a metric ton of wheat cost around $375 on the commodity exchanges. In March 2008 it stood at more than $900 …

Several factors are at play in the skyrocketing prices … World incomes have been growing at around 5% annually in recent years … leading to an increased global demand for food … The rising demand for meat exacerbates the pressures on grain and oilseed prices because several kilograms of animal feed are required to produce each kilogram of meat. The grain supply has also been disrupted by climate shocks …

An even bigger blow has been the US decision to subsidize the conversion of maize into ethanol to blend with gasoline. This wrongheaded policy … gives a 51% tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons of domestic renewable-fuel production … overwhelmingly … corn-based ethanol, by 2012. Consequently, up to a third of the US’s Midwestern maize crop this year will be converted to ethanol, causing a cascade of price increases … (Worse still, use of ethanol instead of gasoline does little to reduce net carbon emissions once the energy-intensive full cycle of ethanol production is taken into account.)

The food price increases are pummelling poor food-importing regions … Several countries … have cut off their rice exports in response to high prices at home … Even small changes in food prices can push the poor into hunger and destitution … some of the greatest famines in history were caused not by massive declines in grain production but rather by losses in the purchasing power of the poor.

… measures should be taken in response to the food price crisis. First, the world should … fund a massive increase in Africa’s food production. The needed technologies are available – high-yield seeds, fertilizer, small-scale irrigation – but the financing is not. The new African green revolution would initially subsidize peasant farmers’ access to better technologies [… and …] help farm communities establish long-term microfinance institutions …

Second, the US should end its misguided corn-to-ethanol subsidies … Third, the world should support longer-term research into higher agricultural production. Shockingly, the Bush administration is proposing to sharply cut the US funding for tropical agriculture studies … just when that work is most urgently needed …