Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

Banff National Park is trying a new strategy to keep bears off the highway.

The park recently installed five kilometres of electrified wire along fencing on the side of the TransCanada highway, east of the Banff townsite.

Dan Rafla, a human-wildlife coexistence specialist for the park, said every summer, parks staff will see black bears climb the fence to eat dandelions and berries on the other side.

"In spring through June, we'll actually see a pulse of activity of bears crossing over the fence," he said.

"Then it might peter off into July as the snow melts off the landscape, grass grows elsewhere, and the animals follow that green wave up the mountains. Then we might see it again in August as buffalo berries come online in the valley bottom."

Staff havealreadyremoved berries and other food attractants from the highway side of the fence,and have replaced and upgraded fences to prevent animals burrowing underneath.

Now, the new wiring, installed far from any human trails a few weeks ago,will deliver strong but non-lethal zapsto encourage the bears to wander off in search ofa safer place to cross.

And Rafla said it's working so far.

"Unless something radically different has happened, that area where the hot wire [was installed] has been a traditional hotspot for bears climbing over for years and we haven't had one yet this year."

Rafla said they'll be assessing the wire's effectiveness over the course of the summer.

They have also introduced warning signs and highway speed reductions near those trouble spots to remind drivers to stay alert.

View original post here:
New Banff fence will zap bears who try to climb it to eat roadside dandelions - CBC.ca

On Monday, the banned and restricted announcement impacted both the Standard and Historic formats, alongside changing the way the companion mechanic works (You pay 3 generic mana to put your companion into your hand from exile). The bans themselves did not change as much in Historic as it did in Standard the only deck that disappeared completely was Jeskai Lukka whereas the change to Companion is going to have a pretty big impact on the metagame. In this article, Ill be going over what I think the top 5 Historic decks will be going forward, and why.

RB Lurrus is a deck that Crokeyz created and reached #1 mythic with. If you like Aristocrats decks, then this is the deck for you its extremely grindy and also has very explosive starts with Priest of the Forgotten Gods, so its good at any stage of the game. RB lurrus thrives when the meta consists of creature decks, as it can utilize Claim the Firstborn and a sacrifice outlet to kill creatures while pushing through damage. It is a bit weaker against control, but still has a good shot at winning the game. Even with the 3 mana tax, Lurrus is still very powerful against control because you are almost never casting it early in the game anyways. Before the bans, this deck was a contender for the #1 deck in Historic. Post-bans, however, this deck becomes a lot weaker due to the companion changes. When you would normally pay 3 for a Lurrus, you now have to pay 3 twice before you get any benefit this makes it impossible to play Lurrus + 1-drop on turn 4, which was something that the deck did often.

The reason that this deck is still on the list, despite losing a lot, it is still extremely explosive at times. For example, Priest of the Forgotten Gods + a Claim the Firstborn kills 2 of your opponents creatures while also dealing them damage and drawing cards. It retains its great matchup against creature decks and its grind potential against Control. There is definitely an argument for removing the Lurrus and adding Mayhem Devil, but the Devil usually feels too slow, it does not impact the board upon entry, and is 3 mana. Lurrus also provides the reach that the deck needs against control, while Mayhem Devil is a bit clunky. The situation where Mayhem Devil is very good is when there are lots of sacrifice decks in the meta or other decks with plenty of x/1s, and less control. If the meta shifts in that direction, I think that Mayhem Devil is a great consideration. Overall, I think that this deck will continue to be very strong while the meta still consists of creature decks once the meta becomes more control-heavy, this deck becomes a lot weaker.

Simic Nexus has long been one of the best decks, and that wont change now.. It uses Nexus of Fate and Wilderness Reclamation to take extra turns, while having Search for Azcanta and Tamiyo, Collector of Tales to dig for those cards and make this as consistent a game plan as possible. Meanwhile, it utilises fog effects as a great catch-all answer to buy turns against aggro decks.

The reason the deck has always been so strong, is that it has no terrible matchups. It has a good matchup against aggro (due to the fogs and bounce spells), and a good matchup against control (all the removal in their deck becomes useless). I would not recommend this deck to someone looking to play a quick easy match, because this deck will take a really long time to win, and involves some very complex lines. Simic Nexus was a strong deck before the changes, and not much has changed for it. You are usually using your Kaheera as a win condition, so the extra 3 mana doesnt really impact things too much. The fact that this deck lost practically nothing, and most decks lost a lot, is an extremely big upside. Nexus decks thrive when Teferi, Time Raveler isnt seeing much play, and Jeskai Lukka, one of the main Teferi decks, just became unplayable thanks to the bans. The deck also becomes a bit better against Winota, as they do not have those couple copies of Agent of Treachery; that card was a big problem for the nexus deck because you could fog all you want, but they would eventually steal some of your permanents. All of these reasons combined means that this deck has improved, and now has a good matchup against almost every deck.

Naya Winota is an aggro deck built around Winota, Joiner of Forces, allowing you to cheat an Angraths Mauraders into play and kill your opponent in one turn. Its ability to win on turn 4 many times had most people thinking that it is (and was) the best deck in Historic, but, in my opinion, the bans have impacted this deck a lot. The changes to Umori now prevent you from curving out with it as a powerful 4-drop play, making the deck substantially weaker. A smaller change that the deck faced was the loss of Agent of Treachery as, although only played in small numbers, Agent of Treachery was one of the only ways to beat Nexus through a fog. Many were surprised that Winota wasnt banned in Historic, as it was dominating the format up until this point. There is not much to be said about this deck as it has always been good, and will continue to be good. I know that a lot of people think that Winota should be #1 on this list, but the combination of Control having become more popular, and Umori having become worse, together make me think that this deck has lost its seat on the throne. That being said, the deck is still very competitive, and will definitely be one of the most played decks early into this new Historic format.

Mono Red is a strong deck in any format it is played in because of its extreme consistency and ability to end games extremely fast, due to its powerful early-game creatures, and potential to close games with burn spells even long after your opponents have stabilised. Another reason that this deck is rated so highly is that it has a good matchup against Winota, as you are able to kill most of their creatures post-board. In Historic, the deck gains access to Goblin Chainwhirler (which can kill 1 toughness creatures) and Burning-Tree Emissary (which allows for extremely explosive starts). The deck also gets to run many of the great cards from the standard versions, such as Embercleave (which will net you free wins a lot of the time), and Anax (which makes the deck very resilient against control). This versiondidnt lose anything with the changes, and is now better than the Mono Red Obosh list because of that. I think that this is one of the best decks to play right now, because people are still figuring out the format; its usually a good idea to play an aggro deck in an unknown format, because of their consistency and ability to prey upon untuned slower decks.

4

Teferi, Hero of Dominaria

Cards 60

Esper Kaheera Walkers is a pretty normal version of an Esper Control deck, though with more planeswalkers than usual as win conditions, alongside running Kaheera because the deck is creatureless so its completely free to include. The decks best matchup is aggro, as you can board wipe them many times, while also having ways to stall the board. The deck gains access to Teferi, Hero of Dominaria as a powerful threat that can deal with a wide variety of problem permanents. This deck was barely impacted by the changes because you almost never want to cast Kaheera on-curve anyway; there are so many good 3-drop plays the deck can make and, usually, Kaheera isnt one of the better ones. The deck also gains access to Timely Reinforcements post-board, which is an incredible hoser against aggro decks. The reason why I have Esper as #1 on this list, is because most of the meta is aggro, and those matchups tend to be great. With access to board wipes and life gain (such as timely reinforcements and Kayas wrath), you should have no trouble beating all of the aggro decks that I had on this list.

You may have noticed a pattern during this article: The decks that have risen to the top are the ones that benefited most from the bannings. Esper, for example, lost close to nothing, while many other decks were hampered so its position improved dramatically. I think that all 5 of these decks are good enough to do well with, and that they will remain at the top for some time. If you have any ideas of Historic decks you like that you think should be on this list, feel free to post them in the comment section of this article.

Thanks for reading, now go crush some Historic queues!

Read the original:
5 Decks to Beat in the New Post-Ban Historic MTG Arena Zone - MTG Arena Zone

Madison Stalker may not have found love this season of Below Deck Sailing Yacht, but things certainly seem to be heating up for her in the romance department these days.

Parsifal III's second stew confirmed during the Below Deck Sailing Yacht Season 1 reunionon Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen: @ Home on June 1 (watch a clip from the sit-down, above)that she has been "talking" to someone recently but "not dating."

As if that wasn't intriguing enough, Madison also revealed that he's in "the Bravo family." Madison wouldn't give any more details about this mystery man, but host Andy Cohen still tried to pry some out of her. "My producers are telling me that you follow Colin [Macy-O'Toole]from Below Deck Med and Luke [Gulbranson] from Summer House on Instagram," Andy said.

Madison responded coyly, "I'll tell you right now, it's not Colin."

Andy then noted that if something is, in fact, going on between Madison and Luke, he "couldn't be more for this relationship."

When we caught up with Madison on June 3 for an interview in our new video seriesThe Final Word(clip above), we asked if Luke is, in fact, the special someone she's been talking to or if it's someone else. "I'm just really happy and I'm very smitten, and that's all I'm gonna say about it. I'm just really happy," Madison said."We're just being a little private and being in our bubble. But I'm very happy and I'm very smitten."

It looks like Madison is just going to keep us guessing. In advance of the Below Deck Sailing Yacht reunion, she shared a black-and-white photo on Instagram on May 30 looking rather cozy with a bearded gentleman.

We can't wait to find out who the lucky fella is!

See everything theParsifal IIIcrew had to say about the reunion inThe Final Word, below.

The Daily Dish is your source for all things Bravo, from behind-the-scenes scoop to breaking news, exclusive interviews, photos, original videos, and, oh, so much more. Subscribe to The Daily Dish podcast, join our Facebook group, and follow us on Instagramfor the latest news hot off the presses. Sign up to become a Bravo Insider and be the first to get exclusive extras.

Read the original post:
Is Below Deck Sailing Yacht's Madison Dating Anyone? She's Been "Talking" to Someone in the "Bravo Family" - Bravo

As cruise lines continue to build new cruise ships with features we havent seen before, a new cruise line is putting a pool deck down on deck 1 that will open directly on the water.Marina guest area provides residents with direct access to pristine waters, sailing, jet skiing and kayaking right off the deck. This area has a cafe and restaurants that we are sure will be the best place to be on those warm sunny days.

Storylines, a new cruise line that is promising to offer affordable condos that you can buy and live in, has released a video showing the Marina on their cruise ship MV Narrative.

The cruise ship will have a pool deck right on the water line. Parts of the ship will open up allowing residents to walk out of the pool and right onto a jet ski. A video of this amazing pool deck concept can be seen below.

Sponsored Links

Storylines has not given a date on when this new cruise ship will debut. MV Narrative will be a 55,000 gross ton cruise ship that will hold 1,000 guests in 627 suites. The vessel will be powered by Clean LNG fuel.

Cruise condos will start at $352,235. The residences will be turnkey and ready to live in. All furniture, wall and floor coverings, decor, linens, comforters, blankets, pillows, and towels are included in the price.

The ship will have 10 restaurants, eight bars, an I-MAX, and a vertical farm.

To learn more about Storylines and MV Narrative, the following 8 minute video will give you a good overview of this new cruise line.

See original here:
New Cruise Ship's Pool Deck Will Open Directly on the Water - Cruise Fever

'Below Deck Mediterranean' Season 5 is just two episodes old and has hit rough waters already. Malia White is the bosun and managing a team of three deckhands - Pete Hunziker, Alex Radcliffe and Robert Westergaard. That's a lot of testosterone for anyone to handle at once and it appears, it was not a wise idea to have that many males in a team.

But Malia has been putting in her hundred percent, doing all that she can to run her crew smoothly but she can do only so much when her own team decides to act in an unorderly manner. They are not ready to follow instructions, especially Pete who even walked away from a conversation with Malia while she stood there briefing the others on what needed to be done next.

She is stern, confident and knows how to get her work done. However, she is also wary of the fact that strict female bosses are often not taken very kindly or listened to. But that didn't stop her from warning Peter for going against her. "The second you start going against me, you're not my lead deckhand anymore," she told Pete, while he listened quietly.

Will he comply and follow orders going forward? Time will tell. But for now, fans think Malia was too harsh on Peter.

"Malia seems to be a bit insecure with the men. She is her worst enemy. Pete didnt deserve the attitude #BelowDeckMed," a fan commented, while another shared: "Malia what don't you get? The reason Pete was casted is because he's an actual experienced bosun to assist in your non experience as one since you're a female prop this season. Why not hire a qualified female if production wanted to make a statement? #BelowDeckMed."

"Malia was so extra for nothing. If you thought he was wrong you could've just corrected instead of being passive aggressive. Somebody was trying to learn #BelowDeckMed," a viewer expressed. "Malia the deck crew looks at you sideways because it's painfully obvious you're not qualified to be a bosun. You even sound confused when you talk #BelowDeckMed," a user posted.

Catch all the new episodes of 'Below Deck Mediterranean' on Bravo every Monday.

Read more from the original source:
'Below Deck Mediterranean': Was Malia harsh on Pete? Fans say he is the real bosun while she is just a prop - MEAWW

After a particularly long week of computer based work on my PhD, all I wanted was to hike somewhere exciting with a rich wildlife. A friend commiserated with me I was based at Newcastle University at the time, and this particular friend wasnt keen on the UKs wilderness, its moorlands and bare uplands, compared to the large tracts of woodland and tropical forests that can be found more readily abroad.

Luckily, I count myself among many who are charmed by the rolling heather moorlands and sheep grazed uplands, whose colours change beautifully with the seasons. But my friend had a point there is something very different about many of the UKs national parks compared to those found in much of the rest of the world: the British uplands are hardly the natural wilderness that many perceive.

These upland habitats are in fact far from what they would have been had they remained unaffected by human activity. In particular, grazing by livestock has been carried out for centuries. In the long run, this stops new trees from establishing, and in turn reduces the depth of soil layers, making the conditions for new vegetation to establish even more difficult. Instead of the woodlands that would once have covered large areas of the uplands, Britain is largely characterised by rolling hills of open grass and moorlands.

Read more: 'Pristine' landscapes haven't existed for thousands of years, says new study

Government policy has long been to keep these rolling hills looking largely as they do now. But the future of the British uplands is uncertain. Regulations and government policy strongly influences land management, and the biodiversity associated with it. In fact, the management required to maintain British upland landscapes as they are now management that largely involves grazing by sheep is only possible through large subsidies. And due to Brexit, this may change. A new agricultural policy will soon replace the often-criticised Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

What this will look like remains unclear. There are a range of competing interests in the uplands. Some wish to rewild vast swathes of the land, while others want to intensify farming, forestry and other commercial interests. The rewilders tap into the increased interest in restoring natural woodland due to its potential in carbon uptake, increased biodiversity and reintroduction of extinct species such as wolves and lynxes, while some farmers argue that this will be bad for the economy. The UK stands at a crossroads, and interests are rapidly diverging.

Whatever path is taken will obviously have an impact on the unique assemblages of upland plants and animals, many of which are internationally important. But upland birds and biodiversity have for a long time been on the decline. Whether rewilding is the answer to this or not has long been debated: some claim that we need to stop grazing animals to allow the natural habitat to reassert itself, while others claim that some species, such as curlews, rely on such grazing practises for their survival.

This article is part of Conversation InsightsThe Insights team generates long-form journalism derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.

But our new research, published in the British Ecological Societys Journal of Applied Ecology, provides the first experimental evidence to our knowledge, that stopping livestock grazing can increase the number of breeding upland bird species in the long term, including birds of high conservation importance, such as black grouse and cuckoo. This is interesting, as it is often argued that land abandonment can result in lower biodiversity and that livestock grazing is essential for maintaining it.

Our research shows that, depending on how the uplands are managed, there will be bird winners and losers, but overall when sheep have gone the number of bird species returning increases.

Before going into the research itself, its important to consider the history of British upland land management. Truly natural habitats in the UK are few and relatively small. Deciduous woodland, and to a lesser extent coniferous forests, used to cover most of the British uplands below the treeline. For example, only about 1% of the native pine forests that once covered 1.5 million hectares (15,000km) of the Scottish Highlands remain today.

These woodlands provided homes for charismatic species such as pine marten, red squirrel and osprey, together with now extinct species such as lynx and bears. But centuries of farming has shaped most of the upland landscape to what it is today: a predominantly bare landscape dominated by moorlands, rough grasslands, peatlands and other low vegetation.

These marginal areas tend to have low financial profitability for those who farm the land. And so a range of other activities, such as grouse shooting and commercial forestry, exist to boost rural community incomes.

Despite their low profitability, however, many grazed areas are considered to represent high nature value farming. This seems paradoxical, but basically means they are considered important as habitats to protected species benefiting from open upland landscapes. One such species is the iconic curlew.

Because farming is tough in the uplands and its a struggle to make a profit, landowners receive, and often rely on, subsidies to maintain their farms. The form of these subsidies has changed over time, in line with the current perception of appropriate land management for food production. At the moment, the scale of these subsidies are based on the size of the farm, but they also require that the farmer maintains the land in a good agricultural state. This leaves little room for shrubs or trees, except along field edges, especially in England where there is no financial support for agroforestry (where trees are integrated in agricultural land).

Read more: Why massive effort needs to be put into growing trees on farms

But these subsidies will soon no longer be allocated through the EU and so its time to reconsider what kind of land management should be supported. It seems sensible to consider introducing financial support for other land management types, such as reforestation, natural regeneration or wildflower meadows. Such habitats have other public and nature conservation benefits.

Its not just farming and aesthetics that are at stake here. Challenges such as climate change and air pollution should also inform how financial support for appropriate land management is managed. For example, floods are predicted to become more common as the climate gets warmer. Reforestation can help to diminish floods, the roots channelling water down through the soil instead of letting it run off the land. Re-establishment of woodlands can also improve air quality: the leaves absorb harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.

But rewilding, or any form of restructuring land management, can be costly. It therefore needs to be based on the best scientific evidence, preferably from well-designed experimental research studies. In controlled experimental studies, the cause for any effects found can more easily be determined, as opposed to observational studies, which risk being biased by other, confounding, factors. But due to the cost and complexity of maintaining them, long-term, experimentally manipulated land use studies are rare, and with it the necessary evidence base for long-term management decisions.

Ive been lucky to be involved in one such long-term experiment. The Glen Finglas experiment, managed by the James Hutton Institute, was set up in 2002 in Scotlands Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. The experiment examines the long-term ecological impacts of different livestock grazing intensity levels on plants, arthropods (insects and spiders), birds and mammals. These grazing levels reflect the conventional stocking rate in the region at the start of the experiment (about three ewes per ha), low intensity grazing at a third of the conventional stocking rate (with sheep only or both sheep and cattle), or no grazing at all.

The experiment has six replicates of four grazing treatments and covers around 0.75km of land, with 12km of fencing. This may not seem large, but in experimental terms, it is. According to Robin Pakeman, a researcher at the James Hutton Institute who manages the project, the experiment constitutes an unrivalled resource to understand how grazing impacts on a whole range of organisms.

Since the start, the Glen Finglas experiment has shown that grazing intensity affects plants and the amount of insects and spiders. The highest amount of plants, insects and spiders were found in the ungrazed areas. This was not too surprising as grazing livestock removes vegetation, which results in reduced habitat conditions for insects and spiders overall (although some species benefit from grazing).

There have also been studies on carbon storage, vole abundances and fox activity within the experiment. These have shown higher carbon storage and higher fox activity in the ungrazed areas.

Meanwhile, the research on birds within this experiment has, from the start, focused on meadow pipits. These small, brown birds are the house sparrows of the uplands, yet often go unnoticed. But they are the most common upland bird and an important part of upland food webs, forming key prey for birds of prey such as hen harriers and a common host for cuckoos. The experiment has provided unique insights into the ecology of this fascinating little bird, and a much clearer understanding of how it is affected by grazing.

In just the first two to three years, it became clear that meadow pipits could be affected by grazing intensity. My PhD supervisor, Darren Evans, found that the breeding density and egg size were both positively affected by low intensity mixed cattle and sheep grazing. But there were no differences in how many meadow pipit chicks were produced and fledged between the grazing treatments, at least not in the very early phase of the experiment.

I wanted to test whether these results changed in the longer term. Together with colleagues from Newcastle University, the British Trust for Ornithology, The James Hutton Institute and The University of Aberdeen, we looked at whether 12 years of continuous experimental grazing management had affected the breeding success of meadow pipits.

We assumed that low intensity grazing, compared to high intensity or no grazing, was most beneficial for pipit breeding productivity. We found the low intensity grazed areas did indeed seem to be better for meadow pipits, but the effects were not clear enough to be statistically significant. And there seemed to be potentially more important factors, such as predation, affecting their breeding outcome.

But although we did not initially set out to test it, we found other, more significant, effects on the wider bird community.

When the experiment started, there were almost no bird species other than meadow pipits in and around the treatment areas, hence the focus on them. But in 2015, while looking for meadow pipit nests, we came across a few other beautiful nests in the low intensity grazed areas. These nests had colourful blue eggs or eggs that appeared to have been painted with dark brown watercolour paint. These turned out to be stonechat and reed bunting eggs, two bird species that had not previously been seen in the experiment.

Later on, we saw that they had fledged successfully: the parents would call them to warn about human intruders. If we didnt get too close, the newly fledged young would curiously nudge their heads up through the vegetation. By this stage of the experiment 12 years in the vegetation had actually become quite dense and high in the ungrazed and some of the low intensity grazed areas.

We also detected several black grouse nests, mainly in the ungrazed areas. Most of them were already hatched, but one had a female who bravely stayed put on her eggs every time we visited this area until they hatched.

Another great discovery was when we found a meadow pipit nest with one egg that seemed oddly big in comparison to the rest of the clutch. We were really excited to realise that it had been visited by a cuckoo that had laid an egg there, which hadnt happened during the early years of nest monitoring in the experiment. This egg had a brown spotted pattern which was fascinatingly similar to the meadow pipit eggs. (As exciting as this all may seem, nest searching should only be carried out under permit. I also had a bird ringing permit covering my research activities).

Thanks to all these encounters, we decided to test how the different grazing treatments affected the species richness of breeding birds. Over the first two years, we found that there was basically no difference. But another decade on and there were clearly more bird species found in the ungrazed areas compared to the other experimental plots.

It was not only bird species richness that needed time to respond to the change in grazing management. Although plant structure responded early, it was not until 2017 14 years since the experiment began that an effect on plant species richness could be detected. In this case, the variety of species was greater in the intensively grazed areas, probably because the livestock holds back fast-growing plants from dominating. Whether this would remain the same in another decade is far from clear.

The ungrazed areas in our study, meanwhile, showed more shrub and tall-growing plants after a bit more than a decade. There were also patches of deciduous tree species, which were not there when the experiment commenced.

Rewilding is such a fractious debate because of the difficulty in obtaining solid scientific evidence on which to base decisions. It takes a very long time far longer than our political cycles, most research studies, perhaps even a lifetime to determine what the ultimate effects of large scale land management on the environment are. In our experiment, changes have been very slow. Pakeman explained to me that this is partly expected in cold and infertile habitats but another reason for slow responses is that plant communities exist in a sort of mosaic, with each community having a different preference for the grazers. He continued:

The long history of grazing has meant that the most highly preferred communities show little response to grazing removal as they have lost species capable of responding to this change.

There is no one management practice which creates the perfect environment. Some bird species (skylark and snipe) were only found in grazed areas. Other species were more abundant in the ungrazed areas. There is no one size fits all.

But much more consideration and effort needs to be given to unattended land and its potential for boosting biodiversity. There is no single answer to what is the best alternative, but our experiment indicates that a mosaic of different grazing types and shrub or woodland would be more suitable if the aim is to increase biodiversity, carbon uptake and habitats for endangered species.

The experiment also showed that changing the management had no effects on plant diversity and bird species richness in the first years. But this may only be the beginning of the transformation. Another decade of no grazing may result in even higher, or lower, species richness. This shows how important it is to be patient in receiving the effects of land management on plants and wildlife.

Our results bring some experimental evidence to the debate around sheep farming versus rewilding. Hopefully, decisions around new policies and subsidy systems will be based on such evidence. As new policies are formed, there will inevitably always be winners and losers, among both humans and wildlife, according to which habitat types receive more support.

Biodiversity is incredibly important. It creates a more resilient ecosystem that can withstand external stresses caused by both humans and nature. It also keeps populations of pollinators strong. At the moment, perhaps the most current and urgent reason is that it could be instrumental in protecting us from future pandemics. A wider range of species prevents unnatural expansions of single species, which can spill over their diseases to humans.

But preserving biodiversity is just one element of long-term environmental aims. Other processes, such as increased flood protection and carbon storage, which both can be achieved through more vegetation, may soon become more prevalent.

There are therefore several biological processes pointing towards public gain from increasing the area of unmanaged land. Across Europe, land is being abandoned due to low profitability in farming it. There are predictions that the amount of abandoned land in Europe will increase by 11% (equivalent to 200,000km or 20 million ha) by 2030. This is often reported negatively, but it does not have to be. The problem most people see with land abandonment or rewilding is the decrease in food productivity, which will have to increase in order to feed a growing human population.

But as Richard Bunting at the charity Rewilding Britain explained to me, a decline in food production could be avoided, while increasing the areas subject to rewilding to 10,000km (a million hectares) by the end of the century:

Were working for the rewilding of a relatively small proportion of Britains more marginal land. One million hectares may sound like a lot, but there are 1.8 million hectares [18,000km] of deer stalking estates and 1.3 million hectares [13,000km] of grouse moors in Britain. In England alone, there are 270,000 hectares [2,700km] of golf courses.

Read more: Climate crisis: how to make space for 2 billion trees on a crowded island like the UK

As farmers and other upland land owners may be opposed to the idea of rewilding, I also asked him how this would work in practice. He told me that he believes farming and rewilding could work well together, but he had some caveats:

We do need conversations around fresh approaches to the way farming is carried out and how land is used. A key point here is that for farmers, engaging with rewilding should always be about choice, as we seek a balance between people and the rest of nature where each can thrive.

There are many ways to rewild. The Woodland Trust have been successful in restoring ancient woodlands and planting new trees by protecting them from large herbivores such as deer and livestock. Another method is to let nature have its way without intervening at all. This has been successful in restoring natural habitats, including woodland, such as the Knepp estate in West Sussex, which Isabella Tree has made famous in her book Wilding.

After 19 years of no conventional management, The Knepp estate now hosts a vast range of wildlife, including all five native owl species, the rare purple emperor butterfly and turtle doves. Large herbivores, including both livestock and deer, graze the area on a free-roaming level. These animals are replacing the large natural herbivores such as aurochs, wisent and wild boar which would have grazed the area thousands of years ago.

So there is room for discussion on what environmental and financial benefits there may be of different rewilding, or woodland restoration projects, and where they are most suitable.

The first thing to do, I think, is to diversify the types of land management championed by the government through subsidy. Natural habitats could be increased through more financial benefits to landowners for leaving land unattended, while improving public interest in visiting woodlands and thereby the support for preserving wild habitats.

Meanwhile, long-term research of land-use change would give us a better evidence base for future decisions. But this must go hand in hand with much needed serious evaluations of rural communities long-term income opportunities under alternative management scenarios, which will always be a cornerstone in land use politics.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversations evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

See the article here:
Rewilding: rare birds return when livestock grazing has stopped - The Conversation UK

Apple and Google have trained their AI voice assistants to respond to questions on the Black Lives Matter movement, and to rebut the sentiment behind 'all lives matter.'

On Sunday, sports blogger David Gardner tweeted a video of himself asking his Google Home smart speaker: "Do Black lives matter?"

Google's Assistant, which runs on Google Home, responded: "Black Lives Matter. Black people deserve the same freedoms afforded to everyone in this country, and recognizing the injustice they face is the first step towards fixing it."

Gardner then asked: "Do all lives matter?"

Google's Assistant responded: "Saying 'Black Lives Matter' doesn't mean that all lives don't. It means Black lives are at risk in ways others are not."

Apple's Siri gives a similar response when asked: "Do all lives matter?"

"'All Lives Matter' is often used in response to the phrase 'Black Lives Matter,' but it does not represent the same concerns," the assistant will respond.

Siri

When asked: "Do Black lives matter?" Siri responds simply: "Yes, Black Lives Matter" and links to the Black Lives Matter website.

CBC radio host Piya Chattopadhyay tested Amazon's Alexa, which gives its own same response to either question.

"Black Lives Matter. I think people deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect," Alexa responds.

Training their voice assistants appears to be part of the broader public messaging on Black Lives Matter by the major tech companies, all of which have issued statements supporting the movement.

Apple CEO Tim Cook published an open letter on racism on June 4 after facing criticism for staying silent in the wake of the George Floyd protests.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has also made a point of screenshotting and posting his responses to emails from racist Amazon customers railing at the "Black Lives Matter" banner on the website.

But the move risks being seen as gimmicky, or even hypocritical. Tech policy expert Chris Gilliard accused the tech firms in a Fast Company article of "Black Power-washing" their brands while deepening the discrimination Black people face through their business practices.

Gilliard pointed to Amazon's work partnering with police through its doorbell camera business Ring, and the fact it sells its facial recognition software Rekognition to police, which experts have identified as displaying racial and gender bias, being more likely to misidentify women and people with darker skin tones.

He also highlighted the firing of Christian Smalls, a Black Amazon worker who was fired after organizing a protest at his warehouse over safety concerns. A leaked memo from a leadership meeting where Jeff Bezos was present showed Amazon's general counsel advising on a PR strategy against Smalls, in which he described him as "not smart or articulate." Amazon claims Smalls was fired for violating social distancing rules. Amazon employees have also accused the firm of hypocrisy over its response to the George Floyd protests.

Gilliard also honed in on YouTube, which is owned by Google, saying it has a long history as an "amplifier of extremism."

"These companies issuing a statement that they 'stand with the Black community' is the absolute least they can do. It would be better to remain silent rather than reveal their rank hypocrisy," Gilliard writes.

See the article here:
Apple and Google have trained their virtual assistants to rebut 'All lives matter' - Business Insider - Business Insider

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released what it calls general considerations on safe actions for reopening houses of worship, but worship communities can accept or reject those considerations.

Religious worship allows tens of millions of Americans to demonstrate devotion to a higher power. It gives people an opportunity to commitand recommitto a set of values. In-person services foster a sense of community and belonging. Unfortunately for millions whose lives are enriched by communal worship, traditional services are ideal places for virus transmission: lots of people, close together.

As a physician specializing in internal medicine, I suggest, for now at least, that we reexamine how we worship. After all, what better way to embody the values of your faith than to take steps to protect one another?

Even with the uncertainty and variability of reopening plans, scientifically and medically sound information is available. For starters, youll want to assess your individual risk, the prevalence of the virus in your area and the availability of testing.

You may consider guidelines suggested by Dr. Atul Gawande, noted surgeon and author. He proposes four essential pillars for safe reentry into communal spaces: hygiene, distancing, screening and mask use.

All four must operate together to minimize transmission. Will your place of worship be able to enact these pillars?

For example: Will you have easy access to hand-washing or sanitizing? Will communal surfaces and shared spaces be wiped down? Will attendance be limited to allow distancing, and will attendees be screened with temperature checks and self-screening questionnaires? Will your place of worship enforce mask use and distancing? Anything short of all four pillars increases transmission risk.

And even with all the precautions, people with infections can be asymptomaticso despite the screening measures, you cant be sure who has the virus and whether you might become exposed.

Other factors influence viral spread. The dose you receive is higher when youre close to someone not wearing a face covering. Someone sneezing and coughing increases the number of virus particles near you. Singing or speaking forcefully releases more virus than speaking quietly. Outdoor rates of transmission are much lower than those indoors.

Thats why its best if services are short, outdoors and with no singing or physical contact. Only a limited number of attendees, spaced widely and wearing masks properly, would participate.

Early in the pandemic, faith leaders adapted their services: removing holy water, forbidding handshakes, limiting group size and livestreaming. Buddhist monks seeking alms wore face shields. But others protested any restrictions.

In dealing with the virus, we still have much to learn. But values common to all religions exist compassion, kindness, respect for fellow humans and some variation of the Golden Rule. Until more is known about COVID-19, lets choose a path following one of the major tenets of my profession: First, do no harm.

Claudia Finkelstein is an associate professor of Family Medicine, Michigan State University.

This article is republished with permission from The Conversation.

Like Loading...

See the rest here:
Coronavirus: How to be as safe as possible in your house of worship - MSR News Online

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released what it calls general considerations on safe actions for reopening houses of worship, but worship communities can accept or reject those considerations.

Religious worship allows tens of millions of Americans to demonstrate devotion to a higher power. It gives people an opportunity to commit and recommit to a set of values. In-person services foster a sense of community and belonging. Unfortunately for millions whose lives are enriched by communal worship, traditional services are ideal places for virus transmission: lots of people, close together.

As a physician specializing in internal medicine, I suggest, for now at least, that we reexamine how we worship. After all, what better way to embody the values of your faith than to take steps to protect one another?

Even with the uncertainty and variability of reopening plans, scientifically and medically sound information is available. For starters, youll want to assess your individual risk, the prevalence of the virus in your area and the availability of testing.

You may consider guidelines suggested by Dr. Atul Gawande, noted surgeon and author. He proposes four essential pillars for safe reentry into communal spaces: hygiene, distancing, screening and mask use.

All four must operate together to minimize transmission. Will your place of worship be able to enact these pillars?

For example: Will you have easy access to hand-washing or sanitizing? Will communal surfaces and shared spaces be wiped down? Will attendance be limited to allow distancing, and will attendees be screened with temperature checks and self-screening questionnaires? Will your place of worship enforce mask use and distancing? Anything short of all four pillars increases transmission risk.

And even with all the precautions, people with infections can be asymptomatic so despite the screening measures, you cant be sure who has the virus and whether you might become exposed.

Other factors influence viral spread. The dose you receive is higher when youre close to someone not wearing a face covering. Someone sneezing and coughing increases the number of virus particles near you. Singing or speaking forcefully releases more virus than speaking quietly. Outdoor rates of transmission are much lower than those indoors.

Thats why its best if services are short, outdoors and with no singing or physical contact. Only a limited number of attendees, spaced widely and wearing masks properly, would participate.

Early in the pandemic, faith leaders adapted their services: removing holy water, forbidding handshakes, limiting group size and livestreaming. Buddhist monks seeking alms wore face shields. But others protested any restrictions.

In dealing with the virus, we still have much to learn. But values common to all religions exist compassion, kindness, respect for fellow humans and some variation of the Golden Rule. Until more is known about COVID-19, lets choose a path following one of the major tenets of my profession: First, do no harm.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversations newsletter.]

View post:
How to be as safe as possible in your house of worship - The Conversation US

Gov. Phil Murphy attended two Black Lives Matter protests Sunday a show of solidarity with protesters seeking racial justice even as he's more broadly urged people to stay home in the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The same day, an attorney representing two New Jersey women who'd been issued summonses for their own peaceful protests not over racial issues or police brutality, but over the governor's own business shutdowns told New Jersey 101.5 his clients will sue Murphy, calling enforcement of the governor's stay-at-home orders arbitrary.

"Bottom line, there is either a public health emergency or there is not. It cannot be both," attorney Jim Mermigis told New Jersey 101.5 in an email.

Under executive orders from the governor seeking to curb the spread of the virus, gatherings of more than 25 people are currently prohibited a limit several peaceful demonstrations exceeded over the pasttwo weeks, sparked by the Minneapolis death of unarmed black man George Floyd under the knee of a white police officer.

After a Hillside march, the governor's official Facebook page shared photos saying Murphy, First Lady Tammy Murphy and their son, Josh, took part "For George Floyd and for the many before him who lost their lives for being Black. We march because we will not accept systemic racism and bias as just part of our national condition. Black Lives Matter."

Murphy also attended a Black Lives Matter event in Westfield, sharing on Twitter a letter he had received from a high school junior who had invited him.

"Gov. Murphy is arbitrarily deciding which executive orders he will enforce. The governor permits and protects demonstrations for a public policy issue he agrees with but does not protect demonstrations whose content he disagrees with," Mermigis said Sunday.

Murphy, in several public statements at his daily briefings on the novel coronavirus and the state's response, discouraged protests against his executive order shutting down many businesses. ButNew Jersey 101.5 is not aware of any peaceful briefing since the start of the pandemic broken up by police, whether under the direction of state officials or otherwise.

People have a right to protest," Murphy said during an April 29 briefing. I wish they would do it from home. I dont agree with them on this."

Several events in April and May did result in summonses for at least four separate women, the most recent of them last weekend.

Mermigis' law firm is representing Kim Pagan and Ayla Wolf, who separately were issued summonses for violating Murphy's emergency orders by organizing prohibited events.

The same firm represents the owners of the Atilis Gym in Camden County, who have been embroiled in a legal battle with the state since defying emergency restrictions and opening to members three days in a row before, being shutdown by health officials last month.

Pagan, of Toms River, was charged by State Police with violating the emergency orders by organizing a prohibited event. Protesters had gathered April 17 outside the State House to demonstrate against the Governors Executive Orders.

At a briefing on COVID-19 response the next day, Murphy said "on the protesters, I would just say listen, with all due respect, I think anybody who thinks we're doing this just to take away people's liberties and rights isn't looking at the data that we're looking at. We're doing what we're doing to try to save lives and keep as few people infected and hospitalized as possible."

At the same briefing, the state reported 7,718 patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus, of whom 2,024 were listed in critical or intensive care and 1,641 ventilators were in use.

As Murphy, his wife and son marched in Union County Sunday, there were 1,769 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in New Jersey, 379 of them on ventilators and 503 of them listed in critical or intensive care based on state data. Murphy and other state officials have been heralding the substantial dropoff in cases needing care as a reason New Jersey can move closer to a reopening, with most retail and outdoor dining resuming this month.

The same week as Pagan was charged, Murphy was asked by Fox News' Tucker Carlson "By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?" The governor answered in a soundbite critics, including Carlson, have cited countless times since "That's above my pay grade, Tucker. I wasn't thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this."

Wolf was charged with the same offense as Pagan about a week later, after attending a separate peaceful protest to Open New Jersey and was served with a summons the next day. She also received summonses for rallying outside Atilis Gym, when it opened, according to a GoFundMe setup to help cover legal expenses for both women.

Murphy was asked Friday about the difference in organizers of reopening protests having received summonses, while no Black Lives Matter protest organizers has been issued a summonses, as of this weekend.

"The decision to cite or not to cite is a law enforcement decision. I won't say it's regret or not regret, it is what it is. For the most part, the COVID-related demonstrations and compliance, lack of compliance, have kind of disappeared for the time being," Murphy said.

He continued, "And, I want to make sure everybody who is protesting out there does it peacefully and does it responsibly, including watching out for their health and the health of those with them."

A few days earlier, Murphy told reporters he saw a difference between protests over business closures and protests prompted by Floyd's death:

I dont want to make light of this, and Ill probably get lit up by everyone who owns a nail salon in the state, but its one thing to protest what day nail salons are opening, and its another to come out in peaceful protest, overwhelmingly, about somebody who was murdered right before our eyes," he said last Monday. He said the racial justice demonstrations were"in a different orbit" than the ones over business closures.

On Saturday, another woman ticketed for organizing a protest aimed at reopening more businesses amid the pandemic. Jennifer Rogers shared a pair of summonses she received aftera May 30 event in Morris County.

"Unfortunately, in trying to show support for all of us who are on our way to going under financially or who already have I am now facing up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine," Rogers said. She organized the rally at the Randolph Tennis and Pickleball Center, which featured state Senator Anthony Bucco and Assemblywoman Aura Dunn among its public speakers.

The business announced Sunday on Facebook that Rogers would be defending herself in filing a civil rights action.

"Governor Murphy is engaging in content=based speech restrictions which is a restriction on the exercise of free speech based upon the subject matter of the speech," Mermigis said.

He said they would continue to defend clients' constitutional rights and would be filing civil suits for Wolf and Pagan against the governor, shortly.

More From 92.7 WOBMNews:

See the original post here:
Murphy joins BLM protests, as others fight tickets for gatherings - wobm.com