Dog Brothers Public Forum

A day to remember--as is the aftermath.  

Through the haze of John Wayne movies those of us born after WW2 may not realize that there were tremendous mistakes made during our waging of that war-- but we came together and figured it out and did what had to be done.

Disculpen por favor que lo siguiente sea en ingles:
====================================

Why Latin Nations Are Poor

      By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
      November 25, 2005; Page A11

      With hysteria mounting about the political shift leftward in Latin
America and 11 presidential races in the region over the next 13 months, the World Bank's "Doing Business in 2006" survey merits a read. We mentioned it two weeks ago but a fuller airing is in order.

      The annual report, by the research side of the bank, measures the
regulatory burden and property rights in 155 countries. This year's results
demonstrate clearly that despite persistent claims that the region has tried the "free-market" model and found it wanting, Latin America is stubbornly stuck in a statist time warp.

      When it comes to burdensome government and weak property rights,
Latins don't fare as badly as Africans but their freedoms lag behind those
in much of Asia and the former Soviet satellites of Europe.

      It's been 20 years since Hernando de Soto's Lima-based Institute for
Liberty and Democracy published "The Other Path," documenting the burdens that the Peruvian state was heaping on the backs of the struggling underclass. But in two decades little has changed in a region mostly known for caudillo government and its capacity to disappoint. More than ever, the Latin predatory state is driving entrepreneurs underground and forcing the most industrious citizens to emigrate, mostly to the U.S.

      Take for example Mexico, which has enormous oil reserves and open
trade with North America. Its economy is sadly underperforming. Mexican
Finance Minister Francisco Gil Diaz has managed the macro side of things
exceedingly well. But on the micro side, Mexican businesses face crippling
regulation and inadequate legal protections, weakening the potential for
market competition, investment and productivity gains.

      In the category of the World Bank report that deals with "hiring and
firing," Mexico ranks 125th out of the 155 countries surveyed, not least
because it costs a firm almost 75 weeks of wages to fire a worker. Mexico
also ranks 125th in "protecting investors" against fraud, self-dealing and
other corporate abuses. Correspondingly, it ranks 100th in the "enforcing
contracts" category, meaning that when two parties strike a deal, neither
knows whether it will hold up.

      Peru gets a better overall rating than Mexico, but it can hardly be
said to encourage entrepreneurship. In "starting a business," Peru ranks a
low 106th because of the red tape Mr. de Soto wrote about so long ago.
Firing a worker costs almost 56 weeks of wages, discouraging employers from hiring and risking huge costs if business takes a turn for the worse. A medium-sized business in Peru can expect a tax burden reaching almost 51% of gross profits, which is part of the reason Peru has the 133rd worst tax burden. "Enforcing contracts" takes 381 days on average, leaving Peru in 114th place in this category.

      Argentina, still saddled with Peronist labor laws, has an even less
flexible labor market than Peru, at 132nd in "hiring and firing." Moreover,
a medium-sized company must theoretically pay almost 98% of its gross profit to the tax man, which explains a high rate of tax evasion.

      In 25th place globally, Chile has the best business climate in the
region but is inexcusably behind Malaysia, Estonia and Lithuania. It badly
needs to advance reforms undertaken in the 1980s, but instead the Socialist government of Ricardo Lagos has yielded to union activists by increasing labor law burdens.

      Colombia -- at 66th -- has dreadful ratings in "hiring and firing"
(130th) and in "paying taxes," where a medium-sized business has a total
payable tax of 75% of gross profits. Venezuela doesn't enforce contracts
(129th), doesn't protect investors (142nd) and makes paying taxes a
bureaucratic nightmare (145th). There are some notable improvements among small countries. Honduras gets better marks for making property registration more efficient. El Salvador has quickened "business entry" but still ranks far down the list in this category due to the cost of starting a business.

      The correlation between economic freedom and prosperity is clear from reading the World Bank ratings. As one would expect, overtaxing and overregulating economic activity stunts growth, as do weak property rights. Much of the region's stagnation is attributable to burdens inflicted by government.

      Why hasn't democracy in Latin America produced change? The answer can be found in public-choice theory -- a school of economics made famous by Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan. Public choice views politics as a market, where the highest bidders have the power to "purchase" what they want. Deregulation may be best for the majority, but politicians don't have an incentive to do it when their most powerful, best-organized constituents --  the ones who put them in office -- prefer the status quo. That includes not only labor unions but rich, established oligarchs and government bureaucrats. Most Latin countries don't have large enough middle classes to counter these oppressive forces, thanks to the twin curses of overregulation and weak property rights.

      At the cost of a civil war, El Salvador has had some success in
awakening the power elite to the need for change. But most of the region is more like Mexico, where labor unions and a handful of wealthy individuals --  like telecom mogul Carlos Slim and media giant Ricardo Salinas Pleigo -- see no need to reform a system that serves them so well.

      On reviewing the World Bank study, it is worth noting that external
forces also militate against reform. The International Monetary Fund, the
U.S. Agency for International Development, World Bank loan officers and the United Nations provide easy money -- "aid" -- to support failed governments and an entrenched ruling class. "Conditionality" has been a dismal failure.  IMF assistance to Argentina worked against challengers to Peronism in the 2003 election and ensured victory for the present anti-market government.

      Rich-country bureaucrats also often tie their handouts to objectives
favored by rich-country pressure groups, such as environmental and labor "protections" that in the name of "social justice" add more red tape and further destroy individual initiative. All the while, Godzilla government is leaving Latin America's underclass living in the shantytowns and favelas
with little opportunity or hope.

Guau a todos:

  Como saben muchas personas, me interesa la politica.  Este hilo se ofrece para platicar juntos asuntos de politica.  Se permite toda expresion que sea de buena fe y sin enojo personal contra otra expresion de opinion.

Para ponernos en marcha, ofrezco lo siquiente, que me mando' un amigo venezolano.

Marc (firmo mi nombre asi, y no "Crafty Dog" porque ahora no se trata de arte marcial).

=====================================


Francia estornuda porque Europa tiene la gripe
Traducci?n del catal?n, texto de  Pilar Rahola



OPINI?N: Una rep?blica isl?mica de Francia- Pilar Rahola
Fecha Thursday, 10 November a las 11:30:36

Cuando el periodista del Chicago Sun Times Mark Steyn escribi?: "es  
m?s f?cil ser optimista con respecto al futuro de Pakist?n o Irak  
que respecto a Holanda o Dinamarca", recibi? el pertinente alud de  
cr?ticas por su incorrecci?n de pensamiento.

Sin embargo pon?a el dedo en la llaga de lo que despu?s seria el  
riguroso estudio de la historiadora Bat Ye 'or, titulado

"Eurabia. El eje Euro-?rabe", d?nde se pon?a al descubierto la pol?tica europea de  "apaciguamiento " con respecto a la cuesti?n isl?mica, pol?tica que  la misma Europa hab?a perpetrado, d?cadas anteriores, con la  cuesti?n nazi.

 Si Chamberlain fue a visitar al F?rher con el prop?sito de pactar  
aquello tan bonito de "yo no me meto en tus cosas, y t? no me  
atacas a m?", la Europa que se enfrenta al reto del integrismo  
isl?mico hace exactamente el mismo: mostrar la debilidad de sus  
valores morales y, al mismo tiempo, fortalecer los valores que nos  
atacan.

Est?n perfectamente documentados los m?ltiples acuerdos entre la  
Uni?n Europea y la Liga ?rabe con el prop?sito de garantizar que  
los inmigrantes musulmanes de Europa no est?n obligados a adaptarse  
a las costumbres occidentales, y durante d?cadas hemos alimentado,  
subvencionado y mimado toda clase de organizaciones y ong?s varias  
cuya finalidad era mantener "la identidad musulmana" por encima de  
cualquier otra identidad.

El paternalismo de la izquierda europea, en este sentido, ha sido  
fundamental y, desgraciadamente, muy activo.

Durante d?cadas Europa ha ido creando "Londostans" en los suburbios  
de sus ciudades, y en ellos, convertidos en Estados dentro el  
Estado, lentamente ha dejado de ejercer su soberan?a. Imanes  
integristas, agitadores sociales y gur?s intelectuales que  
justificaban, por la v?a de la multiculturalidad, la imposici?n  
isl?mica, han ido convirti?ndose en los verdaderos propietarios de  
barrios y calles.

As?, han catalizado, por la v?a integrista, el l?gico malestar de  
los sectores discriminados. Lejos de combatir esta din?mica perversa, la mala conciencia  europea, o tal vez la falta total de conciencia, lo han permitido y  lo han potenciado.

  Posteriormente, cuando ha descubierto que los asesinos de Londres  
hab?an nacido en Inglaterra o que Mohammed Bouyeri, el asesino de  
Theo van Gogh, era holand?s de pleno derecho, ha puesto la misma  
cara que Chamberlain cuando los nazis bombardearon Londres: la del  
idiota que no entiende nada.

Todo lo que empez? en el barrio parisiense de Clichy-sous- Bois y  
se ha extendido a toda Francia tiene que ver con la cuesti?n isl?mica.

  Obviamente hablamos de marginaci?n social, pero no es la  
marginaci?n la que est? quemando coches y violentando a los  
ciudadanos. Hablamos de exclusi?n social, pero los primeros perpetradores de  exclusi?n son los que llevan d?cadas predicando contra Occidente  desde las propias mezquitas que Occidente les ha construido.

Y podr?amos hablar de emigraci?n, pero sorprendentemente (o no) se  
trata espec?ficamente de los hijos y nietos de la emigraci?n  
musulmana. La cuesti?n, por tanto, tiene m?ltiples facetas, pero  
una de ellas es clave:
 ?qu? ocurre con el reto que el Islam nos ha lanzado a trav?s de  
los millones de personas de esta religi?n que viven en Europa?

Con toda la convicci?n y preocupaci?n, soy de las que creen que  
Francia estornuda porque Europa tiene la gripe.

Durante a?os hemos potenciado la bonita idea de la  
multiculturalidad, concepto que solamente ha servido como coartada  
para que los que hablaban en favor del Islam consolidaran la visi?n  
m?s paranoica de dicha cultura.

Lejos de democratizar el Islam, hemos permitido que las ideas  
totalitarias impregnaran territorios enteros del Estado de Derecho.

 Es decir, en lugar de potenciar los Bourgiba y los Attaturk del  
Islam democr?tico, hemos tendido la mano a los ayatol?s y a los  
mul?s, creyendo que esto era cultura. Les hemos permitido aquello que no permitir?amos a ninguna otra  ideolog?a. ?El ?ltimo ejemplo?

  La decisi?n holandesa de aceptar la publicaci?n del libro El  
camino del musulm?n, ampar?ndose en la libertad de expresi?n.

  Entre otras maravillas, el libro pide que los homosexuales sea  
arrojados desde edificios altos. ?Y esto en el pa?s donde han  
asesinado, en nombre del Islam, a un cineasta! Estamos realmente  
locos.

 Francia arde.

 Ciertamente tiene problemas estructurales, entre otros el elevado  
paro que llega, en su caso, al 16%. Pero ahora no se enfrenta a un  
renovado Mayo del 68.

Probablemente se enfrenta a la primera revuelta musulmana de las  
muchas que se suceder?n en el futuro europeo.  Y no porque hayamos sido tolerantes con una religi?n, lo cual es una obligaci?n democr?tica, sino porque hemos sido tolerantes con  una ideolog?a totalitaria.

 Hemos mimado los Tariq Ramad?n, hemos obviado a las escuelas del  
odio que herv?an en algunas mezquitas de nuestros propios barrios,  
hemos abandonado a las mujeres a su suerte de opresi?n y  
esclavitud, y todo lo hemos hecho en nombre de la diversidad y el  
buenismo.

  Tarde o temprano ten?amos que empezar a pagar tanta  
irresponsabilidad acumulada. Por tanto, ?de qu? nos sorprendemos?
Trad. del catal

Woof All:

We have been told that the best way for us to make our DVDs/videos availabe in other languages is to have subtitles.  Thus we are in need of transcribing our videos/DVDs i.e. converting the spoken words to writing so that our translators can begin their work.

Can anyone help or direct us to someone who can?

Please answer here or at Craftydog@dogbrothers.com or 310-540-7521.

Thank you,
Crafty Dog

The following depressing piece kicks off this thread:
=====================================

 

 



Originally published in the April/May 2004 issue of Boston Review.

 

End of the Wild

The extinction crisis is over. We lost.

Stephen M. Meyer

For the past several billion years evolution on Earth has been driven by small-scale incremental forces such as sexual selection, punctuated by cosmic-scale disruptions?plate tectonics, planetary geochemistry, global climate shifts, and even extraterrestrial asteroids. Sometime in the last century that changed. Today the guiding hand of evolution is unmistakably human, with earth-shattering consequences.

The fossil record and statistical studies suggest that the average rate of extinction over the past hundred million years has hovered at several species per year. Today the extinction rate surpasses 3,000 species per year and is accelerating rapidly?it may soon reach the tens of thousands annually. In contrast, new species are evolving at a rate of less than one per year.

Over the next 100 years or so as many as half of the Earth's species, representing a quarter of the planet's genetic stock, will either completely or functionally disappear. The land and the oceans will continue to teem with life, but it will be a peculiarly homogenized assemblage of organisms naturally and unnaturally selected for their compatibility with one fundamental force: us. Nothing?not national or international laws, global bioreserves, local sustainability schemes, nor even "wildlands" fantasies?can change the current course. The path for biological evolution is now set for the next million years. And in this sense "the extinction crisis"?the race to save the composition, structure, and organization of biodiversity as it exists today?is over, and we have lost.

This is not the wide-eyed prophecy of radical Earth First! activists or the doom-and-gloom tale of corporate environmentalists trying to boost fundraising. It is the story that is emerging from the growing mountain of scientific papers that have been published in prestigious scientific journals such as Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences over the past decade.

The Real Impact

Through our extraordinary capacity to modify the world around us, we human beings are creating a three-tiered hierarchy of life built around human selection. The great irony here is that this anthropogenic transformation of the biosphere springs as much from our deliberate efforts to protect and manage the life around us as it does from our wanton disregard for the natural environment.

At one extreme we are making the planet especially hospitable for the weedy species: plants, animals and other organisms that thrive in continually disturbed, human-dominated environments. (I borrow this term from David Quammen's seminal A Planet of Weeds.) Many of these organisms are adaptive generalists?species that flourish in a variety of ecological settings, easily switch among food types, and breed prolificly. And some have their needs met more completely and efficiently by humans than by Mother Nature. In the United States, for example, there are five times as many raccoons (Procyon lotor) per square mile in suburban settings than in corresponding natural populations in "the wild."

From dandelions to coyotes, weedy species will enjoy expanding populations, spatial distribution, ecological dominance, and opportunities for further speciation into the far future. Many of these species have become so comfortable living with us that they have been labeled pests, requiring stringent control measures: the common (Norway) rat (Rattus norvegicus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) come immediately to mind.

Living on the margins in ever-decreasing numbers and limited spatial distribution are relic species. Relic species cannot thrive in human-dominated environments?which now nearly cover the planet. Facing the continual threat of extinction, relic species will linger in either ecologically marginalized populations (e.g., prairie dogs and elephants) or carefully managed boutique populations (e.g., pandas). Most, including the Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), and virtually all of Hawaii's endemic plants, will require for survival our permanent, direct, and heavy-handed management, including captive breeding and continuous restocking.

Other relics, such as rare alpine plants, may survive in isolated patches through benign neglect. Over time they will experience progressive genetic erosion and declining numbers, and will rapidly lose their ecological value. In essence, they will be environmental ornaments.

But a large fraction of the non-weedy species will not be fortunate enough to have special programs to extend their survival or will be incapable of responding to such efforts. These are the ghost species?organisms that cannot or will not be allowed to survive on a planet with billions of people. Although they may continue to exist for decades, their extinction is certain, apart from a few specimens in zoos or a laboratory-archived DNA sample.

Some, such as the East Asian giant soft-shell turtle (extirpated except for one left in the wild) and the dusky seaside sparrow (extinct), are incapable of adapting their highly specialized needs rapidly enough to keep up with human-induced pressures. Others we intentionally try to eradicate. Although they are now protected, wolves and black-tailed prairie dogs in North America were once hunted for extermination as part of federal and state animal-control programs (and unofficially, they still are). In Africa, the lion population has plunged from over 200,000 in 1980 to under 20,000 today due to preemptive eradication by livestock herders.

Still other prospective ghosts we simply consume beyond their capacity to successfully reproduce?for food, for commercial products, or as pets. Recent reports suggest that we have consumed 90 percent of the stocks of large predatory fish, such as tuna and swordfish, in the world's oceans. And while 10,000 tigers live as private pets in the United States, fewer than 7,000 live in the wild throughout the world!

A great many of the plants and animals we perceive as healthy and plentiful today are in fact relics and ghosts. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that species loss is not a simple linear process. Many decades can pass between the start of a decline and the collapse of a population structure, especially where moderate-to-long-lived life forms are involved.

Conservation biologists use the term "extinction debt" to describe this gap between appearance and reality. In the past century we have accumulated a vast extinction debt that will be paid, with interest, in the century ahead. The number of plants and animals we "discover" to be threatened will expand out of control as the extinction debt comes due.

Thus, over the next hundred years, upwards of half of the earth's species are destined to become relics or ghosts, while weedy species will constitute an ever-growing proportion of the plants and animals around us. By virtue of their compatibility with us, weedy species can follow us around the planet, homogenizing (in both plausible interpretations of the word) the biosphere by filling in the spaces vacated by relics and ghosts. More and more we will encounter on every continent remarkably similar, if not the very same, species of plants, insects, mammals, birds, and other organisms.

How Did We Get Here?

Although we have been aware of species losses for decades, only recently has it become apparent that the biotic world as we have known it is collapsing. The causes, varied and complex, fall into three broad disturbance categories: landscape transformation, geochemical modification (pollution), and biotic consumption and manipulation. Each reflects some aspect of human-induced manipulation of the environment, as these examples from the news show:

New housing developments in Scotland will destroy critical habitat for Britain's threatened red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), which has disappeared from most of its former range.
Logging and agricultural development have reduced the distribution of Chile's famed national tree?the monkey puzzle tree (Araucaria araucana)?to three small areas of the country, where it is vulnerable to fire and illegal logging.
A new dam in Belize will flood vital habitat for rare species of jaguars, macaws, and crocodiles in a valley linking to wildlife preserves.
Biologically active quantities of common over-the-counter and prescription drugs (e.g., Prozac) are ubiquitous in European and North American urban and suburban waste waters, where discharge to streams and rivers wreaks havoc on aquatic animal endocrine systems.
Polar bears endure body concentrations of PCB and other industrial toxins hundreds of times higher than those of animals living where the pollutants are emitted, thousands of miles away.
Eighty percent of Caribbean corals have died off in the past two decades from diseases fuelled by nutrient pollution from municipal waste-water treatment plants and agricultural runoff flooding into coastal waters.
Demand for "bush meat" in Africa (which sells for 30 percent of the price of farmed meat) is now outstripping supply, seriously depleting wildlife populations in general and great apes in particular. Meanwhile the international trade in bush meat and animal parts is growing exponentially, fetching prices many times those in domestic markets.
During the past two years half of the world's remaining Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) were wiped out by trophy hunters, leaving fewer than 300 animals in the wild?ensuring the extirpation of the species.
Collecting freshwater and marine fish for the aquarium trade reduces wild populations of targeted species by 75 percent in commercial collection areas.
Cheatgrass, introduced into North America around 1900, has displaced native vegetation across broad areas of rangeland in western North America, devastating the local ecology. A prolific annual of low nutritive value, cheatgrass dries up early in the season, fueling extensive range fires that wipe out native plants and leave little food or shelter for wildlife.
Native aquatic food webs in South America are being destroyed by the introduction of the North American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)?a voracious predator.
When these factors?development, agriculture, resource consumption, pollution, alien species, etc.?are considered separately, the problem seems quite manageable. Sprawl can be fixed with smart growth. The demand for agricultural land and high-intensity farming can be dampened through dietary changes. Natural resource over-consumption in logging, hunting, fishing, and the exotic pet trade can be reduced through education, regulation, and policing. And the proliferation of alien species can be stopped through better laws and inspections. But this is a gross simplification: the appearance of tractability is created only by taking the causes one at a time.

Consider the plight of a simple, undemanding, and modestly adaptable creature: the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). These amphibians live most of the year underground in upland fields and woodlands. Each winter they migrate thousands of feet to their natal breeding pools to find mates and lay eggs. After several weeks of carousing they return to their underground burrows in the surrounding uplands.

The key to the breeding success of these salamanders is the ephemeral nature of the pools. The pools exist as dry depressions for six months of the year. Then, as heavy spring rains flood the region, these shallow basins fill with water, creating vernal pools. Tiger salamanders have come to rely on these temporary pools because, since they are dry part of the year, they cannot support naturally occurring fish populations. Thus, the salamanders' eggs are relatively safe from predation. As the eggs hatch, the larvae find themselves immersed in a bath of food: the water is bursting with millions of planktonic organisms. The salamander larvae grow rapidly?and they need to, because with the rains gone the pools dry up quickly, and unless the juvenile salamanders mature and move out into the surrounding terrain they will die. And so it has been for millions of years.

But not anymore. Today the California tiger salamander is disappearing. First, the upland habitat where it lives is prime real estate for residential, commercial, and agricultural development. Between 50 and 75 percent of its native habitat has already been lost, and more than 100 development projects are pending in the remaining areas. Woodlands are cut down and fields plowed up to make room for houses, lawns, schools, shopping centers, and roadways. Many vernal pools themselves are simply filled.

Where pools are spared bulldozing they are pressed into service as roadside storm basins to collect runoff from lawns, roads, and driveways?water saturated with fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and heavy metals. The nitrogen and phosphorus in the runoff stimulates massive algal blooms that drives oxygen levels in the pools down to deadly levels, suffocating a large proportion of the animals. High concentrations of herbicides and pesticides in the runoff kill many juveniles and, in lower doses, alter metabolic chemistry in ways that bizarrely change sexual development, immune function, and even limb development.

Even setting aside local sources of contamination, the water in the pools is increasingly laden with a cocktail of toxic compounds (e.g., the herbicide atrazine) that are not used locally. Blowing in from industrial and agricultural sites many hundreds of miles away, these endocrine-disrupting compounds significantly reduce breeding success and foster grotesque developmental abnormalities.

Then there is the army of alien species?bullfrogs, crayfish, and other predators?that have been introduced intentionally into the landscape. These voracious hunters consume huge numbers of salamander larvae and juveniles, further decimating the tiger salamanders. In some instances, non-native salamanders (former pets) have been released into local pools, reducing breeding success and posing the risk of hybridization. And fish are frequently added to the temporary pools to devour mosquitoes during the wet season. While this makes life more comfortable for nearby human inhabitants, it exhausts the young salamanders' food supply.

But the assault does not end there. The regularity of spring rains is being replaced by recurrent three- and four-year droughts. Several generations of tiger salamanders therefore never emerge to replace the animals lost to natural and unnatural causes. In the past, tiger salamanders persisted despite climate variations by virtue of wandering individuals who trundled aimlessly through networks of wetlands until they chanced upon new vernal pools and restarted the population. But that is no longer possible because the matrix of connecting wetlands has been eliminated, and habitat fragmentation makes the chance encounter with a car tire many orders of magnitude greater than an encounter with either a suitable mate or a suitable habitat.

Finally, where residual populations of tiger salamanders have survived despite the odds in still isolated locations, they have become a target of the pet trade. Children are paid 25 cents per salamander to collect these highly prized animals, which are then sold for $15 a piece in U.S. pet shops and for more than $200 overseas. In fact the global trade in "exotics" such as tiger salamanders is growing explosively, especially for reptiles and amphibians. Probably one in a thousand salamanders survives the commerce and perhaps one in a thousand of these survives a few years in captivity.

This story is neither fictional nor unique. It is, in fact, the rule. One could tell similar stories of the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis), the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the Lesothan succulent Aloe polyphylla, and most other species in decline. Relic species generally face an overwhelming web of threats that are impossible to disentangle.

Further complicating the picture are two meta-disturbances: global climate change and economic globalization. Climate change will make many areas inhospitable to their present inhabitants. Entire biotic communities will be evicted: coastal wetlands will be permanently submerged, many cloud forests will dry out, some dry savannas will become lush while others become deserts. Studies suggest that the types of climate shifts we can expect over the next century are well within the experiential history of most species that have survived the last two million years. In the past, most could have moved to new regions. But today only weedy species have the capacity to migrate and reestablish thriving populations in new habitats, which invariably are human-disturbed areas. For the rest, there is either no place to go because acceptable habitat has been reduced to a few isolated patches surrounded by a sea of human development. There is no way for non-weedy species to get to potentially more suitable locations (if they exist) hundreds of miles away because of interposed cities, roadways, subdivisions, shopping centers, and airports.

Economic globalization exacerbates the species-loss problem in several ways. Globalization increases the demand for natural resources in remote and undeveloped regions. In locations previously occupied by subsistence villages, labor towns spring up to support foreign timber and mining operations. As foreign capital flows into undeveloped regions it inflates the price paid for local goods, thereby increasing incentives for over-exploitation to feed the lucrative export market. Timber from the Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests bought and paid for by Japanese firms brings a much higher return than the same lumber sold in local markets. Over 80 percent of these rainforests have now been logged, with the consequence that the orangutan population is now less than ten percent of what it was decades ago.

Perhaps most importantly, the booming trade of the globalized economy accelerates the pace of alien species being transported around the globe. Breaking down economic barriers effectively breaks down geographic, ecological, and biotic barriers as vast numbers of plants and animals are shipped worldwide to support the pet and horticultural trades. Although presently only about five percent of these aliens take hold and flourish in their new environs, five percent of an exploding number is itself a large number. (As a reference point, 25 percent of the vascular plants in the United States today are alien species.)

Unintended introductions of alien plants, animals, and other organisms are even more threatening since authorities make no attempt to screen out truly harmful organisms. Alien pests, parasites, and predators take an increasingly high toll on native ecosystems. As ships and planes shuttle between continents carrying unprecedented volumes of cargo, they cart with them a growing roster of stow-away organisms. The Asian long-horn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), for example, invaded the United States in 1996 encased in wood crates from China or Korea. Spreading through New York and Chicago, they decimated local trees, especially maples. Since then, adult beetles have been intercepted at 17 U.S. ports.

Thus, climate change and economic globalization are powerful agents of human selection that amplify and make irreversible the traditional and localized human disturbances that undermine biodiversity.

Why There Is Nothing We Can Do

As our awareness of the extinction crisis has grown, we have taken some ameliorative actions. In the United States we have imposed rules upon ourselves to try to halt the loss. The U.S. Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking, harm, or harassment of some 1,300 plants and animals designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some critical habitats of these species are also protected. In addition, 44 of the 50 states have some form of state-level endangered species act of their own, through which they try to protect locally threatened species.

Since the early 1990s the European Union has had its Habitat Directive, which makes it illegal to kill or harm about 700 protected species or to disrupt 168 specially designated habitats. Approaching the problem from a different angle is the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), which, as the name implies, is an attempt by the international community-presently over 150 countries-to limit the global trade in threatened species. About 30,000 plants and animals are on the CITES list. Thousands of species are added annually.

Meanwhile, nations, acting individually and through international conventions, have attempted to set aside biologically valuable landscapes and ocean areas as wildlife refuges and bioreserves. More than ten percent of the earth now has some form of protected status. The Parsa Reserve in Nepal covers about 500 square kilometers and offers sanctuary to a range of creatures, including 300 species of birds. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, encompassing over 400,000 square kilometers of ocean, protects about 70 percent of the coral reef ecosystems in the United States. Over 7,000 marine species are associated with this area, of which 25 percent are found nowhere else on the planet.

Recognizing that governments have limited political and fiscal resources, nongovernmental organizations have moved to impede the flow of species loss through land protection, public education, litigation, and policy advocacy. The Nature Conservancy claims to have helped to preserve over 117 million acres of wildlife habitat over the past 50-plus years. In the United States the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and others use the courts to force recalcitrant government agencies to implement and enforce existing conservation laws and regulations.

A casual reading of the news would suggest these efforts are paying off:

By 1939 the number of whooping cranes (Grus americana) in the United States had declined to 18. Thanks to captive breeding, today there are over 300 whooping cranes, with 180 living in the wild. In an astounding effort, humans piloting ultralight aircraft taught a novice flock how to migrate from Florida to Wisconsin.
The population of Puerto Rican crested toads (Peltophryne lemur) has tripled to 300 over the past 25 years thanks to captive breeding in U.S. zoos and restocking in the wild.
A recent survey of tigers in India's Sunderbans Forest suggests that the preserve's population is stable and may even reflect an increase in cubs.
The last remaining patch of Kneeland prairie penny-cress (Thlaspi californicum), found in only one California county, will be saved with a ten-year, $300,000 conservation effort.
Perhaps if we dedicated a few billion dollars more, increased cooperative efforts among governments, expanded the system of bioreserves walling off biodiversity hot spots, cultivated sustainable economics among local communities, and reduced human consumption habits we could save the earth's biota.

Unfortunately, such efforts are far too little and far, far too late. In fact these and similar apparent success stories reflect a much more insidious process that is reshaping the living earth. Our most common tools for preserving biodiversity?prohibitory laws and regulations, bioreserves, and sustainable-development programs?are themselves powerful engines of human selection, tweaking (for our pleasure) but not fundamentally altering the outcome: massive species loss.

Prohibitory regulation. Virtually by definition all regulatory efforts at species protection and recovery are focused on relics and (unknowingly) ghosts, which have no chance of true recovery. Occasionally there are extraordinary exceptions, such as the American alligator, which having been almost extirpated is once again abundant. But our very few alleged successes are nothing more than manifestations of the growing dominance of human selection in evolution.

The very notion that we could regulate ourselves out of the extinction crisis?that government could force the wild to remain wild?is based on a fundamentally false premise: that the causes of species extinction are finite and reducible and that the number of true threatened species is reasonably limited. When the U.S. Endangered Species Act was recrafted in the early 1970s, wildlife experts naively believed that at most a few hundred species would require protection. Although the current U.S. list of domestic "endangered species" tops 1,300, the list would contain almost 5,000 entries if politics did not prevent it. (Species may be placed on the U.S. Endangered Species list only after a biological review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Practically all such reviews these days are initiated by petitions from environmental groups. The Bush administration has halted these reviews, claiming it has run out of money.)

More to the point, the great irony is that the U.S. Endangered Species Act is the very institutionalization of human-driven evolution. We decide which species get on the list for protection and which are kept off. We decide which habitats of listed species will be labeled critical. We decide the recovery goals: how many of a given plant or animal should be allowed to persist, in how many "populations," and where they should (and should not) be distributed across the landscape. The official recovery goal for wild bison is for a total population in the low thousands, not their original numbers in the tens of millions. The wolf recovery plan envisions several dozen packs confined to carefully delineated refuges in a few key states, not free-roaming wolf packs in every state that would reflect their true former range. And the government still shoots both species if they wander off designated lands. Recovery goals for plants (for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spends less than five percent of what it spends on animals) are limited to restoring populations in the locations where they are presently growing as relics and ghosts, not to restoring their former range.

Similarly, International Whaling Commission rules, CITES, and other international conventions convert human values into biotic structure; they are not regimes designed for ecological restoration. How many minke whales are sufficient to allow hunting? How many zoo requests for gorillas should be honored? Fundamentally, the determination of which species make it onto these protection lists and the timing of those listings is more about what appeals to us in an aesthetic and charismatic way and economics than about pivotal ecological roles and biology. Pandas get lots of attention and support; the many thousands of disappearing aquatic invertebrates do not.

Although legal prohibitions and strict enforcement can preserve some relic species at the margins and temporarily forestall the extinction of ghost species, they cannot prevent or even slow the end of the wild. Regulation, then, does little more than transform nature into a product of the human imagination.

Refuges and preserves. Biologists and ecologists have long recognized the limitations of species-specific preservation and have lobbied instead for the creation of protected areas that would shield ecosystems and all the plants and animals within. The idea behind refuges, bioreserves, and the like is to somehow wall off the wild from the harmful disturbances of humanity. Set aside 20,000 acres, limit human activity, and allow nature to proceed unhindered in its special space. And for a while this appears to work. But this too is largely an illusion. The refuges and bioreserves we set aside are no more than our paltry conception of an ecosystem, and the species within their boundaries are in most instances part of the extinction debt and all the while in decline.

As they exist today, bioreserves are the proverbial barrel in which fish are more easily shot: three quarters of the deaths of large carnivores in bioreserves are causedby people. The failures of this approach are only now becoming obvious.

Direct and indirect human encroachment into bioreserves is relentless and, with ever expanding populations in the developing world, unavoidable. Mexico's Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve, North America's last remaining rain forest, extends across 820,000 acres and is home to half of Mexico's bird species. Having already lost a quarter of its tree cover in the last 30 years to illegal logging by local residents (which Mexican authorities have ignored) the park has become a magnet for those looking for land to clear and till. In Africa and Asia, bioreserves have become the preferred hunting grounds for poachers and bush-meat traders: that is, after all, where the animals are!

Bioreserves will always be too small and too isolated from each other to accomplish their stated goal of preserving the wild as it is today. Embedded in a matrix of human habitation?cities, towns, farms, mining and logging operations?they cannot be insulated from broader human disturbances in the region, even if their own boundaries remain inviolate.

Consider one of the world's favorite eco-tourist destinations: the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. This ecologically significant area covers more than 30,000 acres and hosts more than 2,500 plant species, 100 mammalian species, 400 bird species, 120 reptilian and amphibian species, and thousands of insects. The problem is that the cloud forest appears to be drying out. Deforestation is the apparent cause, but not from logging in the preserve. Rather, the clearing of lowland areas outside the preserve for agriculture is causing changes in the local patterns of fog and mist formation, thereby altering cloud formation up in the preserve. Thus, despite strong protections within its boundaries, the cloud forest may soon lack its defining feature: clouds. And the multitude of species that depend on that moisture will go the way of the extinct golden toad.

This weakness in the call for specific ecosystem preservation becomes all the more apparent in the context of climate change. The creation of a network of isolated, independent bioreserves assumes that the global environment?in particular the global climate?is relatively static. For the past 11,000 years this would have been a fair assumption. But this has changed. Climate models project far cooler and wetter weather during the critical winter months in what are now the most important Monarch-butterfly wintering grounds in Mexico, the Monarch Butterfly Bioreserve, which will become unlivable to the insects over the next few decades. Similar problems confront many of Europe's protected birds.

Lastly, by concentrating species within a limited geographic area, bioreserves increase the vulnerability of relic species to catastrophic, unrecoverable losses from natural disasters, epizootic diseases, war, and so on. During the summer of 2003, for example, fires in Brazil's two refuges that are home to the Brazilian Merganser duck (Mergus octosetaceus) wiped out 70 percent of one of the 53,000-square-kilometer parks while decimating large parts of the other and may lead to the creature's extinction. Only 250 existed before the fire.

Ultimately the transformation of wilderness into a patchwork of static bioreserves is just another tool of human selection?the antithesis of the wild.

Sustainable communities. Much has been said and written about sustainable communities as a social approach to easing the extinction crisis. Sustainability has been something of a crusade for the UN, various international agencies, and many nongovernmental environmental organizations. The argument goes that if local communities could learn to live within the carrying capacity of their environs, the pressures on terrestrial and marine ecosystems would be eased. And of course this is true.

But in the context of the extinction crisis, sustainable development is an anthropocentric resource-use policy, not an ecological model. Consumptive demand measured against resource supply, not ecosystem function, determines the limit of sustainability. What is the maximum amount of mahogany, or tuna, or leopard pelts that can be harvested and still allow projected human demand for the product to be met for the foreseeable future? The demands of the ecosystem are not truly part of the equation.

In addition, for sustainable development to have an impact on conservation it must be tied directly to local demand, where the costs of overexploitation are borne by those who benefit from it. This makes sustainable economic programs a moving target because communities grow. As medical services and standards of living improve, the size of a community, its economic aspirations, and its demands for resources grow. What was sustainable for a Kenyan village in 2000 will not be sustainable in 2020. The collapse of Africa's wildlife populations in the face of the bush-meat trade is just one example.

Moreover, if there was ever a hope for this strategy, even at a limited level, economic globalization destroyed it. Consider what might be regarded as an exemplar of sustainable development: Brazil-nut harvesting in the Amazon. Originally the idea was to protect the rain forest by creating a local economy based on the collection and sale of Brazil nuts. Initially this was quite successful. But today, local residents in the Brazilian Amazon harvest over 45,000 tons of nuts from the forest floor each year, yielding some $43 million in global trade. Unfortunately, nut gatherers harvest so many nuts that few if any seedlings are taking root. As aging Brazil-nut trees die off, they will not be replaced. Global demand for this environmentally friendly and sustainable crop drives the harvest and has made it unsustainable in the long term.

Similarly, the depletion of global fish stocks shows the basic flaw in the sustainability strategy. Local fishermen fishing for the local market are not depleting the stocks. The problem is the rise of global markets to satisfy the demands of people remote from the fishing grounds. Gross disparities in wealth between those who supply (low-wage labor) and those who demand (high-wage developed societies) ensure that sustainability will be a function of maximum bearable price, not ecological balance.

The notion of sustainable communities, then, is not about the wild. It is about long-term economic efficiency and the wise use of natural resources.

Wildlands. The wildlands concept is fantastic in both senses of the word. This idea, advocated by those in the deep-ecology movement, has two main components. First, national populations would be resettled into tightly drawn sustainable enclaves. In the United States, for example, huge, formerly ecologically significant areas such as Florida and the Rocky Mountains would be depopulated and restored to a natural state. About 50 percent of the United States would be converted into an expansive set of connected wildlands, surrounded by extensive buffers. Human access to this half of the country would be prohibited. Similar wildlands could be created on every continent.

Second, extensive social engineering would be necessary to alter land use and consumption patterns. The goal would be to reduce the ecological footprint of humanity so that much of the planet could be free from human exploitation.

In theory this strategy could reduce the slide of ghosts and relics into oblivion if it could be implemented immediately and universally. It would be a form of global ecological zoning that would significantly lessen the influence of human selection in the excluded regions. Wildlands would enable species and populations to adapt to climate change. As an ecologically centered strategy it is most likely the only approach that could truly reduce the scale and scope of the biotic collapse that is already underway.

Yet the notion that upwards of seven billion people could live hobbit-like with nature is hard to accept. With the right social framework we might have been able to do it modestly in 1304, but not in 2004 and certainly not in 2104. Global society is moving rapidly and inexorably in the opposite direction.

To be fair, advocates of wildlands acknowledge that, owing to enormous social, political, and economic hurdles, their vision would be at minimum a 100-year undertaking. The problem, of course, is that the end of the wild will already be complete.

Genetic engineering. Each year some of my students suggest that genetic engineering can end the cascade of species loss. Why can't we store DNA and, once the technology matures, bring all the species back and release them into the wild?

This kind of Jurassic Park thinking ignores the fact that all of the factors that contributed to species loss will remain in place and probably become even more powerful. If 95 percent of desert-tortoise habitat has been developed and its primary diet of herbs, grasses, and desert flowers is no longer available in 2004, exactly where will our reengineered tortoises live in 2030? At best they could exist as genetic relics in a zoo.

The miracles of genetic engineering cannot alter the fact that the wild will cease to exist even if we can individually manufacture each of its constituent parts.

A Reason to Do Nothing?

We cannot prevent the end of the wild. Absent an immediate 95-percent reduction in the human population (a truly horrendous thought), we cannot change our current course. This leads us to the question, If we are unalterably moving to a world in which half the currently existing species will be relics or ghosts, why should we continue to do anything to preserve biodiversity? Why not rescind national and international laws protecting endangered species, eliminate bioreserves, and let the unfettered market determine how and where we consume natural resources? By bowing to the serendipitous elements of human selection in setting the course of biotic development and evolution we could happily bulldoze, pave, or grass over every square inch of the planet in the pursuit of human progress. But it is not that simple.

This why-bother strategy would greatly magnify the scale, scope, and destructive consequences of the end of the wild. First, it would effectively bifurcate the earth's biota into two groups: weedy species and ghost species, the latter subsuming virtually all relics. And in this respect the number of lost organisms would surely shoot well past the 50-percent threshold noted earlier, while the time scale would contract to decades rather than a century-plus.

Indeed, even weedy species could face serious threats in this environment. The American crow and the blue jay, for example, have already seen their numbers decimated in many areas of the United States as a consequence of the invasion of the alien West Nile Virus, which first struck in 1999.

Second, this human-selected biosphere will not necessarily be a human-friendly one. Without direct management many species that we view as key natural resources, such as timber trees and marine fish stocks, would be consumed out of existence. The invisible hand of the market is all too invisible when it comes to the exploitation of natural commodities. The multiple collapses of once bountiful Atlantic and Pacific fisheries?which are now regulated, albeit poorly-represent just a taste of what would happen without any controls in place. (The North Atlantic, for example, has less than 20 percent of the fish it held in 1900.) The destructive effects would rebound through the economies of many nations.

Certain types of ecosystems and biotic communities, such as tropical rain forests and wetlands, might completely disappear. Thirty-five percent of the world's mangrove swamps?essential breeding habitat for many marine fish species?have already been lost, and the rate of destruction is accelerating annually. Surviving ecosystems would be impoverished and would fail to provide the range of services (e.g., water purification, flood and storm damage control) that we depend on.

Third, this approach would almost certainly increase the predominance of pests, parasites, and disease-causing organisms among the weedy species. Already today white-tailed deer populations in the United States (and Britain) have been allowed to grow virtually unchecked. There are now over 350,000 deer-auto collisions a year in the United States (50,000 in the U.K.), resulting in over 10,000 serious injuries to motorists, 150 human deaths annually, and billions of dollars in property damage. (By comparison there have been fewer than 50 confirmed human killings by mountain lions in the United States in the past 100 years.) In Britain there are about 50,000 auto-deer collisions, 2,400 human injuries, and 20 deaths. White-tailed deer, moreover, are an essential vector for the highly debilitating Lyme disease, which is spreading rapidly in the eastern United States. Indeed, many human pathogens and diseases are likely to flourish in this environment, finding it easy to skip around the world from country to country as was the recent case of the SARS virus.

Fourth, the global spread of invasive species would explode if left unchecked. Ecological concerns such as biotic homogenization aside, the economic toll would be disastrous. The economic harm caused by the 50,000 non-native invasive plants, animals, and other organisms already in the United States is approaching $140 billion per year. Florida's government alone spends $45 million annually battling invasive species, which cause some $180 million in agricultural damage.

The why-bother approach, moreover, would kill off a large proportion of the relic species in the wild that have particular psychological importance (existence value) to humanity: elephants, gorillas, whales, owls, and hawks, and other charismatic animals. From a humanist standpoint the quality of life on earth would plummet.

In the end, the notion that we could let nature take its course in a world so dominated by humanity is as dangerous as it is self-contradictory. Like it or not, nature now works for us. If humanity is to survive and prosper on such a planet then we have no choice but to at least try to manage the fine details of the end of the wild.

Since we cannot possibly restore relic and ghost species to their former status, nor do we have the knowledge to pick evolutionary winners and losers, we should focus on two core concerns: (1) safeguarding future evolutionary processes and pathways and (2) preserving ecosystem processes and functions.

We should begin with a massive and sustained two-decade global effort, reminiscent of the International Geophysical Year, to map systematically and dynamically the earth's biota. Only about 20 percent of the earth's species have been formally described. We need to know what is here, how it lives, what it does, and what is happening to it in order to prepare for what will be lost. More significantly we need to understand the intricacies of genetic and functional relationships among species?especially for relics and ghosts?to understand how evolutionary and ecological processes will be altered.

This means recording not just what species exist, how they look, what they do, and how they are linked together, but also what is happening to them as populations, as communities of populations, and at the landscape level. Undoubtedly this will be expensive, but spending $100 billion over the next decade to understand fully the dimensions of the accelerating biotic extinction on Earth will have infinitely greater significance for humanity than scratching at the surface of Mars for signs of remotely hypothetical billion-year-old bacterial extinctions.

Meanwhile we must move away from the haphazard strategy of protecting relic and ghost species in isolation. Specifically, we can begin to think about trans-regional schemes for building meta-reserves. These would be non-contiguous assemblages of terrestrial and aquatic sanctuaries and proto-sanctuaries, significantly larger than current bioreserves. Sites would be selected to protect broad ecosystem functions and processes in a dynamic environment rather than species-specific habitat needs or singly-defining (highly peculiar) ecological characteristics. In other words, these meta-reserves would involve the designation of multiple and disparate terrestrial and aquatic refuges, many of which could have future, but not current, special biodiversity value. Each meta-reserve would be modeled around an one or more existing core biodiversity hot spots and a constellation of satellite sites, with the expectation that climate change and other human disturbances are likely to shift the ecological processes and habitat values of current biodiversity hot spots among these sites. The satellite sites of these meta reserves would periodically receive (by our doing) biotic community transplants as experimental "migrations" as abiotic characteristics such as rainfall change. The goal?admittedly a gamble?would be to avoid mistakes like the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reservation.

For these meta-reserves to operate properly, three conditions will have to be met. First, plant and animal populations within these meta-reserves will have to be actively and heavily managed at all levels ? exactly the opposite of how we think about present-day bioreserves. Ecosystems cannot be conserved by benign neglect. We must determine population levels within the meta-reserves as well as when and where plants and animals should migrate among meta-reserve sites. We must determine when it is time to introduce new genes into a species, as we are presently doing with the Florida panther. Restricted-range and sessile species would require our explicit intervention to disperse them to potential new habitat areas.

Second, meta-reserves would need highly porous wildlife boundaries within a broad network of corridors and connections (e.g., forest tracts and wetlands) allowing wildlife to move freely and stochastically to new areas. Movement, migration, and colonization are the goals of meta-reserves, not imprisonment. These corridors would be buffered by wide swaths of landscape where ecologically compatible agriculture and heavily regulated resource use were allowed.

Third, given the above, substantial human and financial resources would have to be devoted to continuous management and rigorous enforcement, or else these efforts will be futile. Annual global spending on ecosystem protection (including acquisition) is just over $3 billion (the price of two B-2 bombers). In order to nudge the end of the wild toward a more human-friendly outcome, we need to spend ten times that much to compensate for the unintended impact of human selection.

In this context the issue of alien plant and animal species becomes problematic. On the one hand the intentional and unintentional movement of species among the continents can be a dangerous and harmful manifestation of human selection. Controlling the flow of exotic parasites, pests, and predators will increase the cost of global commerce and disrupt short-term profits. But it will save far more in the costs associated with trying to eradicate destructive alien pests such as the zebra muscle or the Formosan termite.

On the other hand, in confronting the end of the wild, the notion of meta-reserves implies that the intentional transplanting of alien species might be desirable from an evolutionary perspective. If climate change and development are going to render some regions unsuitable for certain species, should we transplant them out-of-region to where they might thrive? For example, the Puerto Rican coqui (Eleutherodactylus coqui), a tree frog, is under increasing pressure from development and pollution at home. But in Hawaii (where they were illegally transported) they are thriving. Habitat substitution in the face of dynamic environmental change is not the same as biotic homogenization. Should we oppose it or employ it?

Finally, prohibitive policies such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act and CITES need to be kept in place and strengthened. Although they are at best stop-gap measures, they buy time for us to examine the ecological roles of relic and ghost species and assess the impact of their loss. Perhaps more significant is their moral imperative. Like the Ten Commandments, they remind us who we could be. They make us examine our own behavior and obligations as the planet's stewards while giving pause to the brazen and needless destruction of species in our own backyards.

The end of the wild does not mean a barren world. There will be plenty of life. It will just be different: much less diverse, much less exotic, far more predictable, and?given the dominance of weedy species?probably far more annoying. We have lost the wild. Perhaps in 5 to 10 million years it will return. <

Stephen M. Meyer is a professor of political science at MIT and the director of the MIT Project on Environmental Politics and Policy.

 

Recommended reading:

 

Andrew Balmford, Rhys E. Green, and Martin Jenkins, ?Measuring the Changing State of Nature,? Trends in Research in Evolutionary Ecology 18 (2003): 326?330.

Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary Paul Nabhan, The Forgotten Pollinators (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books, 1996).

Gretchen Daily, ed., Nature?s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997).

Goncalo Ferraz et al., ?Rates of Species Loss from Amazonian Forest Fragments,? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (2003): 14069?14073.

John H. Lawton and Robert M. May, eds., Extinction Rates (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Julie L. Lockwood and Michael L. McKinney, eds., Biotic Homogenization (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001).

Norman Myers and Andrew H. Knoll, ?The Biotic Crisis and the Future of Evolution,? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2001): 5389?5392. [This issue of PNAS includes a number of provocative papers from a colloquium on this topic.]

John F. Oates, Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999).

David Quammen, ?Planet of Weeds: Tallying the Losses of Earth?s Animals and Plants,? Harper?s, October 1998.

Michael L. Rosenzweig, ?The Four Questions: What Does the Introduction of Exotic Species Do to Diversity?,? Evolutionary Ecology Research 3 (2001): 361?367. (PDF)

John Terborgh, Requiem for Nature (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999).

J.A. Thomas et al., ?Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, and Plants and the Global Extinction Crisis,? Science 303 (2004): 1879?1881.

Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, and Jerry M. Melillo, ?Human Domination of Earth?s Ecosystems,? Science 277 (1997): 494?499.

Gian-Reto Walther et al., ?Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change,? Nature 416 (2002): 389-395.

E.O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999).

David S. Woodruff, ?Declines of Biomes and Biotas and the Future of Evolution,? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2001): 5471?5476.

Atienza Kali
 

October 1st                                              
11AM to 4pm
Integrated Martial Arts
2831 Junipero Ave #609
Signal Hill, Ca, 90755
www.intmartialarts.com
   Price $75.00/day

Atienza Kali evolved primarily as a blade system utilizing weapons of all sizes. This system excels in dealing with realistic solutions to many common street situations; particularly multi-man and mass attack scenarios. This seminar is open to the general public of all skill levels. Long training blades and eye protection required. Training blades will be available for purchase at the seminar. Those interested in becoming members of the Southern California Atienza training group can contact 562-492-6951 for further information.

Please call (562) 492-6951 for further information. Go to www.intmartialarts.com to register and get directions.

September 3 - 4, 2005
Zurich, SWITZERLAND
Dog Brothers Martial Arts Seminar
Featuring Guro Marc "Crafty Dog" Denny
Contact Benjamin Rittiner
lonelydog@bluewin.ch

Woof All:

I will be doing my second seminar for noted close quarter gun instructor Gabe Suarez in Prescott on August 13-14.  We will be convering Short Impact Weapons.

The seminar will be kept small deliberately-- attendance is limited.  In addition to Gabe's people, preference will be given to members of the DBMA Association.

If interested, contact me directly.

Woof,
Guro Crafty

Guau a todos:

Usare' este hilo para dar noticias.

Nuestro "Dog Brothers Gathering of the Pack" tendra' lugar este domingo.  Por lo cual, no tendre' mucho tiempo para participar aqui hasta la proxima semana.

Guau,
Crafty Dog

Guau:

!Bienvenidos a todos al nuevo sitio de nuestro foro en Espanol!

Nuestro Webmaster esta' trabajando para llevar las contribuciones del sitio anterior para aqui.

La Aventura continua , , ,

Guau,
Crafty Dog

Woof All:

This thread is for matters pertaining to MMA.

Woof,
Crafty Dog
======================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ULTIMATE_FIGHTING_BAN

Jun 1, 12:11 PM EDT

Boston Bans 'Ultimate Fighting' Event

BOSTON (AP) -- City officials have pulled the plug on an "ultimate fighting" event and are threatening to ban the kicking and punching bouts altogether, saying they incite crowds and threaten public safety.

Police and licensing officials blocked a competition planned for this Saturday even though ultimate fighting is legal and is regulated by the Massachusetts Boxing Commission.

"This is not something the city of Boston is going to sanction at this point," said Patricia Malone, head of the city's licensing department.

The fighting is "extremely dangerous" and "incites the crowd. It's definitely a public safety issue," she said.

Ultimate fighting features brawlers inside caged rings. Fights are won by knockout or submission, which usually occurs when a participant is trapped in a dangerous hold. It is legal in most states, but is banned in Illinois and St. Paul, Minn.

"It's basically a mix of 10 styles of fighting that are all legal," said Pat Schultz, 29, a participant from Wareham. "I think the sport might be getting a bad rap from people who don't know about it."

Six hundred tickets were sold for Saturday's event, promoter Mike Varner said. He plans to move the event to a facility in Taunton. "We're licensed. It's regulated. We have insurance," he said.

Ultimate fighting supporters say no one has died in a sanctioned bout. However, at least 10 people have died in "Toughman" amateur boxing matches since that competition started 25 years ago.

Just this weekend, Daniel Quirk, 22, was fatally injured while taking part in a pro wrestling event called Ultimate Championship Wrestling, also in Taunton. Authorities said Quirk, of Shelton, Conn., was outside the ring and attempted to catch another wrestler diving from the top rope. He was knocked off his feet and hit his head on the floor, police said.

? 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Woof All:

My buddy Frank Trigg will be on VH1's "Kept" tonight at 9PM West Coast Time.

Yip!
Crafty Dog

Woof All:

The more things change, the more the song remains the same , , ,

The Adventure continues,
Crafty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From LACHES, or Courage, by Plato (Written 380 B.C.E):

I should not like to maintain, Nicias, that any kind of knowledge is not to be learned; for all knowledge appears to be a good: and if, as Nicias and as the teachers of the art affirm, this use of arms is really a species of knowledge, then it ought to be learned; but if not, and if those who profess to teach it are deceivers only; or if it be knowledge, but not of a valuable sort, then what is the use of learning it? I say this, because I think that if it had been really valuable, the Lacedaemonians, whose whole life is passed in finding out and practising the arts which give them an advantage over other nations in war, would have discovered this one. And even if they had not, still these professors of the art would certainly not have failed to discover that of all the Hellenes the Lacedaemonians have the greatest interest in such matters, and that a master of the art who was honoured among them would be sure to make his fortune among other nations, just as a tragic poet would who is honoured among ourselves; which is the reason why he who fancies that he can write a tragedy does not go about itinerating in the neighbouring states, but rushes straight, and exhibits at Athens; and this is natural. Whereas I perceive that these fighters in armour regard Lacedaemon as a sacred inviolable territory, which they do not touch with the point of their foot; but they make a circuit of the neighbouring states, and would rather exhibit to any others than to the Spartans; and particularly to those who would themselves acknowledge that they are by no means first-rate in the arts of war. Further, Lysimachus, I have encountered a good many of these gentlemen in actual service, and have taken their measure, which I can give you at once; for none of these masters of fence have ever been distinguished in war,-there has been a sort of fatality about them; while in all other arts the men of note have been always those who have practised the art, they appear to be a most unfortunate exception. For example, this very Stesilaus, whom you and I have just witnessed exhibiting in all that crowd and making such great professions of his powers, I have seen at another time making, in sober truth, an involuntary exhibition of himself, which was a far better spectacle. He was a marine on board a ship which struck a transport vessel, and was armed with a weapon, half spear half scythe; the singularity of this weapon was worthy of the singularity of the man. To make a long story short, I will only tell you what happened to this notable invention of the scythe-spear. He was fighting, and the scythe was caught in the rigging of the other ship, and stuck fast; and he tugged, but was unable to get his weapon free. The two ships were passing one another. He first ran along his own ship holding on to the spear; but as the other ship passed by and drew him after as he was holding on, he let the spear slip through his hand until he retained only the end of the handle. The people in the transport clapped their hands, and laughed at his ridiculous figure; and when some one threw a stone, which fell on the deck at his feet, and he quitted of the scythe-spear, the crew of his own trireme also burst out laughing; they could not refrain when they beheld the weapon waving in the air, suspended from the transport. Now I do not deny that there may be something in such an art, as Nicias asserts, but I tell you my experience; and, as I said at first, whether this be an art of which the advantage is so slight, or not an art at all, but only an imposition, in either case such an acquirement is not worth having. For my opinion is, that if the professor of this art be a coward, he will be likely to become rash, and his character will be only more notorious; or if he be brave, and fail ever so little, other men will be on the watch, and he will be greatly traduced; for there is a jealousy of such pretenders; and unless a man be preeminent in valour, he cannot help being ridiculous, if he says that he has this sort of skill. Such is my judgment, Lysimachus, of the desirableness of this art; but, as I said at first, ask Socrates, and do not let him go until he has given you his opinion of the matter.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laches.html

Woof All:

There is a new clip on the opening page of the site: "Los Triques"  

It is the opening to our upcoming DVD (summer 2005) of the same name.

The Adventure continues,
Crafty Dog

http://www.gone2thedogs.com/index.html

It may take a moment to spot where on the page to click for the quiz , , ,

From Trinidad-Tobago
==========================

Tales of a Mayaro stickman

By CALDEO SOOKRAM


Sunday, January 30th 2005
 
 
  
The Panther was always ready for battle. Photo: Caldeo Sookram

"THE Panther fears no stickman. When The Panther reach the gayelle, is serious bois, no time to gallery," said the stickman from Mayaro.

"I don't want to know your name or whey you come from. I come here to battle,'' said Natto Sylvester alias The Panther.

Sylvester said he watched big men play stick when he was a youth.

"I used to look at them big fellas, men like Mayaro Tiger, Tony Red, Boss Frazier, Bandy Alexis, Sonny Bigteeth, Chinkey Fat,'' he recalled.

At the age of 14, Sylvester started to work on Beaumont Estate, a cocoa and coconut plantation in Mayaro.

"On the estate we start playing stick with cocoa chipon, pieces of sticks and things like that,'' he said.

Then one Carnival Monday The Panther made his debut in the stickfighting gayelle, where big men fought and blood flowed, and spectators cheered the heroes and booed the underdogs.

Then they turned and gulped down rum by the bottles, a popular recreation at stickfighting gayelles.

Joe Pringay one of the biggest names in stickfighting arena clashed with the young Panther making his debut in Sangre Grande.

The Panther fought bravely and earned accolades for that.

The long journey for The Panther had now begun. Gayelles in Mayaro, Manzanilla, Moruga, Siparia, Tacarigua, Rio Claro and Sangre Grande were just a few of the battlefields he fought opponents, big and small.

"I had about twenty stickman with me and plenty supporters. We used to travel in cars and van. It didn't have maxi that time,'' he said.

From gayelle to gayelle The Panther roamed and fought for pride, honour and good money too.

"When you see man fighting the pile ah money used to be high,'' he said.

"I went to fight ah stickman one day. The people start to boo me; they waste meh down. They want to know whey I come from, they never hear 'bout me. They bring they king. When I make the second bois I cut they king. All booing done,'' said a laughing Panther, his front teeth visibly missing when he opened his mouth.

"One thing, ah could tell yuh, I was a great breakser. I coulda breaks real good,'' he stressed.

"I get defeated three times and that was because of rum,'' he recalled.

"I see one time ah stick buss and a big bee fly out from the stick. When the police call the man to see the stick, you know the man pelt 'way the stick,'' he said.

"I see man get stick and kneel down. Man get stick and stop talking for days. I hit ah man three lash watap, watap, watap, and he get three bumps on top he head. The man sit down right dey,'' said The Panther.

"When I hear the drum beating, is like ah jumbie calling. I couldn't resist,'' he said.

"I see man, woman and child dance and cry when they hear drum beating,'' he said.

"We start playing stick with flambeau. It didn't have street lights in country area long time,'' he noted.

"When you hear Mayaro and Moruga clash, that was bois. That was the big battle. We make stick. I always hold a stick for Mayaro,'' said The Panther holding up his poui stick as a caution.

The Panther's arms and chest are coated with tattoos.

Female names, his long time girl friends, are etched on his arms.

The Panther's finger tips are now out of shape, having received some dents from "boismen''.

"Well you could see for yuhself,'' he said, displaying the battered finger tips.

Nowadays, The Panther has taken a back seat. He is a pensioner and indulges in a little Play Whe.

He is not happy however, with the state of stickfighting in recent times.

"Them fellas can't fight. They only walking 'round with stick and playing they could fight,'' he lamented.

Woof All:

From a recent thread on the Eskrima Digest:

Woof,
Guro Crafty
=============================================

Turning to the subject at hand,  be it left or right,  I misplaced the issue
with Kim's post but IIRC correctly the gist of it was that many people may
talk ambidexterity but not walk ambidexterity.

This, as far as it goes, is true.

Briefly reprising points made here over the years:

1) Whereas single lead boxing structures (e.g. a righty always having the
left foot forward) develop both sides of the body, single stick structures
as trained by most people tend to increase the difference between dominant and complimentary sides.

2) Fastest initial results may come from working single stick in standard
lead.  IMO this tends to lead to physical imbalances over time.  For many
people double stick takes substantially more training time before good
results are obtained in fighting.

3) People tend to avoid true ambidexterity work because it messes with the ego to work the complimentary side in the dominant function.

4) If the disparity between dominant side and complementary side has been increased by working single stick dominant side first, it becomes even less likely for most people that they will ever really go to work on the complimentary side in dominant function because it will be an even larger "ego bubble pop" to do so.

5) A common response to this ego chatter is to think that matching siniwali drills (right meets right, etc) show ambidexterity.  Under pressure, such training often reveals results exactly as Kim comments.  This is, I think, because in the drills that most people do, the complimentary hand is, in effect, slip streaming the coordination of the dominant hand.  My sense of it however is that true skill is best achieved by the complimentary side of the body being trained in dominant side movement BEFORE the dominant side learns the movements in question.  This explains why lefties who must undergo learning on the right side first in order to "fit in" over time often produce stellar ambidexterity results.  Those of you familiar with Chad Stahelski, may use him as a good example of this.

My own experience was that as I began sparring in 1986, and then fighting in 1988 was that I could not really manifest double stick at all and I didn't bother trying for many years.  After my serious knee injury in 1992 I had about 18 months of recuperation during which time I invested some focused time working single stick in my left hand.  Around 1995 I gave fighting siniwali another go, and although the results showed things that needed work, it went well enough that I entered into several years of fighting only siniwali. I now have a strong preference for siniwali.

I have put considerable thought into this for Dog Brothers Martial Arts.
(BTW, as we define it, empty hand is a subset of siniwali)  DBMA has as its mission statement "To Walk as a Warrior for all One's days."    This
includes developing the physical skill sets for 360 situations, amongst them ambidexterity and bilateralism and siniwali is an important part of this work.  The teaching syllabus is organized so that these skills are taken to fighting level in a lot less time than it took me to figure it out.

So far it seems to be working for several of my fighting students who are
manifesting the material very nicely

Woof,
Crafty Dog.

PS:  QUESTION:  My understanding is that monkeys do not have dominant and complimentary sides.  Why is it that we do?

==================
Woof All:

Responses interspersed:

> From: "abreton@juno.com" <abreton@juno.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Lefty, Righty, Ambidextrous, Matched and
>  Unmatched, and bilateralism
> Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net
>

> Marc, I got to say that's an inspiring post.

Tail wags.

>, , ,  Sometimes you have to put your ego down.  I also admire working your working to improve even while you were recuperating.  I've been >wracked by one injury after another recently and that's good the hear.

Few things will mess with your ego like having your complementary side work in the dominant function-- combining stick and footwork is another.

The art and science of working around injuries is an important one,
especially the closer you play to your peresonal limits.


> A question:  When you say "sinawali", do you mean the kind of sinawali
pattern that people are used to (not necessarily the drills, but the
>motions) or is 'sinawali' here used to mean 'two sticks'?  Without giving
the store away, could you be more detailed about the lessons you >learned?

I am using "siniwali" here in the common and imprecise American usage of the term i.e. to mean "double stick".  It is my understanding that in the
Philippines the term is used to refer to "weaving" motions.  However, just
as Brazilians often use kimono to refer to a gi, in the US we often use
siniwali to mean double stick.  I suspect we do it because the foreign word
sounds cooler than "double stick"

As for lessons learned, they are numerous and lengthy.  Perhaps another day.


> >PS:  QUESTION:  My understanding is that monkeys do not have dominant and complimentary sides.  Why is it that we do?
>
> Like you said, I'm often surprised where this list goes.  I would think
that it is a development in tool handling ability.  I think that hand
>dexterity goes hand-in-hand (pun intended) with the development of
intelligence, conceptual ability and speech, and that takes some rationing
>of brain reserves , , , .
>
> Why not develop the non-dominant hand?  I'm thinking it's a conservation of effort thing.  Most of us can use the non-dominant hand, just without as much dexterity.  I'm picturing a cave man flintknapping a stone tool: he (or she) can hold one stone in the non-dominant hand - in a multitude of positions - and let the dominant hand do the fine-tuned work, and things work just fine.  Same thing with weaving baskets, tying >knots, etc.

Certainly the idea of conservation is plausible and accords with principles
of evolutionary biology, but I'm wondering if it is more a question of
specialization of functions-- dominant and complementary as you point out in your next paragraph:

> It could also be that one-sidedness allows one to use one handed weapons easier.  Think of one of our ancestors throwing a spear.  Having a dominant side "knowing" it was the popropellant fource and the non-dominant side "knowing" it was a bracing force would be an advantage in >that middle range of our development when we were walking upright using tools, but not using language too well.  When you look at films of >apes attacking each other with branches, you don't have that same sophistication.  And, evolutionarily speaking, it would be far easier to hard->wire that in (with little downside, since for most of our time on the planet writing has not been widely used) than to set up a caveman dojo to >churn out cromagnon black belts in spear throwing after just five years.
>
> I also wonder if there's something about the division of the brain into
hemispheres, although one would think the motor part would be able to >
function indepdently.>

Hmm interesting point; this had not occurred to me.  Preliminary follow-up
question: Do (some or all) monkeys have hemisheres or is this distinctive to humans?

>All this is, of course, my being speculative.  If you're really interested,
I think Feldenkrais writes about this in some of his books.

Anyone able to narrow this down a bit?


> From: Kes41355@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:31:10 EST
> To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net
> Subject: [Eskrima] Re: Kim's lefty repsonse
> Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net
>
> Hi Doc,
>
> The instructor I mentioned was Dan Inosanto, and yes, I was present.
> > I'm not for or against anybody on this point, just telling it from a
>lefties point of view; it is sometimes hard to relate to something unless you live it.  I am left dominant (both in strength and reflexes), and would never presume to have a righty train with his left as his dominant hand just because I'm not a right-hand dominant person.  I always ask a new student which hand they are most comfortable with before they begin training with me. My reasons for this are that righties often assume that it's just a matter of having the lefty put the stick in their right hand and train it this way from the beginning, and this will make a "righty" out of the person.  It doesn't work that way, trust me.  "Handedness" doesn't just refer to "hands"...we are also right or left dominant eyed, and this must be taken into consideration as well.

I think Guro Inosanto is left eyed BTW

> In the end, I find it's always best to let nature take it's course, which I
>believe was the cornerstone of the training, and later teaching, of one
>very famous martial artist....
>
> Kim Satterfield

This too makes sense.

Just in case it is necessary, a point of clarification:  I am not seeking to make righties into lefties or vice versa  Rather I seek to have movements learned on the complementary side.  In my experience, when learned in this way they are always natural to the complementary side and transpose readily to the dominat side.  Motions learned on the dominant side do NOT transpose readily to the complementary side.  At any rate, our goal over time is to have the option against any one opponent, be he right or lefty, to fight matched lead or unmatched lead and in 360 situations, in that there may not be time to select the preferred side, to not require having a particular side forward
as well as being able to play for field position in any direction.

Concerning empty hand, in the 1980s I thought I was doing well with
ambidexterity because I sparred using both leads.  Upon honest reflection I had to realize that this was not so.  When in Jun Fan or Kali single stick modalities,  I put the strong side forward, and when in Muy Thai or Savate modalities I put the strong side in the power position.  I agree that the dominant side will virtually always be better than the complementary side in the dominant function, but I still want to have, for example a humdinger of a left cross when fighting out of Right Lead against a Righty in Left Lead. One of the purposes of the approach I have outlined is to develop this.

This perhaps addresses the point made in this post:


> Subject: [Eskrima] Re: lefty/righty
>
> Hi Crafty,
> , , ,  BTW,  one of my major shortcomings in my training was to rely too much on my "left-side forward" stance, and carry it over to empty-hand.  I boxed for years, but still put the left side forward due to a very serious shoulder dislocation early in my career.  I had a helluva a left jab and hook, but had to think to get the right cross to fire.  I put twenty plus years into just drilling the right cross, but it still lags a bit.

Exactly.

> As for why monkeys have no dominant side, who knows, maybe they have both sides of the brain working as one unit, but don't want to give up the secret...

In which case maybe they are just making monkeys out of us , , ,

> Kim Satterfield

Woof,
Crafty Dog

PS:  About 6 months ago I started taking Djembe Drum lessons (the Djembe is a drum from west Africa).  My teacher is pleased with me progress and feels that my double stick training has been of tremendous benefit to me in this endeavor.  He is a lefty and early in the process noted that I was playing as a lefty too.  He asked if I was a lefty too, but I replied that no, I am a righty.  So he asked me to play righty.  Thinking to apply my double stick theories I resisted but he insisted, only to discover that I did better as a Lefty in 4/4 rhythms, but better as a Righty in 6/8 rhythms.  Either way, it seems that I have above average abilities to play with my complementary hand in the dominant function.  In the long run he feels the ability to work with either hand in the dominant function will allow for higher level drumming.

All:

Over the years I have recommended Health for Life's "Legendary Abs" and "7 Minute Rotator Cuff Solution" and I use their "Isomaxx Stretching Strap" on the road and at home.

Recently, in response to a post of mine giving www.healthforlife.com as their website, someone responded the this site was a fraud.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2637474977d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=40E46BF5.BCC4BE3%40hotmail.com

I have no knowledge either way, but thought I should share this , , ,

Crafty Dog

All:

Forgive me the silly Bruce Lee question, but I am trying to remember the name of book on the death of BL written by Linda Lee's second husband whose name I also forget.  Anyone?

yip!
Crafty Dog

Woof All:

I found this surprising.  Any comments?  

Crafty Dog.
===================

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Sports&OID=55107


Filipino coach of U.S. arnis team says R.P. needs more tourneys

A Filipino was the man responsible for the U.S. team's emergence as overall champion in the recent eighth World Eskrima Kali Arnis Federation (Wekaf) World Championships held in Cebu City.

Bong Jornales, a globe-trotting practitioner of the art of stick fighting or arnis, trained and coached the Americans, who beat the Philippines by a mile for the world title in the sport that is supposed to be the Filipinos' forte.

A day before leaving for Michigan, where he is currently based, the 55-year old Jornales stressed at the Philippine Sportswriters Association Forum at the Manila Pavilion Tuesday the need for more arnis competitions in the country.

"It's rather sad that hardly are there any Filipino arnis tournaments here when, in fact, it's us who are the ones who started it," he said at the program sponsored by Agfa Colors, Red Bull and Pagcor.

"Stick fighting is now popular in the US and other countries. And the Americans and Europeans are already specializing in it."

Jornales said arnis gained prominence in the 1970s when a master, Danny Inosanto, appeared in the Bruce Lee film Game of Death. Inosanto dueled the late martial-arts star in the movie.

He also noted that Filipinos used to reign as world champions in 1998 and 2000.

Jornales, who had been to Sweden, Denmark, Brazil and other Southern American countries propagating stick fighting, said it's not too late for Filipinos to renew their interest in arnis. All they need is more exposure to the sport, both here and abroad.

"I know na maraming magagaling na players dito, kaya kailangan lang talaga is more exposure para tuluy-tuloy ang interest ng mga Filipino," said Jornales, a father to two grown-up boys and husband to a member of the U.S. team.

The country's hosting of the wekaf event is a positive development toward attaining that goal.

"Siguro magandang simula 'yun [wekaf hosting]. Hopefully, arnis officials could pick up from there," he added.

Woof All:

At the previous Gathering all the knife fights were 2x2.  To call the
results sloppy and behaviors unrealistic would be an understatement.
Indeed, as best as I could tell, EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER got killed.

So I put it to the guys on the DBMA Ass'n Forum for their thoughts as to how to do it better this coming Sunday.  In search of additional thoughts and with their permission, I post the most of the thread here.

Woof,
Crafty Dog

==============
BEGIN

From the Invitation
"At each Gathering there is a different focus. At this one again we will be
encouraging people to fight 2 against 2 or 3 against 3 (or 2 against 3?) in
the knife fighting. This was a bit of a disaster last time with all players
repeatedly getting killed so we will try going about this a bit differently
this time."

----------------------

I think it was a disaster only because we weren't all on the same page when it came to the "rules" of the knife fights.

What are the options?

A.  You can think of the 1-2 minute knife fights as a bunch of much shorter fights.  If you get killed, you acknowledge it, back off for a second or two, then start again.  Or in a multiple man fight you have to run and touch the wall or drop and do ten push-ups or something before you can continue.

B.  Each fight is one fight, period.  You get killed, the fight's over.  Or
if it's a multiple man fight, you're out.

C.  Same as B, but if you get killed, you can continue fighting as long as
you can hold your breath or maybe you just get a couple of seconds for one last desperation attack as you're bleeding to death...

IMO, B & C, while more realistic, don't offer people enough time to "enjoy" their knife fighting experience if they get killed right away, but I can live with that.

Any other ideas?

Then of course we can debate what constitutes a kill...

In any case, I think it will seem less disastrous if the rules are made
explicitly clear to everyone before we start.

------------------------------------

Maybe the multiple opponent knife fights were a disaster because the outcome of a knife fight between four men is disasterous.

IMHO I liked it the way we did it last Gathering.  Jump in, figure out what
works, get hit, watch your back, look for your partner, get hit, think on
the run under attack, go go go.

THE problem was already raised.  If kills matter, then what is a kill?  "I
killed you."  "No, I killed you first."  "No, you didn't hit the artery, so
I killed you first."  I'm sure no one would say it, but I'd be thinking it.
Besides rules require a judge.

I WOULD like to see a couple of really good knife fighters do a one on one
exhibition fight.

 ------------------------------------
Woof All,

why not put ink or painting on the knife to see which is touched and or it
is touched??

-------------------------------------

I tend to view the knife fighting much like option A, as a bunch of shorter
fights. I think it should be on the fighter to be aware when they've been
killed or have delivered a kill-shot. Also, I think people, i.e. bumrushers,
need to be aware of the simultaneous kill. I liked how Guro Crafty pulled
out a live blade and waved it near people's necks at the beginning of the
last Gathering so people would have a little more awareness in regards to
the fight. It's a warm-up, and I feel that too much emphasis on who killed
whom, who delivered a greater quantity of kill shots, etc. makes it more
like a knife competition.

The multiple man fights were chaotic with repeated killings, but we could
assume that it's another wave of attackers, kind of like a prison-riot, or
the old video game Double Dragon. I like the multiple man fighting because it opens a bucket of tactics, and if people are focusing on doing push-ups or running to touch a wall it might take away from the tactical exercise.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Man, that Double Dragon reference sure brings back a lot of memories!

In the context of a Gathering, I think bum-rushing is the typical response
of a fighter who's been cut several times and feels like he has to do
something to keep from looking like he "lost".  OTOH I think it's a good
idea to have a plan for dealing with the bum-rush, since it is a desperation
tactic all too likely to be used in a real life-or-death knife fight.  I
know of course, since this just happened to me last week!  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The group here on Oahu tends to view the knife fighting in the same view as option A, a bunch of shorter fights.  Dogzilla and I "kill" each other
multiple times per fight.  I like to vary my actions during the knife
fights...some days, I play the knife "tag" game, where I'm targeting his
hand or trying to "defang the snake".  Other days, I go only for "kill
shots" (neck, solid thrusts to torso) and couple that with the bum rush.  I
think it's good for Mike (considering he works in a federal prison...in the
kitchen!) to be on the receiving end of the "shiv rush".  He usually kills
me, but not always before I'm able to do some serious damage.  It keeps
everyone involved well aware of the lethality of a real time, real life
situation where the bad guy doesn't always play by your rules.

However I'm playing the game though, I always back off to acknowledge a kill shot before continuing with the fight.  In that respect, not only do the
knife fights provide for a fun time because they're longer and you get the
chance to try different tactics, it also serves as a decent warm up period
before the stickfighting begins.  I find it also helps me quell the ongoing
mental chatter of stepping out with Dogzilla when he has a stick in his hand and "that look"  in his eye.  You know, sorta warm up to, "d**n, this is gonna hurt..."
-------------

END

So folks, any thoughts/comments/suggestions as to how to go about this in front of a few hundred people?  I like the idea of working multiple
players-- its a core foundational concept of the FMA-- but am not happy with the results so far.

TIA,
Crafty Dog

A Sad Howl to All:

"The wood is consumed, but the fire burns on." Lao Tsu

Marc/Crafty Dog

Are you a FAN, Trainer, Camp/ School Owner involved in Muay Thai Kickboxing??!!

 

Please COPY or REVISE this letter and send it to the CA State Athletic Commission.

 

We have Muay Thai Kickboxing GROWING in CA but if we DO NOTHING

the Sport will DIE - Please take 15 minutes to get involved and support the TEAM/

Family of Muay Thai.

 

Send a small letter life this one below:

*************************************************************************

 

Date:    April 8, 2004   Re: Meeting April 26, 2004/ Muay Thai Kickboxing Sport- (MTK)

 

 

To:       Dean Lohuis - State Athletic Commission            Rob Lynch - State Athletic Commission
            Department of Consumer Affairs                         Department of Consumer Affairs
            5757 W. Century Blvd., GF-16                          1424 Howe Avenue, Suite 33
            Los Angeles, CA 90045                                     Sacramento, CA 95825

 

 

From:   Daniel & Zina Docto ? www.thaibox.net

            38660 Lexington Street #459, Fremont CA 94536

 

 

Dear Mr. Dean Lohuis and Mr. Rob Lynch,

We have been involved with Muay Thai Kickboxing for over (10) years, it is a real positive sport in California. It is growing because many trainers, fighters and promoters from Thailand have taken the time to educate many Californians in the details of their Ancient National Sport of Muay Thai Kickboxing (MTK). We are writing to encourage you both in the following issues:

 

MTK should be supported because it promotes health, fitness activities, lowers gang & drug activities, it is a constructive outlet for aggression and it promotes a clean lifestyle all of which lowers the financial demands on this great State.
If higher quality of blood tests or physicals are required then the State should accept participant?s personal Doctor?s and not put this financial burden on the promoters. The promoters do not receive a justified payment for their time, effort, stress and planning to run a MTK event.
Levels of participation should be clearly established- Tournament, Amateur & Professional. Tournament events (Smokers) should have the fighters fully geared with headgear, body protectors, 16 oz. gloves and shin/ instep guards. Amateur events are for participants who have had at least (3) Tournament fights with no headgear or body protectors or shin guards with 10 to 14 oz. gloves as agreed upon by the trainers and promoters. Professional events are for participants with at least (6) Amateur fights with 8 to 10 oz. gloves. One issue that has come up is a mandatory of headgear for the Amateur events. At this level headgear does not add any safety and the fans see it as an unnecessary part of the MTK. Headgear actually blocks the site of the fighters so they cannot see kicks to the head, it hinders the ability of clinching/ knee techniques which stops the most damaging punches to the head. MTK is actually safer than Boxing because of the clinching techniques that stop the big powerful head punches. Headgear in Boxing does make the Sport safer but in MTK it does not. MTK events have 50% less punches to the head vs. Boxing.
If more costs (i.e. Insurance, Doctor & Emergency Medical/ Ambulance.) are placed on Promoters the MTK Sport will die. Promoters have already given up because most do not break even let alone make a profit on MTK events. Good communication and team work has to be the key in keeping the MTK Sport alive in CA. On an Amateur level we should look at Kru Vut?s Events as a historical reference. Vut Promotions has done the most consistent Muay Thai Kickboxing events in CA, the fans are just now making this event a regular part of their activities. The participants/ fighters & trainers are fully confident in the safety and excitement of these events. (www.thaibox.net/id125.htm) Good communication and honest research will clearly show that Vut Promotions has the wisdom to make MTK a fun, safe, positive and exciting activity for the growing participants and fans in California. Please work with proven & established Promoters in order to keep this Sport in CA.
 

Thank you for taking time to read our concerns and desires, God Bless.

Daniel and Zina Docto ? www.thaibox.net

Woof All:

Our hearts go out to our Spanish friends.

May the perps be nailed.

Crafty Dog
===========================
   

Carnage on morning commute: Terrorists bomb Madrid trains, kill 173
Scenes of carnage followed bomb attacks on at least three Madrid commuter trains, leaving at least 173 dead and more than up to 1,000 injured.

It is the worst terrorist incident in the history of Spain.

The government is blaming Eta, the Basque separatist movement designated as a terrorist organisation by the EU, for the bombings, although no one has yet claimed the attacks.

Two bombs exploded on one commuter train at the Atocha station in the heart of Madrid, blowing at least one carriage nearly in two. At least one other bomb on that train did not explode.

Several other bombs designed to explode as emergency workers arrived have been disarmed by police.

Very early reports said at least 18 died in a blast at El Pozo station in the city's southern suburbs and 15 at Santa Eugenia, but the death toll has been rising quickly as emergency crews work on the wreckage in all three sites.

In all, reports suggest that four trains were hit by explosions in the three train stations, all on trains heading into the city's main train terminal. All the trains were packed with commuters.

The bombs detonated without warning and nearly simultaneously at 7.35am local time.

According to the security minister for Madrid's regional government, at least 173 people were killed and more than 600, possibly up to 1,000, were injured in the attacks. Earlier estimates from various Spanish authorities had said numbers were much lower, but the toll keeps mounting as bodies are discovered in the wreckage.

Click here for a video report on the scene by the BBC (RealPlayer required)

"This is a massacre," government spokesman Eduardo Zaplana told the BBC.

He condemned what he called "an attack on Spanish democracy", calling Eta "a criminal gang of killers."

Ten days ago Spanish police seized a van carrying more than 1,100lbs -- 500 kilos -- of explosives, believed bound for an attack in Madrid by Eta.

The terrorist attack comes only three days before a hotly contested general election and the nation is now in a three day period of mourning. So far, the elections are said to be on track.

The country's political parties have suspended campaigning in the wake of the blasts.

Basque regional president, Juan Jose Ibarretxe, stressed that Eta does not represent the Basque people.

"When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces," he said.

Some early speculation by the Eta political arm that Islamic factions might have been responsible have been discounted by Spanish authorities.

Spanish authorities say that Eta operatives had been trying to stage a massive attack on the rail network.

According to the BBC, Spanish authorities foiled a Basque separatist plot to blow up a train at a Madrid rail station last September.

In that attack, a 25-kilo bomb had been placed on a train travelling from San Sebastian to Madrid, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.

Eta has killed more than 800 people in its campaign since the late 1960s. In 1980, its bloodiest year, Eta killed 118 people.

In the wake of the bombings this morning, both the BBC and CNN have come under heavy criticism from Spanish authorities for continuing to call the Eta a "separatist" movement, rather than a terrorist operation.

Woof All:

This thread is for matters related to boxing.

Woof,
Crafty Dog
===============

Lenox Lewis Retires
Who'll be the new heavyweight champion(s)?

BY GORDON D. MARINO
Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Norman Mailer once quipped that the heavyweight champion is the toe of God. Although Mr. Mailer's remark rings a mite hyperbolic, there can be no doubt that the fate of public interest in boxing is largely decided by the heavyweights. After all, it is the battles between the big guys that bring in the crossover fans otherwise disinterested in seeing two people pummel one another. But there is tumult in the heavyweight kingdom today.

A week ago, champion Lennox Lewis, age 38, announced his retirement. There are bookmakers already taking odds that Mr. Lewis, like Muhammad Ali in 1979, will soon retire from this retirement and be back in the ring. If, however, he abides by his plans, Mr. Lewis will become only the third heavyweight champion in history to walk away with the title. Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunney were the others.





Since he conquered Mike Tyson in 2002, Mr. Lewis has fought only once. As a result of his inactivity, the heavyweight division has been in the doldrums. All the money is at the top in boxing, and with one loss a fighter's market value can crash through the canvas. And so a number of heavyweights in the championship mix have been biding their time hoping for a bonanza bout with either Mr. Lewis or Mr. Tyson. Now that Mr. Lewis has withdrawn and Mr. Tyson seems inclined to do the same, heavyweight business should again bustle. But there is no college of cardinals in boxing, so how does the sport go about selecting its new heavyweight king?
When Mr. Marciano abruptly retired in 1956, the IBC (International Boxing Club) organized an elimination tournament between Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson and Tommy Jackson. In the end, Mr. Patterson knocked out Mr. Moore to capture the vacated title. In the wake of Mr. Lewis's exit, however, it appears as though the championship, or at least a major portion of it, will be decided by a single contest.

The World Boxing Council is planning a championship box-off between Vitali Klitschko and Corrie Sanders. In a thrilling contest last June, Mr. Lewis was declared the winner by TKO after six rounds, because the referee deemed Mr. Klitschko's face too cut up for the fight to continue. But at the time the bout was halted, the Ukrainian-born Mr. Klitschko was ahead on points and there was enormous demand for a rematch. Mr. Klitschko's claim as the heavyweight prince-in-waiting was further legitimized by his recent knockout of Kirk Johnson, a top contender.

As for Corrie Sanders, Mr. Klitschko's possible opponent for the WBC title, the South African power-puncher's credentials were sealed last winter when he knocked Vitali's younger brother Wladimir senseless in two rounds. At the time, Wladimir was widely regarded as the heir apparent to Mr. Lewis's title.

The victor of the (Vitali) Klitschko-Sanders struggle may not have quite the same imprimatur as Patterson did when he succeeded Marciano. Although Mr. Lewis was the linear champion--that is, the man who beat Holyfield, who beat Douglass, who beat Tyson and so on back to John L. Sullivan--he was not the only card-carrying heavyweight king.





In contrast to the mid-'50s and the Marciano era, there is now an alphabet soup of sanctioning bodies in boxing: e.g., the IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO. These organizations--which many believe are driven by the ticket-selling interests of promoters--sanction bouts, establish rankings, and crown their own champions.
Chris Byrd is the International Boxing Federation heavyweight champ. A slightly built and diabolically crafty southpaw, Mr. Byrd claims a freakish victory over Vitali Klitschko. When they fought in 2000, Mr. Klitschko was far ahead on points but injured his shoulder and could not come out for the 10th round.

Then there is the World Boxing Association champ, Roy Jones Jr. Quicksilver fast and technically brilliant, Mr. Jones is widely considered the best pound-for-pound pugilist in the world today; however, his natural weight hovers at about 195 pounds, and he is about six inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than both the Klitschko brothers and Mr. Sanders. In an era in which the heavyweight elite have the proportions of NBA centers, it is not surprising that Mr. Jones is strongly considering abandoning his heavyweight claims to defend his WBC light heavyweight title.

While most boxing aficionados pine for the days of one weight class, one champion, the Klitschkos are quite content to think of the title as divisible. The brothers, both of whom hold doctorates and speak four languages, have vowed never to fight one another. The only way that they can both realize their life's ambition of being heavyweight kings is to divide up the kingdom, with the WBC belt going to Vitali and the rest to Wladimir. Should Mr. Sanders win, however, he would probably seek to unify the title--unless, of course, Mike Tyson were again to feel the call of the arena, in which case all other bouts would be off. For there is no one who is better than Mr. Tyson at putting fans in seats and adding zeros to contract figures.