School Starts Tomorrow

Since it looks like I'll be here the whole Fall semester, I've decided to put some structure into my life and take a couple of classes this fall at UAA.

And I'm taking Mariano Gonzales' Digital Art and Design. I took a similar class from him years ago - I think it was just called computer art back then. I'd seen some murals he'd made with video and digital and thought I should learn. Well, it wasn't a class to touch up photos. It was an art class and on the first day when we got our assignment to take three of the tools in the program we were using (Corel Draw?) and make a picture, I quickly discovered that everyone else in class was an accomplished artist.

My simple flower pot with a daisy looked like 2nd grade compared to the detailed cowboy boots on one side of me and the portrait on the other side. But I worked hard and did reasonably well, and learned a lot.

So this will give me a chance to get my photoshop skills back up and do some more creative work with my pictures and from scratch. [Posted with permission of the artist]

Mariano is a UAA professor and wicked artist whose work is technically precise and often political as this picture of St. Ted demonstrates. You can see more of his poster work here. He's doing more sculpture now.

I'm signing up for a weight training class just so I'll get in on a regular basis. I've been reasonably good about running (or biking), but I haven't done weights for a while. Class gets me in twice a week and I get pushed more than I would push myself.

Unfortunately, we head out tonight for Seattle to see the kids and then Portland to visit friends there. I have to get word to the weight training teacher, but there's no name listed.

Read Books Not Blogs

Gary sent me this picture which he got from The Girl in the Green Dress











Good fiction is packed with far more truth than most non-fiction. And it's a great escape from the here and now. But I've been trapped in Salman Rushdie for much too long.

I started reading The Ground Beneath Her Feet on the plane to Thailand last February. It starts out in Mumbai full of Rushdie's wild prose riffs that soar, race, even explode, always challenging.

Why do we care about singers? Wherein lies the power of the songs? Maybe it derives from the sheer strangeness of there being singing in the world. The note, the scale, the chord; melodies, harmonies, arrangements; symphonies, ragas, Chinese operas, jazz, the blues: that such things should exist, that we should have discovered the magical intervals and distances that yield the poor cluster of notes, all within the span of a human hand, from which we can build our cathedrals of sound, is as alchemical a mystery as mathematics, or wine, or love. (p. 19)

Some of his books are like that non-stop. In this one the gaps got longer and longer as he wandered off into cosmic collisions that didn't work for me. The second half of the book became a burden as I had to slog through the parts between the brilliance.

A fictional rock impresario explains why he bought the pirate radio ships blasting rock and roll into England in the 60's when the government stations on land only played the music of the past:

I understood then that the limit on the needle time was the enemy, the censor. The limit was General Waste-More-Land's broadcasting ally, General Haig's whore. Enough with big bands and men in white tuxes with bow ties pretending nothing was going on. I mean come on. A nation at war deserves to hear the music that's going mano a mano with the war machine, that's sticking flowers down its gun barrels and baring its breasts to the missiles. The soldiers are singing these songs as they die. But this is not the way soldiers used to sing, marching into battle bellowing hymns, kidding themselves they had god on their side; these aren't patriotic-bullshit, get-yourself-up-for-it songs These kids are using singing instead, as an affirmation of what's natural and true, singing against the unnatural lie of the war. Using song as a banner of their doomed youth. Not morituri te salutant, but morituri say up yours, Jack, those about to die give you the fucking finger. That's why I got the ships. (p. 267)

...and whenever someone who knows you disappears, you lose one version of yourself. Yourself as you were seen, as you were judged to be. Lover or enemy, mother or friend, those who know us construct us, and their several knowings slant the different facets of our characters like diamond-cutter's tools. Each such loss is a step leading to the grave, where all versions blend and end. (p. 509)

I kept putting it down, picking it up, putting it down again. Mostly I was caught up with work in Thailand, studying Thai, and just being in Thailand. And I've read some non-fiction - mostly trying to figure out how to use this computer better, but also Maimonides. I probably should have permanently set Rushdie aside a couple hundred pages ago. But like a gambler at a slot machine, I'd get another small prose jackpot which kept me plugging along until now I'm at page 518, only 57 to go. I'll be out from under the tyranny of this book soon, free to enjoy fiction again.

Books should be hard to put down. This one is hard to pick up. And today I picked up a totally different book. It's only 180 pages. It's by Angolan, José Eduardo Agualusa, and is translated from the Portuguese. Totally engaging. The Book of the Chameleons is narrated by a gecko on the walls of the house of Félix Ventura.

"But do tell me, my dear man - who are your clients?"
Félix Ventura gave in. There was a whole class, he explained a whole new bourgeoisie, who sought him out. They were businessmen, ministers, landowners, diamond smugglers, generals - people, in other words, whose futures are secure. But what these people lack is a good past, a distinguished ancestry, diplomas. In sum, a name that resonates with nobility and culture. He sells them a brand new past. He draws up their family tree. He provides them with photographs of their grandparents and great-grandparents, gentlemen of elegant bearing and old-fashioned ladies...He sells them this simple dream.

Touched by Fall

Birch leaves, most still green
One already touched by fall
Clings no tree, a wall.

Bike Trail Confusion

As I was near the end of my third mile today, near Lake Otis and Chester Creek, probably the corridor used by the bear hit on Gambell yesterday morning, (Wow, as I searched for the link to that article, I found out that everybody is carrying that story. It was an AP story even in the Anchorage Daily News), I saw a couple with bikes, stopped and looking at a map.

Well, they wanted to do the Loop - Chester Creek to Campbell Creek to Coastal Trail back to downtown. It's a great ride, but there are these gaping holes in it as well as unmarked turns. The visitor trying to patch together these three great trails really faces a challenge. They even said they tried it from the other way, but eventually gave up.

And I feel bad. I tried to explain to them how to





1) make sure they turned right so they could cross the Northern Lights bridge,









2) then turn the right way to get around Goose Lake, (the sign is all backward)













3) past the construction at UAA




and find the 4) connection after the Tudor Bridge, then 5) find the Campbell trail from there, and 6) refind it after it stops at Lake Otis, then












7) get under the Seward Highway (which I have posted here),










then 8) turn the right way on the dirt trail to get to Arctic Road Runner where they'd be home free.



Except, after they left, I realized that, of course, they weren't home free, because that trail doesn't have an obvious connection to the Coastal Trail and they would be lost at the same break they were lost at coming the other way.

Maybe someone will tell them how to get to Kincaid from there. They have till 9 tonight to catch their plane. Sorry, I left out the end. But by Arctic Road Runner I already figured they'd have to be pretty smart and pretty lucky just to get there.

We need:

1. A bike trail map that gets people through the gaps
2. Signs on the trail to help people do the Loop
3. To have the gaps filled in

It's a great ride, but finding it is a much bigger challenge than riding it.


I'll try to post some instructions with pictures when we get back from our trip.

Alaskan Abroad Adds to the Corrections Discussion

Dillon at Alaskan Abroad has added to the discussion on making corrections to online versions of the newspaper (and blogs.)

I really think these type of changes call for an editor's note at the top of the story pointing out exactly what was altered.

The whole post is at the link above.

Biden

Be careful when you vote on Prop. 2

[NOTE:  This post was about PROP 2 2008.  I will do [have done] one on the 2010 PROP 2 before too long.]

[UPDATE 2012:  Here's the post on the 2012 Prop 2 to reestablish an Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program.]

I voted today because we're headed out of town on Sunday night. Before you go to vote, be sure you know how you want to vote on Prop. 2 - aerial hunting of wolves. I found the wording confusing.

This bill amends current law banning same-day airborne shooting to include grizzly bears. The bill permits the Board of Game to allow a predator program for wolves and grizzly bears if the Commissioner of Fish and Game finds an emergency, where wolves or grizzly bears in an area are causing a decline in prey. Only employees of the Department of Fish and Game could take part in the program. Only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears needed to stop the emergency could be removed.

I guess I thought that since the proponents of Prop 2 have been talking about how airborne hunting of wolves was such a terrible thing that they were proposing a law to ban that. I didn't realize we had a law that already bans it. That's what threw me off. We do. But there are exceptions for situations when the predators need to be culled so that the moose and caribou populations will be higher so that humans can hunt them, and, if there is disease. .

What this amendment appears to do is to more stringently define when the State could authorize airborne hunting and then when it does authorized it, only State Fish and Game employees can do the hunting. Also wolverines are also mentioned in the statutes.

You can go to the election page to get the wording of the ballots and to another page to read the voter pamphlet.

The ballot information, I'm afraid, is not particularly helpful. You'd think it would tell you the number of the current statute that will be replaced or amended by the proposition. And you'd be wrong. Or at least I couldn't find it. I had to go to the Alaska Statues and find it myself.

Here's the existing language that would be replaced - at least that's how I understand it.

Sec. 16.05.783. Same day airborne hunting.

(a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf or wolverine the same day that a person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator control program as part of a game management plan that involves airborne or same day airborne shooting if the board has determined based on information provided by the department

(1) in regard to an identified big game prey population under AS 16.05.255(g) that objectives set by the board for the population have not been achieved and that predation is an important cause for the failure to achieve the objectives set by the board, and that a reduction of predation can reasonably be expected to aid in the achievement of the objectives; or

(2) that a disease or parasite of a predator population

(A) is threatening the normal biological condition of the predator population; or

(B) if left untreated, would spread to other populations.

(b) This section does not apply to

(1) a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight; or

(2) an employee of the department who, as part of a game management program, is authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that the employee has been airborne.

(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the state.

(d) When the Board of Game authorizes a predator control program that includes airborne or same day airborne shooting, the board shall have the prerogative to establish predator reduction objectives and limits, methods and means to be employed, who is authorized to participate in the program, and the conditions for participation of individuals in the program.

(e) The use of state employees or state owned or chartered equipment, including helicopters, in a predator control program is prohibited without the approval of the commissioner.

(f) In this section,

(1) "free-ranging" means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and

(2) "game management program" means a program authorized by the Board of Game or the commissioner to achieve identified game management objectives in a designated geographic area.

Here's the language of the initiative:

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
An Act Prohibiting the Shooting of Wolves & Grizzly Bears with the Use of Aircraft Be it enacted by the People of the State of Alaska that Section 1. A.S. 16.05.783 is amended to read: Section 16.05.783. (a) A person may not shoot or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf, wolverine or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. However, the Board of Game may authorize a predator program involving the shooting of wolves or grizzly bears
Ballot Measure 2
Bill Amending Same Day Airborne Shooting from the air or on the same day that a person has been airborne if
(1) the Commissioner of Fish and Game makes written findings based on adequate data demonstrating that a biological emer- gency exists and that there is no feasible solution other than airborne control to eliminate the bioogical emergency;
(2) any shooting is conducted by Department of Fish and Game personnel only, and not by any permittee or agent;
(3) the program is limited to the specific geographical area where the biological emergency exists; and
(4) the program removes only the minimum number of wolves or grizzly bears necessary to eliminate the biological emergency.
(b) This section does not apply to a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled commercial flight.
(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. In addition, the court may order the aircraft
and equipment used in or in aid of a violation of this section to be forfeited to the State.
(d) In this section,
(1) “free-ranging” means that the animal is wild and not caught in a trap or snare; and
(2) “biological emergency” means a condition where a wolf or grizzly bear population in a specific geographic area is depleting a prey population to a point that if not corrected will cause an irreversible decline in the prey population such that it is not likely to recover without implementing wolf or grizzly bear control.

By the way, while I was in the Statues, I came across this law of elephant permits. Just in case you were thinking of bringing back an elephant from your next trip:

Sec. 16.40.060. Elephant permit.

The commissioner may issue a permit, subject to reasonable conditions established by the commissioner, to possess, import, or export an elephant. A permit may be issued only to a person who proves to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the person

(1) intends to exhibit the animal commercially;

(2) possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and

(3) maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner.

Bears, Moose, People Part 2- The Pieces

[All the wild bear pictures and the runner in the woods picture were taken by my friend Doug while he was visiting this summer.]


In the Bears, Moose, People Part 1, I discussed the narratives people have in their heads about urban wildlife. In Part 2 I want to discuss the pieces, basically those things that can change or be changed to decrease the likelihood of bad encounters between people and bears.

I see three basic factors:

1. People
2. Bears
3. Land
   

1. People

People can change their behaviors:

• Stop attracting bears into urban areas
• no bird feeders in the buffer zone - residential area on the edge of parkland
• bear proof garbage cans in the buffer zone (shared country)
  
• no raising animals - chickens, goats, rabbits - in the buffer zone
• Limited use of park areas where bears are present
• stop activity that is most likely to provoke confrontations with bears, such as
• activity that increases likelihood of sudden encounters - ie.
  
• moving quickly through forested areas such as biking, running
  
• quiet movement through forested areas
• going into areas of bear habitat - spawning salmon runs
  

2. Bears
We can't change the general behavior of bears.

However,

• we can understand bear behavior and then using that understanding, change our own behavior in ways that will decrease specific bear behaviors. This works for bear behaviors that are affected by human behaviors, like coming into residential neighborhoods because of garbage, dog food, and bird seed.
• protecting particular areas, if deemed necessary, with bear proof barriers. For the most part this is impractical because of the large amount of land in question. This is, however, the logic behind bear proof garbage cans. If there are specific areas where people congregate, such as the Campbell Science Center, where bears could become a problem, there could be raised decks, boardwalks, etc. that would better separate humans and bears.
  
• remove bears that become problems - relocation or, if necessary, killing problem bears.

3. Land
In abstract terms, we can identify three land areas:

• Bear country - this is the natural area of bears, people enter this area occasionally at their own risk
  
• Shared country (border zone) - this is area, such as parks on the edge of urban areas, where both people and bears go regularly
  
• People country - this is urban area, particularly residential, that is primarily the natural area of people, where bears only occasionally enter

The problem here is that different people would put the boundaries at different places on the map. For some, bear country would be at least 50 miles from any road, and shared country would be 25 or more miles from any road. People country would extend as far as anyone could reasonably hike or bike from a trailhead from a road. Others would consider shared country parks on the urban edge.



How people react to the options listed above will depend on the narratives they have about people, bears, and the relationship between people and bears. Let's look at this. (And as I write this, I realize I'm modifying a bit the narratives I outlined in Part 1, or even offering new narratives. Please indulge me on this.)

Narratives about Bears range from:

• Treadwell narratives - bears are really sweet and gentle and if you understand them we can all live in harmony.

to

• Bears are vicious animals and the wild bears should not be anywhere near people

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Bears are not ruthless, vicious creatures, but the are big, powerful, have sharp teeth and claws and in some circumstances can be dangerous to human beings. Those basic dangerous situations have been identified by biologists as:

• protecting their young
• protecting their food
• when startled or otherwise provoked or threatened

Biologists also tell us that bears have different ursanalities ("personalities" doesn't seem quite the right word) and, like some people, some bears don't follow the general rules of how bears behave.

All the recent bear encounters appear to fit these categories. Bears coming into urban areas seem to be looking for food that people have left out, or in the form of moose or fish. These bears have not attacked people, and those who have not shown fear of humans, have been shot by state biologists or police.

Narratives about People

These are more difficult. But let me give it a shot:

• Freedom extremists - These people seem to still be in that childhood stage where they don't think about how their actions affect others. They want to do what they want to do and others be damned. If I want to go riding in the park, well, I should be able to do that without fear of bears. Therefore, get the bears out.
  
• Extreme anti-risk Parents - Anything that might cause the slightest risk to their children should be banned or removed. (What people consider to be a risk is subjective.)
  
• Dare-devils - They aren't so interested in getting rid of the bears, but want to be able to take whatever risks they want to take. "If I want to take that risk, what's it to you? I'm not asking you to do it." They may not realize that their behavior may jeopardize the bear by provoking an attack that will cause public reaction to remove or kill the bear. Or that their feeding a bear will cause that bear to approach other people for food.
  
• The ignorant - They just aren't aware, don't read the rules, act surprised and even indignant if something bad happens. "How was I supposed to know?"
• Basic Rule Followers - these people follow the rules, particularly the ones that make sense to them. They'll buy bear proof garbage cans and read and follow the bear-safety pamphlets.
• Coexistence activists - They moved to Anchorage because of the natural wilderness and are active in protecting the wilderness and animals and promoting safe interaction.
• Bears are our friends utopians - They embrace the coexistence ideal and gloss over the fact that bears can kill. "Why can't well all just live as one happy family?"
• Bear Tyrants - They insist that the loss of any animal life is a crime and that anyone hurt by a bear was at fault.

OK, I'm offering a few extreme examples here and I'm sure I've left out a lot of possible ways people think about this topic, but you get the idea. We don't agree. And we aren't consistent. There may be times when we fit one narrative and other times when we don't.

Whatever rules or guidelines or laws we have about what people should or should not do, there will be people who don't follow the rules. There are also people who will follow the rules, yet still find themselves in dicey situations. Life contains risk. Dogs cause more human deaths in Alaska than do bears. Finding exact stats on this is not easy, but so far this year I'm aware of two children killed by dogs (in Fort Yukon and in Anchorage). This 1981 report that says:

Between 1955 and 1980, 14 human deaths from dog attacks were documented in the State of Alaska. In addition, discussions with private physicians, private veterinarians, public health nurses, and sanitarians strongly suggest that at least twice this number of human deaths from dog bites occurred during this 25-year period of time. Of the 14 documented cases, all occurred in children less than 10 years of age.

This 2008 report says

Alaska Report at a Glance:

• Deaths (1991-2002): 9
• Median Age: 54 months
• Age Range: 9 to 64 months
• Circumstances: Three cases of free-roaming dogs, three of chained dogs, one victim wandered into dog lot, one attacked indoors by pet, one unknown

Wikipedia's list of bear deaths in the United States lists 7 human deaths from bears in Alaska in the 1991 - 2002 period. Most of these deaths were in what I have called bear country, though the two hikers at McHugh Creek, within the Municipality limits, were in what could be called shared country. Another death at a cabin near Glenallen might also be called shared country.

I'll try to get up Part III - Conclusions up before too long.

[If anyone can tell me how to fix the gaps around those picture, please do. I know that there is blank picture space blocking the wrap, but that's never happened before with pictures from iphoto.]

Stevens' Conflicting Statements Raise Doubts about his Mental Acuity

Yesterday, I suggested that Ted Stevens' best strategy for this election would have been to gracefully retire and protect Alaska's power in the Senate by sharing the knowledge he's accumulated in his long years of experience by mentoring his successor.

I also reported that he mumbled now and then. Today I got a link to this story from the Begich* campaign:

Sen. Ted Stevens is creating a legal defense fund to fight federal charges that he concealed more than $250,000 worth of gifts.

The Alaska Republican has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to approve the fund, which would be administered by a trustee who could solicit donations to help the senator with his court fees, according to Stevens’s spokesman.

Stevens said Tuesday during an Alaska Public Radio interview that the fund was already established, but his spokesman indicated Wednesday that Stevens misspoke and that he was "now seeking approval ... to establish such a fund.”

Senate rules require legal defense funds to be approved by the Select Committee on Ethics before any money can be raised. So far, no paperwork is on file with the Senate’s Office of Public Records. Once it is approved and the appropriate paperwork is submitted, Stevens can use the fund to pay his legal bills.

The old [younger] Ted Stevens wouldn't have made this mistake. It's not the fact that the the fund didn't exist yesterday that is important to me. It's the fact that Stevens didn't know it.


*I get emails from the Begich campaign and others now and then. It's raised questions for me about my role here. Clearly I lean toward what people call 'left.' but I don't see this as a partisan blog that simply pushes the party line. But I do try to put the pieces together and Stevens' error here is news. Calculating the value of his experience has to be balanced by calculating liability of his declining mental alertness over the next six years.

I'm also trying to figure out how to address questions about Begich's friend John Rubini. I haven't been on Ray Metcalfe's Anchorage tour of "Anchorage Political Corruption." But I have heard from other sources that Rubini looks very questionable. My basic response has been that Begich has known forever that he would eventually run for higher office, he has a good sense of the ethics rules, and that he's smart enough to avoid doing something stupid enough to jeopardize those ambitions. I was told, "All that may be true, but everyone has blindspots."

Of course, this all helps me understand why Republicans are sticking by Stevens. Those who like to spout black and white ethics simply haven't looked a little below the surface. If not Begich, who should I vote for? I don't think that Begich has done anything wrong. But supposing he has? Would that eliminate him from consideration? How bad would it have to be? This is a smart politician who in many ways has a vision that mirrors mine, though certainly not completely. Reps from the Begich campaign, people I respect, assure me that there is nothing there. Damn, life is so complicated.

So, I guess I'll have to check out Ray's tour and then bring my specific questions to Mark Begich. Why am I writing this if this is only rumor now? Well, the general story has been well covered by Ray Metcalfe. And I expect this is going nowhere. I'm also mindful that it isn't my job to find fault with candidates I support any more than the Republicans find fault with their candidates. Let the Republicans do the work. But I also want to have a blog that deals with the long-term truths of human beings more than the short term outcomes of specific political campaigns.

We are headed out of town next week, so this will be on hold for a bit.

Smashed Window

I came home from a couple of events at UAA this evening to find my van's rear window smashed. Since I don't drive it that often, I'm not 100% sure when I last saw it intact. I went by it at the end of my run today and should have seen it then. J said she went by it when she came home from her walk about 3:30pm. This evening I was on my bike. But would someone smash it in broad daylight? Maybe we just didn't notice it. That's a scary thought too.




UPDATE: 10:30pm - Our neighbors who were outside,as we were headed out to the Thai Kitchen. They all looked at the damage and we noticed that all the glass is on the outside. The car was locked, nothing inside was disturbed, the propane was turned off. It's all very curious. One neighbor had parked right behind the van about 4pm and hadn't noticed anything. But then they were all standing out there and didn't know about the window until I pointed it out. Any dectectives out there?