Goodmans mouse lemur, Andasibe, Madagascar
A lovely spontaneous encounter with this mouse lemur, as often such encounters are planned. They are commonly lured during night tours by spreading banana pulp on trees. Or, in Kirindy, they are so well studied that they are always found, within minutes.
Our guide described it as Goodmans mouse lemur. This superficially matches visually and the distribution checks out as well. Still, I don't understand how to tell apart a male Brown mouse lemur from this species. For the time being, taking our guide's word for it.
Goodman's mouse lemur is a species of mouse lemur from the region near Andasibe in eastern Madagascar. It is thought to have diverged from other mouse lemurs in the region about 2 million years ago.
The species is named in honor of primatologist Steven M. Goodman. "Lehilahytsara" is a combination of the Malagasy words which mean "good" and "man". The finding was presented August 10, 2005, along with the discovery of the northern giant mouse lemur as a separate species.
In 2005,.. more
comments (7)
Still, it's obviously not great for their eyes and in any case a nuisance and disturbance. This individual should be fine though, hardly any tourist comes here so it would be a relatively rare or infrequent encounter. Posted 5 years ago
Salamanders, for example, are sensitive and I try to avoid flashing them when possible, but it's so challenging to get them in focus in the dark forest otherwise. But, mine is probably the only flash each individual will ever see. A remote, diffused light would likely be a better option. Maybe there is no permanent damage or even short-term damage, but who knows. It's a question that I don't have an answer to and can only try to reduce my impact when possible. Posted 5 years ago
Whilst I deeply respect and adore animals, our trips aren't helping them. There's the footprint of the long flight. And there's the disturbance. Even if minimal, it would quite simply be even better to not disturb them at all. Technically, I'm not helping the animal versus just leaving it alone.
You could argue that the result (observations) have value in raising awareness and education and sometimes they have some scientific value (to better understand which species occurs where).
This "link" is very weak though. If this awareness or education does not lead to any actual conservation action, and I'd argue it typically doesn't, we have not helped the animal. Yet we haven't killed or truly harmed it either. It's an uncomfortable thought how even the deepest animal lover may be part of the problem, but I'm not avoiding the thought. This is why I'm a proponent of besides having national parks, to also have no-go areas. Luckily this is the case in many countries, usually the national park is a tiny accessible part of a much larger inaccessible protected area.
I do think we have to rank threats to wildlife in proper order of impact. By far their biggest threat is habitat destruction. They simply have no place left. Other severe threats may be hunting (for larger animals), changing conditions they cannot adapt to, and pet trade.
By those standards, inconveniencing an animal by taking a photo seems minor. And in a really screwed up way, it often protects what is left, as tourists fund national parks.
So I'm not sure if I'm helping or hurting. The only thing I can say in my own defense is that I take the far end of ethical wildlife photography. I photograph as it is and don't move animals. Sometimes guides do and I'm not in time to stop it. Exceptionally, I don't stop them, for example for frogs if I know they are handled correctly.
I will even take it into the unreasonable. Example: the real reason why you will find missing angles on my fungi shots is not that I forgot. I don't want to kick it over. I know that this is not harmful to the organism at all. I simply want to leave things as they are. It's an irrational purity I strive for.
Know that I do not expect this of others. I know it's unreasonable and not needed. But I too have limits. I gladly kill a mosquito and do so whilst smiling. They asked for it when invading my body. Pretty rude to just start stabbing and sucking blood out of the blue. Posted 5 years ago
It's probably overly idealistic to think that the footprint left by most tourism doesn't outweigh any benefits to education and conservation. I wish it did though. I like to imagine tourists going into nature, being overwhelmed by its intricacies and beauty, and then going home, learning more, changing their lives, and supporting conservation. Do I live in fairy land, lol?
I love the concept of no-go areas. Even smaller preserves around here generally have those with either large-ish areas of forest where hikers aren't allowed and/or not allowing people to go off-trail. I prefer off-trail hiking though, so I don't often frequent those places. Thankfully, most people don't hike off-trail. I'm sure I make an impact on nature by doing so though, even as I try to reduce it.
I agree that impact can definitely be ranked. Where does a flash lie in that spectrum, I'm not sure, but I'd assume it's minimal. But, over time, the animals get more used to people and start begging/robbing people (we have bears in nearby forests that rob people by harassing them until they drop their packs, which the bears then rifle through for food), etc. There are also birds in Baxter State Park in Maine that will hop right on you and beg for food. These wild animals are not acting wild. But, humans are also part of nature, and it could be argued that all species in nature can naturally have an impact on other species. Is this just our contribution to nature? I don't know, but I don't like it.
I'm a purist too, but not as much as you are...I'm more of a hypocritical purist. I tip mushrooms. I touch creatures (only if they are willing). I occasionally cut open galls to see what's inside. My self-control is lacking and my curiosity nearly eats me alive with wanting to know more - to see inside, to touch, and learn the details. I prefer to leave no trace though and think in the long run that it is most likely the ideal approach. After all, you can't make a negative impact if you tread lightly. I admire your approach. Posted 5 years ago, modified 5 years ago
Tourists likely *are* overwhelmed by the beauty of nature. Even non-tourists are. I imagine that even the typical urban person seeing Planet Earth is deeply touched, in awe of nature's beauty and would very much not want it to disappear.
Yet the day after the alarm clock goes and it all seems a distant dream. You take the car to work, possibly for a company that adds to the problem. And then you drive back and go grocery shopping. Just by filling your cart with products, you've made the situation worse.
I do not believe in the strategy that change should solely come from demand. I do not believe you can expect a person to study for weeks to figure out which product has palm oil in it. These things should be solved on the supply side. Such products should be banned or made 5 times more expensive.
The default should be ethical. Unethical should be more difficult and more expensive. Or illegal. Right now it's the exact opposite. It takes an absurd amount of dedication for a consumer to make the right choices and likely they'll still get it wrong. Posted 5 years ago