Migrations, (2020) McConaghy's first novel
Amazon blurb:
Franny Stone has always been the kind of woman who is able to love but unable to stay. Leaving behind everything but her research gear, she arrives in Greenland with a singular purpose: to follow the last Arctic terns in the world on what might be their final migration to Antarctica.
Franny talks her way onto a fishing boat, and she and the crew set sail, traveling ever further from shore and safety. But as Franny’s history begins to unspool—a passionate love affair, an absent family, a devastating crime—it becomes clear that she is chasing more than just the birds. When Franny's dark secrets catch up with her, how much is she willing to risk for one more chance at redemption?
Epic and intimate, heartbreaking and galvanizing, Charlotte McConaghy's Migrations is an ode to a disappearing world and a breathtaking page-turner about the possibility of hope against all odds.
Once There Were Wolves
“This poetic and atmospheric novel is a mystery, a celebration of wolves, and a tribute to those who work to rewild our landscapes.” “McConaghy excels at conveying the sensuous experience of nature and the emotions it provokes: wonder at its majesty, sorrow at its destruction.
NY Times Review
"Human and Animal Predators Together in the Scottish Highlands," August 3, 2021
In Once There Were Wolves, the follow-up to her 2020 debut novel, Migrations, the Australian writer Charlotte McConaghy returns to familiar territory—environmental catastrophe, buried trauma, the wonder of the natural world—in the company of another bold and damaged protagonist. Describing herself as a “bad-tempered Australian who finds it hard to hide contempt and sucks at public speaking,” Inti Flynn is perhaps not the ideal candidate to head up the Cairngorms Wolf Project.
Inti and her crack team of wolf biologists have traveled from Alaska to Scotland with 14 gray wolves, “apex predators” whose release, it is hoped, will restore an ancient balance to the ecosystem of the Highlands: Fewer deer will allow woodlands to spread, boosting carbon capture and biodiversity.
Alas, the locals aren’t sold on the idea. At a public meeting, enraged by people fretting about the safety of their sheep and children, Inti gets to her feet: “If you truly think wolves are the blood spillers, then you’re blind,” she says. “We do that. We are the people killers, the children killers. We’re the monsters.”
NY Times Review
So Inti has a very short fuse, but that’s not surprising because, in addition to the planet and the wolves and a local woman with a violent husband, she’s also worried about her “shadow sister,” her twin, Aggie, once wild and spirited, now mute and barely sentient in their rented cottage along the valley. Aggie has been “unmade” by some horrifying recent event in Anchorage, the details of which are drip fed to the reader along with hints of older traumas from the twins’ family history.
Oh, and Inti also has mirror-touch synesthesia, a neurological condition that means her brain “recreates the sensory experiences of living creatures, of all people and even sometimes animals; if I see it I feel it, and just for a moment I am them, we are one and their pain or pleasure is my own.”
Cairngorms Connect (works at a landscape scale)
What is Cairngorms Connect aiming to achieve?
We will restore habitats across 60,000 hectares of connected land within the Cairngorms National Park—from the River Spey to the summit of Ben MacDui, Britain's 2nd highest mountain.
Ours is a 200-year vision, to restore woodland to its natural limit, including high altitude montane woodlands; restore blanket bog and forest bogs, and restore natural processes to river floodplains.
These restoration projects will deliver benefits to people: reducing flood-risk, storing carbon, and providing homes for wildlife, as well as great places for people to visit.
We will also build awareness and involvement—locally, nationally and internationally.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Wolves in Scotland during the reign of James VI were considered such a threat to travellers that special houses called spittals were erected on the highways for protection. In Sutherland, wolves dug up graves so frequently that the inhabitants resorted to burying their dead on the island of Handa.
In Atholl, coffins were made wolf-proof by building them out of five flagstones. Wolves probably became extinct in the Scottish Lowlands during the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, when immense tracts of forest were cleared. James I passed a law in 1427 requiring three wolf hunts a year between 25 April and 1 August, coinciding with the wolf's cubbing season. Scottish wolf populations reached a peak during the second half of the 16th century. Mary, Queen of Scots is known to have hunted wolves in the forest of Atholl in 1563. The wolves later caused such damage to the cattle herds that in 1577, James VI made it compulsory to hunt wolves three times a year.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Last Wolf in Scotland
Stories of the killing of the last wolf in Scotland vary. Official records indicate that the last Scottish wolf was killed by Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel in 1680 in Killiecrankie (Perthshire).
However some claimed that wolves survived in Scotland up until the 18th century, and a tale even exists of one being seen as late as 1888.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Proposed Re-introduction
In 1999, Dr. Martyn Gorman, senior lecturer in zoology at Aberdeen University and vice chairman of the UK Mammal Society called for a reintroduction of wolves to the Scottish Highlands and English countryside in order to deal with the then 350,000 red deer damaging young trees in commercial forests. Scottish National Heritage considered re-establishing carefully controlled colonies of wolves but shelved the idea following an outcry from sheep farmers.
In 2002, Paul van Vlissingen, a wealthy landowner in the western Highlands, proposed the reintroduction of both wolves and lynxes to Scotland and England, stating that current deer-culling methods were inadequate and that wolves would boost the Scottish tourist industry.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Proposed Re-introduction
In 2007, British and Norwegian researchers including experts from the Imperial College London said that wolf reintroduction into the Scottish Highlands and English countryside would aid in the re-establishment of plants and birds currently hampered by the deer population. Their study also assessed people's attitudes towards the idea of releasing wolves into the wild. While the public was generally positive, people living in rural areas were more sensitive, though they were open to the idea provided that they would be reimbursed for livestock losses.
Richard Morley, of the Wolves and Humans Foundation (formerly the Wolf Society of Great Britain), forecast in 2007 that public support for wolf reintroduction would grow over the next 15 years, though he criticised previous talks as being too "simple or romantic." He stated that although wolves would be good for tourism, farmers and crofters had serious concerns about the effect that wolves could have on their livestock, particularly sheep, that had to be acknowledged.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Proposed Re-introduction
Although the prospect of reintroducing wolves and other large carnivores in the Highlands of Scotland remains highly controversial, there are some who are already making plans for reintroductions. Paul Lister is the laird of Alladale Estate in the Caledonian Forest of North Scotland, and he has plans to reintroduce large carnivores into his wildlife reserves, such as wolves, lynx, and bears.
Wolves in Scotland—Wikipedia
Proposed Re-introduction
Many of the arguments against this kind of reintroduction are due to the potential impacts these animals could have on farming, but Lister argues that this would not be a problem in Alladale as there is very little farming in the area that could be affected. This type of reintroduction could be beneficial for the economy and ecology of the UK, just as it has in the US.
In 1995, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park, which transformed the ecology of the area, allowing forests to regenerate and biodiversity to increase. Wolf-related tourism also brings $35.5 million annually to Wyoming.
From New Zealand Herald, May 2, 2021
"Scotland could become first ‘rewilded’ nation—what does that mean?" Nov. 1, 2022
At the end of the last ice age, Scotland was a truly wild place, where the Highland tiger, a distinctly banded wildcat, and the wolf, lynx, and bear roamed among Caledonian pine forests. The Romans called the country’s north “The Great Wood of Caledon.” But over time, humans purged the land for timber, charcoal, and agriculture. Native species such as wild boar, polecat, and elk vanished. By the turn of the 20th century, only 5 percent of Scotland’s land area was covered by forest.
Now the country is experiencing a zeitgeist moment for rewilding—in essence, the rebuilding of ecosystems to their natural uncultivated states—with new efforts and a matrix of wild lands and natural corridors spreading across the country. The actions of those responsible are aligning and, if successful, would make Scotland the first rewilded nation in the world.
National Geographic
“Scotland has majestic scenery and beautiful glens, but the ecological completeness has long been greatly diminished,” says Peter Cairns, executive chairperson of the nonprofit Scotland: The Big Picture. “Climate breakdown is one of the principal drivers for rewilding gaining momentum now because it unites everyone.”
No one in Scotland can quite agree when the rewilding movement officially began, but one popular perspective sets it in the late 1980s. That’s when environmental charity Trees for Life moved the conversation from preserving individual species and specific habitats—the selective approach to conservation at the time—to reigniting ecological processes with a landscape-scale approach.
Today, Trees for Life is behind the far-reaching Affric Highlands vision, a 30-year blueprint to transform Glens Cannich, Affric, Moriston, and Shiel—a succession of valleys, in the Central Highlands—into an unbroken refuge. More immediately, it’s also responsible for a world first in rewilding
National Geographic
Travelers can attempt to galvanize their relationship with everything from pine cones to pipits at Scotland’s most ambitious rewilding project, Cairngorms Connect. Concentrated on a 232-square-mile subarctic plateau in Cairngorms National Park, the largest in Britain, the multi-landowner enterprise has embarked on a 200-year plan to restore rivers and reseed ancient Caledonian pine forest. Already, visitors can join ranger-led tours and rewilding weekends to help revitalize the landscape. Next year 20 wildcats will be introduced by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland for the first time.
For more than two decades, Lister has sought to influence the shape of the Highlands landscape using his wealth and land, first setting out in 2003 with a vision to reintroduce wild wolves to Scotland, a species that was hunted to extinction by 1680. For him, it is like putting the rabbit back in the magician’s hat.
“The reintroduction of this apex predator triggered unanticipated ecological change in Yellowstone National Park, and it could only be a matter of years before wolves are translocated to Alladale,” he says. “There’s no doubting people would want to see them in the wild here.”
National Geographic, July 10, 2020
Wolves of Yellowstone
Gray wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, resulting in a trophic cascade through the entire ecosystem. After the wolves were driven extinct in the region nearly 100 years ago, scientists began to fully understand their role in the food web as a keystone species.
Twenty-five years after gray wolves returned to Yellowstone National Park, the predators that some feared would wipe out elk have instead proved to be more of a stabilizing force. New research shows that by reducing populations and thinning out weak and sick animals, wolves are helping create more resilient elk herds.
For the past 12 years, elk numbers in the park’s largest herd have leveled off between about 6,000 and 8,000, instead of extreme boom-and-bust cycles due to climate fluctuations.
“Elk aren’t starving to death anymore,” says Chris Wilmers, a wildlife ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
National Geographic, July 10, 2020
Wolves of Yellowstone
During years with normal amounts of rain and snow, wolves primarily kill older cow elk, since they’re the easiest to hunt. But Wilmers led a recent study that showed during particularly dry years—when grass, shrubs, and wildflowers aren’t as lush—wolves switch to hunting bulls. These burly males already don’t eat much in the fall, focusing instead on making deafening bugles and smashing into each other while fighting over cows. All that effort burns calories, weakening them heading into winter. In dry years, they’re even more diminished.
As adaptable, intelligent predators, wolves have learned to recognize these conditions, and they would rather kill an undernourished 750-pound bull versus a 450-pound cow. So by targeting bulls during years of scarce food, they give the cows a chance to reproduce, thus keeping the population afloat.
But most importantly, the Yellowstone area’s wolves—which now number between 300 and 350—could help elk herds weather the perils of a more volatile climate, according to the study, published in the Journal of Animal Ecology. For instance, elk herds that maintain consistent numbers, rather than yo-yoing up and down, can better withstand more frequent droughts—one impact of climate change that is already occurring in the region.
National Geographic, July 10, 2020
Wolves of Yellowstone
“In a future that will be very unpredictable, we want a buffer” against mass die-offs, says Doug Smith, Yellowstone’s senior wildlife biologist, and wolves’ ability to keep elk herds balanced can play that role. Through hunting and management practices, “humans help stabilize elk populations, but they don’t do the same thing as wolves.”
Wolves of Yellowstone—video PBS
Earth A New Wild
How Wolves Saved Yellowstone—Everything Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc52l5ZcAJ0
Gray Wolf
About Wolf Packs, from Defenders of Wildlife (July 22, 2014)
About wolf packs
To survive in a dangerous and competitive world, wolves form cooperative groups known as packs. Members of a wolf pack hunt together, rear pups together, and compete against other wolf packs for food and territory. Cooperation benefits all members of a pack and improves their odds of survival.
Wolf pack hierarchy
Wolves naturally develop a hierarchy within their pack. While they occasionally compete for the top spot, sustained fights are rare within the pack. Until recently, researchers didn’t fully understand how wolves resolve or eliminate inter-pack conflict, but a new study sheds light on this. Wolves have elaborate ways of communicating that maintain hierarchy and reinforce relationships among pack mates. For instance, a subordinate wolf might lie on its back with its tail tucked between its legs, exposing its stomach and throat to a more dominant wolf. This submissive behavior acknowledges the submissive–dominant relationship between the two, thereby maintaining order and preventing violence. This study underscores just how complex and intelligent wolves really are.
About Wolf Packs, from Defenders of Wildlife (July 22, 2014)
How wolf packs resolve conflicts
To answer this question, researchers working in Yellowstone observed two packs of free-ranging wolves, the Druid Peak pack and the Blacktail Deer Plateau pack, from 2008 to 2009. The scientists monitored and recorded wolf behaviors following fights and compared these observations to the behaviors of wolves during times with no group conflict.
What the researchers found was that after a fight, subordinate wolves would actually attempt to reconcile with their more dominant pack mates. Immediately after a conflict, subordinate wolves will often touch noses and lick their more dominant pack mates. Researchers think that this nose touching behavior is a way of apologizing and asking for forgiveness. It’s their way to resolve a conflict, reduce tension within a group, show respect, and prevent further violence. The more heated the fight, the greater the number of friendly behaviors that followed, including nose touching, licking, body contact, greeting, inspecting, playing, and sniffing.
About Wolf Packs, from Defenders of Wildlife (July 22, 2014)
How wolf packs resolve conflicts
Why would subordinate wolves want to make amends after a fight? It is probably due to the interdependence of the group. Subordinates benefit most by maintaining peaceful relationships with their more dominant pack mates – they need each other in order to survive. Resolving and diffusing the conflict helps to prevent further violence and keeps the group cohesive so that they can work together to hunt and defend territory. This research is yet another example of the remarkable intelligence of wolves, and their complex social structure.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Deforestation in Scotland
We all know that deforestation is a global problem. But it isn’t so obvious that humans have been clearing Scottish woodlands for millennia. Only a tiny fraction of our original native forest cover remains. The history of deforestation in the Highlands is long and complex, but we can still gain glimpses of what we have lost.
The ice retreats
Imagine time-travelling to the Highlands around 11,500 years ago. The glaciers of the last ice age were in retreat. As the climate warmed, colossal rivers of ice had given way to open, treeless tundra, and then to scrubby woodland. From our time machine we can see hardy shrubs like dwarf birch, willows and juniper getting a foothold. Hazel, aspen, birch, pine and other trees are also slowly making a comeback.
All the while, plants, fungi, mammals, birds and many other organisms are returning. They are reclaiming land gripped by ice for thousands of years. Britain is still attached to the rest of Europe. So much water is still locked up in ice, the English Channel and the North Sea don’t even exist . . .
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Scotland’s ancient forest
Woodland expanded and reached a peak around 6,000 years ago. Wildlife flourished in a mosaic of trees, heath, grassland, scrub and bog. Lynx prowled the denser woodlands and packs of wolves hunted deer. Giant wild cattle (known as aurochs) grazed savannah grassland, while boar rooted through the leaf litter. Bears scooped salmon from the rivers, and elk grazed in the willow meadows created by the dams of beavers. Many different birds were abundant.
Woodland shifted and moved with no fixed boundaries. Among the many tree species were Scots pine, aspen, birch, oak, rowan, holly, willow and alder.
The arrival of farming
Early farmers arrived on the scene about 5,900 years ago. (Humans had been around much earlier, but we don’t know what impact they had.) These Neolithic farmers grazed cattle, goats and primitive sheep. They burned areas of heath and pinewoods to encourage fresh growth of heather for their stock. Burning plus grazing was bad news for trees. Woodland couldn’t recolonise denuded areas and went into further retreat.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Climatic changes
Climate shifts and changes over time and forests change with it. Around 3,000 years ago, a period of cold, wet weather began. The conditions were ideal for peat bogs to spread. In some areas, especially the north and west, this was not so good for tree growth. The tree line became lower, and in the wettest areas scattered broadleaves replaced pine.
Even so, there was still a vast network of woodland at this point, mixed with heath, bog and scrub. It seems likely that trees would have regained a lot of old ground as the cold, wet period ended. But the plot thickens . . .
The decline continues
Through the centuries that followed, people cut down trees for timber, fuel and to make way for agriculture. Livestock grazing continued to limit tree regeneration. The forest was forced into smaller, isolated pockets.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
The decline continues
Roman accounts speak of a vast Caledonian Forest, but their accounts are exaggerated. By the time the Romans arrived, over half of our native forests had been lost. It was not a dense blanket of pine woodland (as was once thought), although native pinewoods were a key part of this forest.
We now use the term Caledonian Forest to evoke the wilderness that spread across 1.5 million hectares of the Highlands in prehistoric times.
In the Medieval times Norse and Celtic people felled trees for ships, houses and more. The Little Ice Age in the 14th Century sped up the decline. From the 17th Century the demands of wars and industry, and a growing Highland population all took their toll. But the worst was still to come.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
An all time low
By the 18th century, woodland cover reached its all time low. Some pinewood fragments were protected from overgrazing because timber had value, but cheap timber imports later changed all that.
The Highland Clearances were a devastating blow for Highland people and culture. They also made way for large scale sheep farming, which was an ecological disaster.
In Victorian times sheep farming declined and landlords turned to sport shooting for income. Deer stalking encouraged unnaturally high numbers of deer and grouse moors were burned. Regenerating trees stood little chance.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
The rise of forestry
Both of the World Wars took a heavy toll on the trees we had left. Wood was essential for the war effort and in the First World War Britain almost run out of timber. The government created the Forestry Commission in 1919 to prevent the same situation happening again.
Fast-growing introduced species such as Sitka spruce were used to create dense plantations. These support a limited range of wildlife compared to ancient, native forests. Native trees were both felled and underplanted. Many native woodlands were damaged or lost. (Priorities have since changed. The Forestry Commission, now Forestry and Land Scotland, has carried out a lot of excellent work to help reverse the situation.)
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
The ecological effects of deforestation
Such large-scale, long-term ecological destruction has transformed the Scottish Highlands. Today only around 1% of our native pinewoods remain, while many other habitats have been degraded or lost. The besieged remnants are in a state of poor health for many reasons.
Fragmentation
One patch of pinewood may be many miles from its nearest neighbour. The species within a fragmented woodland are more vulnerable to inbreeding and natural disturbance. Storms, disease and fire are important part of a large dynamic forest, but habitat that’s been broken up may not recover from such events.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Loss of wildlife
Key wildlife species have been lost due to both habitat destruction and hunting. This has had a catastrophic effect. When species are removed, the ecological tapestry begins to unravel.
The top predators – wolf, bear and lynx – were all hunted to extinction by humans. Beaver, aurochs, elk, wild boar and others suffered the same fate. These animals each have an important, unique role in a forest, keeping it rich and diverse.
Predators keep herbivore numbers in check. They also keep nibbling mouths on the move, allowing vegetation to regenerate. A lack of predators is a major reason why deer numbers are now so damagingly high.
Herbivores’ feeding habits in turn create a varied structure in the forest, along with other important effects. Many other less obvious creatures have also been lost or have had their numbers decimated.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Soil
Deforestation changes the structure and fertility of the soil. Woodlands are better at holding onto nutrients than overgrazed grassland are. Because of this the loss of woodland cover can result in the soil becoming impoverished. And less hospitable to trees.
On top of this, the leaf litter from pioneers (especially birch) helps enrich peaty soil and makes it better for trees. Remove the birch and the soil is less tree-friendly. And centuries of rearing and removing animals from the land, means that high concentrations of nutrients have been lost.
Trees draw up a huge amount of water from the ground, and release it into the air through their leaves and needles. When trees are cut down the ground can become waterlogged. This makes it hard for trees to return, especially when the seed source has been removed. It’s a vicious cycle.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
Forest structure
Deforestation and overgrazing also have effects that are less visible. Sometimes we may see what looks like a healthy woodland at first glance, but a closer look reveals more.
Overgrazed woodland may have old trees but lack youngsters to replace them. They are also missing a healthy shrub layer and ground flora.
Not only have we lost woodland cover. Like humans, deer have their favourite foods. This means that some tree species suffer more than others. Aspen, holly, rowan and juniper are high on the menu, so they are often absent or scarce in the remaining pockets. Less tree diversity means less wildlife diversity.
A forest for the future
Humans have drastically denuded and degraded our woodlands over thousands of years. No one can say for certain what the forest would be like if we hadn’t been so heavy handed with it. But we can safely say that it would be much bigger and much more connected than it is now. It would also have a lot more wildlife. And it would bring with it countless benefits, including carbon storage.
Trees for Life https://treesforlife.org
A forest for the future
So what is the future for the forest? Many native pinewood patches are still struggling to expand, or even survive, mainly due to overgrazing. Encouragingly, following the Second World War, the tide began to turn. People began to make more effort to protect our Caledonian Forest remnants. While there is still much to be done, there is now a huge interest in restoring native woodlands in Scotland with many organisations and individuals on board.
Trees for Life’s vision is to restore a large area of wild diverse forest, where people and wildlife can flourish. The aim isn’t to recreate a forest of the past since forests are ever-changing ecosystems. The goal is rewilding: restoring the key elements in the forest to allow natural processes a freer reign.
Mirror-Touch Synesthesia
What is synesthesia? Synesthesia is a neurological condition in which people experience one of the five senses through another sense. For example, a person with synesthesia might hear a particular song and smell fresh-baked bread. Someone with synesthesia might read a word and see a specific color, one of the more common forms of synesthesia. The word "synesthesia" comes from ancient Greek and means "joined perception" Synesthesia is not a disease or an illness, nor is it a special power or magic; it is simply a condition in which people experience something through more than one sense.
What is mirror-touch synesthesia? Mirror-touch synesthesia is a rare neurological condition, found in about 2% of the general population, in which a person feels the same sensations that other people feel. If a person with mirror-touch synesthesia sees someone bump their elbow, that person might feel the bump on their own elbow. Someone with mirror-touch synesthesia might observe someone touch their head, and may feel the sensation on their own head.
Nature Neuroscience (June 2007)
Mirror-touch synesthesia is linked with empathy
Watching another person being touched activates a similar neural circuit to actual touch and, for some people with 'mirror-touch' synesthesia, can produce a felt tactile sensation on their own body. In this study, we provide evidence for the existence of this type of synesthesia and show that it correlates with heightened empathic ability. This is consistent with the notion that we empathize with others through a process of simulation.
"I Feel for You—Some Really Do," UDaily, (Feb. 6, 2017)
UD researchers examine unusual condition of mirror-touch synesthesia
When a student in a University of Delaware study watched a video of someone else’s hand being touched, she felt the touch on her own hand. While that may seem a little eerie to most of us, she’s not alone. About two in 100 people have this condition called mirror-touch synesthesia, or MTS.
In an article published in Cortex, UD researchers reveal new information about MTS based on one of the largest studies of its kind. The subject pool was more than 2,000 undergrads from multiple sections of an introductory psychology course who volunteered as research participants over the past few years.
“Some of the students in our study didn’t know that what they were experiencing was different from the rest of the population, and it blew their minds,” says Jared Medina, assistant professor in UD’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. “But if you have mirror-touch synesthesia, there’s nothing wrong with you. It’s just an interesting difference, like being double-jointed.”
Carrie DePasquale led the screening process as part of her undergraduate research at UD. She graduated from the University in 2015 with an honors bachelor’s degree in neuroscience and is working now on her doctorate at the University of Minnesota.
"I Feel for You—Some Really Do," UDaily, (Feb. 6, 2017)
Each student was tested sitting at a table with hands oriented either palms up or palms down. Each was shown a series of videos of a hand being touched, varying the location — surface or palm, index or ring finger, right hand or left hand — and asked if they felt anything, where the touch was felt and the strength of the sensation. A second experiment tested reaction times to rule out if someone was faking it. From the 2,351 undergraduates screened, 45 were identified to have MTS.
“When I would debrief them, many would tell me about sensations they felt while watching movies,” DePasquale says. “It was almost as if they were a part of the movie — feeling touch, pain and other physical sensations that the characters were experiencing.”
How similar were the responses of the 45 synesthetes to what they actually saw? When the participants’ hands and the video hand had the same posture — all hands palms-up, for example — the participants frequently felt touch on the same surface stimulated in the video. However, when the hands were in a different position (video hand palms-down, participants’ hands palms-up), a different pattern emerged.
One group consistently felt phantom touch on their own hand surface that was facing up regardless of the side touched in the video. The other group always felt touch on the surface stimulated in the video regardless of their own hand position.
"I Feel for You—Some Really Do," UDaily, (Feb. 6, 2017)
“These phantom sensations were more frequent when the participants’ hand position matched the video hand’s. Our findings suggest that the brain is matching the video hand to their own hand, as if asking ‘could that be my hand?’” Medina says.
The hands have a hefty region dedicated to them in the somatosensory cortex — the area of your brain that processes and maps inputs from the multitude of neurons responsible for touch. The amount of processing space taken up by the fingers in this brain region is almost equivalent to the space devoted to the entire area extending from the forearms to the mid-torso, Medina points out.
People with MTS map tactile data differently than the rest of us do, but scientists don’t yet know how. When most people view someone else being touched, some somatosensory brain regions are active. These same networks may be hyperactive in mirror-touch synesthetes, resulting in them feeling touch viewed on someone else’s body, Medina says.
Other forms of synesthesia exist, which some mirror-touch synesthetes also may have, Medina says. Instead of the black text of this article, they may see it in another color. Some may experience taste when seeing another person eating or drinking.
"I Feel for You—Some Really Do," UDaily, (Feb. 6, 2017)
Marilyn Monroe, Vladimir Nabokov and Vincent van Gogh are among a growing list of famous people believed to have been synesthetes. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman saw the letters in equations in different colors. Mary J. Blige, Billy Joel and Stevie Wonder are just a few of the musicians who have said they experience music as colors.
In future research, Medina wants to use the fMRI in UD’s new Center for Biomedical and Brain Imaging as part of the testing. By measuring oxygenated blood flow, the cutting-edge instrument can reveal what parts of the brain are most active during a particular task or movement. Medina hopes it can be used to understand brain function in those with MTS.
“We often assume that sensory experience is standard — that we all see, hear and feel things the same way. But that’s not the case. Our brains are all wired a little differently,” Medina says. “Our research is important for understanding variety in the human experience and how the mind works.”
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the University of Delaware Research Foundation
Next Week
Charlotte McConaghy,
Once There Were Wolves
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Arizona and New Mexico
The five last known wild Mexican gray wolves were captured in 1980 in accordance with an agreement between the United States and Mexico intended to save the critically endangered subspecies. Between 1982 and 1998, a comprehensive captive-breeding program brought Mexican wolves back from the brink of extinction. Over 300 captive Mexican wolves were part of the recovery program.[1]
The ultimate goal for these wolves is to reintroduce them to areas of their former range. In March 1998, this reintroduction campaign began with the releasing of three packs into the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona, and 11 wolves into the Blue Range Wilderness Area of New Mexico.[2] By 2014, as many as 100 wild Mexican wolves were in Arizona and New Mexico. The final goal for Mexican wolf recovery is a wild, self-sustaining population of at least 300 individuals.[3] In 2021, 186 wolves were counted in the annual survey, of which 114 wolves were spotted in New Mexico and the other 72 in Arizona. This shows a steady growth throughout the last 5 years.[1]
Current Distribution and Population
As of March 2023, there were at least 241 wild Mexican wolves in the United States: 136 in New Mexico (40 packs), and 105 in Arizona (19 packs).[4] The total captive Mexican wolf population is 380 individuals, across over 60 facilities.[
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Colorado
Wolves traversed a Rocky Mountain pathway from Canada to Mexico until the 1940s. They are seen by wildlife experts as essential to the native balance of species, species interactions, and ecosystem health.[5] Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) created a multidisciplinary working group that drafted a wolf management plan for possible reintroduction. The Colorado Wildlife Commission approved the plan in May 2005.[6][7]
Proposition 114, a ballot initiative to introduce wolves in the western part of the state by 2023, was narrowly approved by voters in November 2020.[8] The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission was tasked with preparing a plan.[9]
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
Grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995. These wolves were considered as “experimental, nonessential” populations per article 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such classification gave government officials greater leeway in managing wolves to protect livestock, which was considered one of a series of compromises wolf reintroduction proponents made with concerned local ranchers.
Local industry and environmental groups battled for decades over the Yellowstone and Idaho wolf reintroduction effort. The idea of wolf reintroduction was first brought to Congress in 1966 by biologists who were concerned with the critically high elk populations in Yellowstone and the ecological damages to the land from excessively large herds. Officially, 1926 was when the last wolves were killed within Yellowstone’s boundaries. When the wolves were eradicated and hunting eliminated, the elk population boomed. Over the succeeding decades, elk populations grew so large that they unbalanced the local ecosystem. The number of elk and other large prey animals increased to the point that they gathered in large herds along valley bottoms and meadows, overgrazing new-growth vegetation. Because of overgrazing, deciduous woody plant species, such as upland aspen and riparian cottonwood, became seriously diminished. So, because the keystone predators, the wolves, had been removed from the Yellowstone-Idaho ecosystem, the ecosystem changed. This change affected other species as well. Coyotes filled in the niche left by wolves, but could not control the large ungulate populations. Booming coyote numbers, furthermore, also had a negative effect on other species, particularly the red fox, pronghorn, and domestic sheep. Ranchers, though, remained steadfastly opposed to reintroducing a species of animal that they considered to be analogous to a plague, citing the hardships that would ensue with the potential loss of stock caused by wolves.[10]
The government, which was charged with creating, implementing, and enforcing a compromise, struggled for over two decades to find middle ground. A wolf recovery team was appointed in 1974, and the first official recovery plan was released for public comment in 1982. General public apprehension regarding wolf recovery forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revise their plan to implement more control for local and state governments, so a second recovery plan was released for public comment in 1985. That same year, a poll conducted at Yellowstone National Park showed that 74% of visitors thought wolves would improve the park, while 60% favored reintroducing them. The preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), the last critical step before reintroduction could be approved, was halted when Congress insisted that further research be done before an EIS was to be funded.
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
In 1987, in an effort to shift the burden of financial responsibility from ranchers to the proponents of wolf reintroduction, Defenders of Wildlife set up a "wolf compensation fund" that would use donations to pay ranchers market value for any stock that was lost to wolf depredation. That same year, a final recovery plan was released. Following a long period of research, public education, and public commenting, a draft EIS was released for public review in 1993, and it received over 150,000 comments from interested parties. It was finalized in May 1994, and included a clause that specified that all wolves reintroduced to the recovery zones would be classified under the "experimental, nonessential" provision of the ESA. Though the original plan called for three recovery zones – one in Idaho, another in Montana, and a final one in the greater Yellowstone area – the Montana recovery zone was eliminated from the final EIS after it had been proven that a small, but breeding population had already established itself in the northwestern part of the state. The plan stipulated that each of the three recovery areas must have 10 breeding pairs of wolves successfully rearing two or more pups for three consecutive years before the minimum recovery goals would be reached.
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
Two lawsuits filed in late 1994 put the recovery plan in jeopardy. While one of the lawsuits was filed by the Wyoming Farm Bureau, the other was filed by a coalition of concerned environmental groups including the Idaho Conservation League and Audubon Society. The latter group pointed to unofficial wolf sightings as proof that wolves had already migrated down to Yellowstone from the north, which, they argued, made the plan to reintroduce an experimental population in the same area unlawful. According to their argument, if wolves were already present in Yellowstone, they should rightfully be afforded full protection under the ESA, which, they reasoned, was preferable to the limited "experimental" classification that would be given to any reintroduced wolves.[11]
Nevertheless, both cases were thrown out on January 3, 1995. Adolescent members from packs of Mackenzie Valley wolves in Alberta, Canada, were tranquilized and carted down to the recovery zones later that week, but a last-minute court order delayed the planned releases. The stay came from an appellate court in Denver, and was instigated by the Wyoming Farm Bureau. After spending an additional 36 hours in transport cages in Idaho and in their holding pens in Yellowstone, the wolves were finally released following official judicial sanction. Yellowstone's wolves stayed in acclimation pens for two more months before being released into the wild. Idaho's wolves, conversely, were given a hard (or immediate) release. Sixty-six wolves were released to the two areas in this manner in January 1995 and January 1996.
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
The 2005 estimates of wolf populations in the two recovery zones reflect the success the species has had in both areas:
Greater Yellowstone area: 325
Central Idaho: 565
These numbers, added with the estimated number of wolves in northwestern Montana (130), puts the total number of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains recovery area at over 1000 individuals. This includes about 134 packs (two or more wolves traveling together) and 71 breeding pairs (male and female that successfully rear a litter of at least two until Dec. 31). The recovery goal for the area was revised to 30 breeding pairs total, and this number has been surpassed for some time.[12]
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
Over the decades since wolves have been present in the region, hundreds of incidents of livestock depredation have been confirmed, though such predation represents a minute proportion of a wolf's diet on a per-wolf basis. While the majority of wolves ignore livestock entirely, a few wolves or wolf packs become chronic livestock hunters, and most of these have been killed to protect livestock. Since the year Defenders of Wildlife implemented their compensation fund, they have allocated over $1,400,000 to private owners for proven and probable livestock depredation by wolves. Opponents argue that the Yellowstone reintroductions were unnecessary, as American wolves were never in danger of biological extinction, since wolves still persisted in Canada. Opponents have also stated that wolves are of little commercial benefit, as cost estimates on wolf recovery are from $200,000 to $1 million per wolf. The Lamar Valley is one of the best places in the world to observe wolves, though, and tourism based on wolves is booming.[13] The growing wolf-viewing outfitting trend contrasts with declines for big-game hunters. National Park Service Biologist Wayne Brewster informed guides and outfitters living north of Yellowstone National Park, to expect a 50% drop in harvestable game when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park.[14] This was confirmed when in 2006, the Yellowstone elk herd had in fact shrunk to 50% since the mid 1990s, though researchers documented that most of the elk that fell prey to wolves were very old, diseased, or very young.[citation needed] Two 30-day periods of tracking radio-collared wolves showed that 77–97% of prey species documented by wolves in the park were elk. Outside the park, numerous hunting outfitters have closed due to the concomitant 90% reduction in elk permits.[15] Defenders of Wildlife transitioned from paying compensation to helping ranchers use nonlethal methods to better protect livestock from wolf predation. These methods include carcass removal to reduce attractants to scavengers, increased human presence near livestock, lighting, herd management, livestock guard dogs, and other measures
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
The reintroduction of wolves, an apex predator, has had important impacts on biodiversity within Yellowstone National Park. Through predation of elk populations, wolf reintroduction has coincided with an increase of new-growth vegetation among certain plants, such as aspen and willow trees,[16] which elk previously grazed upon at unsustainable levels. Presence of wolves has even changed behavioral patterns of other animals. Elk have quit venturing into deeper thickets, out of fear of being attacked by wolves in an area of such low visibility. Elk have also begun avoiding open areas such as valley bottoms and open meadows, where prior to wolf introduction, the elk grazed collectively and avoided predation from mountain lions and bears. This process of top predators regulating the lower sections of the trophic pyramid was dubbed, "the ecology of fear" by William J. Ripple and Robert L. Bestcha[17] In addition to the restoration of vegetation several important species, such as the beaver[16] (which also became extinct in the park) and red fox have also recovered, probably due to the wolves keeping coyote populations under control.[18]
The Idaho state government opposed the reintroduction of wolves into the state, and many ranchers and hunters there feel as if the wolves were forced onto the state by the federal government. The state's wolf management plan is prefaced by the legislature's memorial declaring that the official position of the state is the removal of all wolves by any means necessary. Because of the state of Idaho's refusal to participate in wolf restoration, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Nez Perce tribe initially managed the wolf population there since the reintroduction. During that time, the Idaho wolf population had made the most remarkable comeback in the region, with its abundant federal lands and wilderness areas peaking at nearly 900 wolves (almost half of the regional wolf population) in 2009. However, the wolves have increasingly been blamed for livestock and hunting opportunity losses. The FWS attempted twice to delist wolves from federal protection and turn them over to state management, but both of those attempts were found unlawful by the federal court in Missoula, Montana. To quell the political battle between the ranchers, hunters, and conservationists, members of Congress removed Endangered Species Act protection from wolves in 2011 and gave wolf management to the states of Idaho and Montana under state wolf management plans. Since that time, the FWS has also delisted wolves from federal protection in Wyoming, and the state now has authority over wolf management there, as well. This decision is also being challenged as unlawful in court in 2013.
Wolf reintroduction--Wikipedia
Northern Rocky Mountains
Despite being approved by the FWS, Idaho’s proposed management plan is still shrouded in controversy. The plan[19] calls for 10 breeding pairs in Idaho or 100 to 150 wolves. Compared with the state's other wildlife numbers (e.g. 2000-3000 mountain lions, 20,000 American black bears, 100,000 elk, and several hundred thousand mule deer), conservationists are concerned that too few wolves are protected under the plan. According to the FWS guidelines, the Idaho wolf population needs to stay above 100 individuals for the species to stay off the endangered species list and remain a viable, self-sustaining population, but much evidence shows that a much larger wolf population can survive in Idaho without having major impacts on livestock and hunting opportunities.[citation needed]
In adjacent Washington, wolves were not reintroduced, but populations have been re-established through the natural expansion of the Idaho population. By 2008, wolves had established a permanent toehold in Washington, and have increased their number every year since. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife tracks the "minimum numbers" of wolves. This number only counts wolves in known packs that den inside the state. Lone wolves, suspected packs, and packs that range into the state but den outside it are not counted. In 2008, this "minimum number" was five; by the end of 2014, it was 68. Known wolf packs are concentrated in the northeastern corner of the state, but packs occur also in the central Cascades. In 2015, a wolf was killed on Interstate 90, about 10 mi west of the Snoqualmie Pass, proving the wolves are expanding westward.[20]
Current Distribution and Population
As of March 2023, the Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf population is now distributed across western Montana (1,100 wolves), western Wyoming (311 wolves), Idaho (1,337 wolves), eastern Washington (206 wolves), and Eastern Oregon (175 wolves). There is a small presence in northern California (30 wolves) and northern Colorado (6 wolves)