data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a7a0/1a7a0f2c434788e641b6980905cfe17451179cc0" alt=""
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Straits Times | Oct 26, 2010
Published: 12:09PM Wednesday October 20, 2010
Source: ONE News
An American professor believes more and more people are using pets for social support.
There has been a sizeable increase in pet ownership in New Zealand over the past few decades and James Serpell from the University of Pennsylvania said there are now about twice as many dogs and cats per person as there were 20-30 years ago.
Serpell told Breakfast this morning that urbanisation has led to the increase as people move into the city and animals "become less the workhorse and more the family pet".
He said other factors include couples having fewer children, more people living alone, higher divorce rates and more transient friendships.
And Serpell said people's health depends very much on the social support they have from others. He said people look to friends and relatives to support and care about them in times of need.
"People are inviting pets into their homes to replace what they're missing in terms of more traditional kinds of social support," Serpell said.
"As we progressively urbanise so our need for pets increases."
Read http://www.thornapplemanor.com/residents/neighborhoods.htm
"The three plagues of loneliness, helplessness, and boredom account for the bulk of suffering among our elders"
All methods of culling involve cruelty and are a misuse of funds because all they achieve are a temporary gap asking to be filled by other pigeons moving in from surrounding areas. After a cull, more food is available to those remaining; hence more pigeons are fit to breed and less succumb to infant mortality. With these advantages they can replenish their numbers at an astonishing degree, to again be the scapegoats for inefficiency, and victims of misguided priorities and wasted resources.
A given pigeon population will level off to a density rate that the food availability can sustain. When that point is reached, less robust pairs will not reproduce and natural losses tend to stabilize flock numbers. So basically, if left alone the flock will not grow ad infinitum, but regulate itself without the unnecessary savagery of drugs, falconry, traps and guns.
If their presence is justifiably unwanted, the only sure (and most humane) way to deter feathered opportunists is to reduce the amount of refuse we produce and net off roost sites. As long as mesh is maintained no pigeon should suffer, and the flock will be stronger and more resistant to disease. This solution is cheaper, permanent and does not employ armies of mercenaries who poison the public's mind with ill-informed scare-mongering propaganda merely to ensure an easy salary.
Too many people accept this ridiculous disregard for life and money, because they choose to believe 'experts' who have a vested financial interest in promoting deplorable myths about these birds.
What any honest vet will tell you is that feral pigeons are no more a risk to human health than any other bird or animal species and it is doubtful than any outbreak of ill-health has ever been traced to pigeons. Another common myth is that pigeon's droppings corrode buildings, but these droppings are neither acidic nor alkaline and cannot corrode building materials. But pigeons are a convenient visible target for anyone who would rather pin the blame on them rather than the sulphur dioxide of car exhausts and acid rain.Published: 3:28PM Thursday October 14, 2010
Source: Reuters
Source: NZPA
Life with the family dog will give young children hours of loyal companionship, cherished memories - and, in some cases, possibly even better health.
A study in the Journal of Pediatrics says that children with a family history of allergies may be less likely to develop eczema, an allergic skin condition, if they live with a dog when they are younger than one year.
But living with a cat may increase those odds, though only among children who are sensitive to cat allergen - substances in pet dander, saliva and urine.
Given the complexity of the situation, it is hard to give parents specific advice about pets, said Tolly Epstein, an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio, who led the research team.
But as far as eczema goes, a number of studies have shown there is a consistent relationship among dog ownership and lower risk, she added.
"It may be that these children develop a tolerance, but we don't know that for sure," she said.
The study involved 636 children enrolled as infants in a long-term study of environmental exposures and allergy risk.
All were considered to be at increased risk of allergies because they had a parent with a history of asthma, nasal allergies or eczema.
When the children were younger than one year, researchers visited their homes to collect dust samples.
The children also underwent yearly exams, including a skin-prick test to see whether they'd become sensitised and their immune systems were producing antibodies after being exposed to allergens such as pet dander.
Overall, 14% of the children had eczema at age four.
But that rate fell to nine percent among the 184 children who'd had a dog in their home during infancy.
Of the 14 children who were sensitive to dog allergen and lived with a dog, only two - 14% - developed eczema.
That compared to 57% for dog-sensitive children who didn't have a dog at home during early life.
The situation with cats is harder to call.
Epstein's team found that there was no clear relationship between having a cat in the house during infancy and an increased eczema risk among children overall, but that the picture changed with children sensitive to cat allergens.
Among 13 such children who lived with a cat during infancy, 54% developed eczema by age four compared to 33% who did not have a pet cat.
The rate of eczema fell to 11% for non-sensitive children even when they did live with a cat.
Epstein noted that her study was looking specifically at the development of eczema and not other conditions, such as asthma.
She also said the results applied only to children with parents who have allergies, and little is known about how a family pet could affect children at average risk.
I REFER to the article 'Monkey grabs food from pram in a flash'.
The experiment that was carried out by The New Paper staff - placing bananas and peanuts in a pram near the forested area on Rifle Range Road - was unnecessary and regrettable, as it is already an established fact that monkeys will be tempted by food in their path.
It is precisely this treatment that fosters unnatural behaviour - a dependence on humans for food and a boldness in demanding food. That is why the authorities have fines in place for people who feed the monkeys.
The article overall put the animals in abad light, through no fault of their own. Asaresult, it does little about promoting kindness and respect of wild animals in their natural habitat.
More information on human-macaque communities along the urban jungles of Singapore can be found online at www.spca.org.sg/humanmacaque.html
DEIRDRE MOSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION
OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS