A former San Franciscan named Shreve Stockton, who now lives in a log cabin in Wyoming, took in a ten-day-old orphan coyote, and she has been posting photos and updates of life with the coyote at Daily Coyote. On the basis of her reports, it sounds like the coyote pup has taken to her just like a dog takes to its human — following her around, getting excited when she returns home from being away, and even insisting on sleeping next to her.
Despite extensive research (i.e., a google search for “domesticated coyote”), I don’t know how common it is for coyotes to willingly live with people (the young coyote even cuddles with her cat), and we’ll see how the coyote feels about domestication when he is an adult, but it did make me wonder whether we’ll start seeing more coyotes as pets in coming years. Coyotes are increasingly found in American suburbs and cities (a coyote even finds its way to central park every few years, no mean feat since they have to cross bridges and navigate busy city streets to get there). One can easily imagine coyotes following the path taken several millennia ago by their dog relatives.
Dogs, of course, were once entirely wild, but as they came into contact with human beings, the dogs that hitched their wagons to human culture by becoming pets thrived, while dogs that remained aloof from humans struggled. As natural selection worked its magic down the centuries, domesticated dogs became better and better at ingratiating themselves to their human friends, while wild dog populations tended to disappear.
Coyotes have apparently played the evolutionary game well too, and unlike many species, coyotes have managed to dramatically expand their native habitat and thrive alongside human society in far corners of North and Central America. Will domesticated coyotes like the one in Wyoming become a more common occurrence as evolution selects for coyotes who can not only thrive alongside human society, but inside it as well?
We’ll see. Meanwhile, those sure are some cute pictures.
(Photo above by Flickr user Qole Pejorian)
In a very interesting article in last week’s New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell recounts the following anecdote (the “WISC” test is a widely-used kind of I.Q. test):
The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?” The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories.
While Gladwell is citing the research to help rebut the arguments of “I.Q fundamentalists” who have come out of the woodwork yet again after recent comments by James Watson, the Kpelle story is also a cautionary tale that can be applied more generally: we are fools ourselves if we judge other people without first understanding why they behave the way they do. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t judge other people, only that wisdom requires judgments based on understanding, rather than ignorance. A trite point, perhaps, but one that is all too often forgotten when we assume that those with whom we disagree must therefore be evil or stupid. Sometimes those with whom we disagree are evil or stupid, but sometimes they just see the world in a different way that would be worth our while to comprehend.
Contrary to the widespread myth that Americans will never get out of their cars, behavior does seem to be changing as people start to accept that high gas prices are here to stay. From the Oakland Tribune:
Commuters are turning to public transportation in record numbers as gasoline prices seem to have gotten comfortable at or above $3 a gallon.
Unlike past surges in transit ridership, this one doesn’t have the help of a major freeway disruption like the Labor Day weekend closure of the Bay Bridge in August or the collapse of a MacArthur Maze ramp in April.
On Nov. 14 and Dec. 7, BART had its second and third biggest days, with 382,865 and 381,499 people inserting tickets on their way out of the system, respectively.
“This year’s going to be our biggest year ever,” said BART spokesman Linton Johnson, adding it would be on the heels of breaking the barrier of 100 million trips for the system’s last fiscal year, which ended June 30.
The jump has been noticed at other transit agencies, too, especially those that carry longer-distance commuters who have the choice of driving.
Caltrain’s ridership jumped 9.3 percent last month over November 2006. The Gilroy-to-San Francisco route hit a record for that month of 36,454 rides. The Capitol Corridor, which runs from the Sierra foothills to Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose, was up 13 percent from the previous November, to 136,650 riders for the month. Ferry ridership was also rising.
The fact that many people actually will switch from automobile to mass transit given the right combination of incentives and disincentives has been pointed out here several times before, but unlike the previous occasions when the switch was caused by highway or bridge closures, the trend outlined above seems to be driven only by high gasoline prices and perhaps growing awareness of the environmental benefits of public transportation compared to car commuting.
Oddly, the author of the above Tribune article, transportation reporter Erik N. Nelson, doesn’t mention that BART recently announced that it is increasing fares more than 5% starting next month. If, as the figures cited above suggest, people’s transportation choices are guided to some degree by rational cost/benefit analyses, rather than warm and fuzzy attachment to their cars, then you would think that an imminent hike in BART fares would be worth mentioning. I hear people complain all the time that BART is too expensive to make it worth giving up the convenience of their cars, and I would rather see BART pursue increased revenue by further boosting ridership instead of by hiking fares. Thankfully, BART’s fare hike is being accompanied by increased service, so there is reason for some optimism that the disincentive created by the higher prices will be offset by the allure of more frequent trains.
That’s an enviable problem to have:
OAKLAND — In mid-October, Dan Rascher and his wife bought a $1.4 million home in Upper Rockridge so their child could gain entrance to Hillcrest, Oakland’s most prestigious public school.
Last week, they began to doubt their investment. A proposed boundary shift, prompted by a population boom and overcrowding at Hillcrest, would make Montclair Elementary — a well-regarded, yet less exclusive school nearby — the family’s new school.
“It was really like a kick in the stomach,” said Rascher, who said no one informed him about the ongoing enrollment squeeze when he made the offer on his home. Although Montclair is a fine school, he said, “We didn’t think we were going to buy a Montclair home at a Hillcrest price.”
I like trees. I really do. I’ve even marvelled at the wondrous environmental, social and emotional benefits of trees on this blog. But when it comes to tree appreciation, it seems that I’m just a two-bit amateur compared to some:
Meanwhile, Oakland Makeshift Memorials continues to document the tragedy of Oakland’s slain victims (slain human victims, that is). And the deforestation of the Amazon basin continues at the rate of roughly one Jamaica (or 6 Alameda counties) per year.
Here’s some unsolicited advice: If you’re considering getting married, you should probably think hard about the decision. If the person you are considering marrying is a convicted murderer and rapist, you should probably think extra hard about that decision. If the person is a convicted murderer and rapist and has also changed his name from Jesse Crisp to Jesus Jihad, then — just my two cents here, mind you — you probably shouldn’t think about marrying them at all. Here’s how the Oakland Tribune summarizes the background of Mr. Jihad, who will soon face trial for stabbing his wife to death and then severely wounding her sister and a 15-year-old relative in July:
Jihad was sentenced in 1973 to a life behind bars for the murder of the sailor in Alameda. But he was paroled in 1987 and changed his name from Jesse Crisp to Jesus Jihad.
About six years later, Jihad was convicted of raping his 19-year-old step-daughter in Berkeley and sentenced to 19 years in jail. Once again, however, he was released early and placed on parole after serving a decade in prison.
Police say he met Hendricks about three years ago and they were married for about two years.
Can someone remind me why it’s not legal for one law-abiding and nonviolent man to marry another law-abiding and nonviolent man, while it’s perfectly okay for a murderer to get married again after being convicted of raping his stepdaughter?
From the New York Times’ political blog, the Caucus:
How big is Oprah in South Carolina?
Barack Obama’s campaign has just moved its Oprah event on Sunday from an arena in Columbia seating 18,000 to a football stadium with a capacity of more than 80,000.
Tickets, which are free, went quickly on Monday, when they were first available, and the campaign had to shut down its distribution system. Now, the campaign says, tickets aren’t even necessary, although it hopes people will RSVP through its Web site.
I wonder what the record attendance for a campaign event is.
After a woman was robbed at gunpoint while walking home on Wesley Ave. near MacArthur Blvd this past week, signs have been posted on telephone poles alerting residents to the incident and offering tips for staying safe. It’s great to see Oakland residents getting involved in neighborhood safety efforts, but one piece of advice really jumped out: “Always Stay In Home After Dark.” Always? No more going out to dinner or to a movie? No more going to the local bar to watch a Warriors game with friends?
More seriously, even granting that the safety tip was not meant to be taken so literally, I have very mixed feelings about this piece of advice. It’s understandable that people want to avoid face-to-face encounters with the muzzle of a gun, and far be it from me to tell people they should walk around desolate streets after dark on principle, but on the other hand, ceding Oakland’s public spaces to criminals after the sun sets (that means 4:50 pm today) doesn’t seem like a solution either.
As Becks at Living in the O was reminded recently on a trip to DC, and as has been discussed here before, neighborhoods feel much safer and more walkable not only when there are police visible, but also when other pedestrians are around. During many years of living in New York without a car, I never once — no matter how late at night, or what neighborhood I was in — felt as exposed as I feel walking around Oakland after dark, simply because there were always other people walking around too. Of course New York City is an extreme case, given its density, its comprehensive and efficient public transit system, and its low car-ownership, and as much as I might fantasize about it sometimes, it’s unrealistic to think that Oakland will ever be as amenable to a carless lifestyle as New York.
Oakland does have some neighborhoods, however, which are close to BART, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, grocery stores and other amenities. Many residents of downtown, Temescal, Rockridge, and the neighborhoods surrounding Lake Merritt are able to get around fine without cars, and many car-owners would also appreciate being able to walk to dinner and back without feeling that they were putting themselves at risk. Rather than telling people to hide inside their homes after dark, should we be encouraging people to gather together some friends and go out for an evening stroll instead?
