As for the sex of your daughter's little friend, are you sure she has a male lizard?  From what I read, it seems that blue coloration is present in both sexes, but in females the blue area is not so extensive.  That might describe the confinement of the blue area in your daughter's area to just under the chin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_fence_lizard.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

People who shun comfortable road running for rocks, roots, up and down wilderness pain and suffering, and actually enjoy it.  The extreme.  Hehey.

But a plugin hybrid hypercar conversion would get the top spot.  Or a Velomobile.

http://www.greatlakesendurance.com/race_info.htm

There was one electric conversion of a Ford economy car at the first run, 30 miles range I think?

Great run down on campground politics bio-d!  Great pictures too.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

And having kids is no excuse for doing this.  Kids should be taught to properly respect other forms of life by carefully observing them, but otherwise leaving them alone.

It's the old quantity versus quality of life dilemna.  In this proffession you are shunned for being a do-gooder environmentalist.  You prove your credentials by joking about trapping and hunting our beloved wilderness friends.

It's offensive.  The older wildlife people understand our point of view better.  they are less defensive.

I believe this was started by raygun policies of putting political appointees in charge in as many levels of government as possible, this continued and accelerated through the bushwacking years.

Most of these people love animals too, the ones employed to count and collate, but they are afraid to be labeled un-proffessional tree hugging liberals.  It is career suicide.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

We asked the lizard for permission. It nodded its head in agreement and obviously enjoyed the attention, just as lap dogs do. You just have to know how to communicate with animals. I have to disagree about observing animals. This is an invasion of their privacy. If you can't ask their permission to be observed, you really shouldn't be doing it.

In all seriousness, holding a lizard, turtle, bug or snake in hand makes a big difference to children. They already "observe them" in zoos and books. Nature has to be experienced.

You may be right, Canis

Thanks for sharing your Google search with us. The only definitive way to sex a lizard is to check their naughty parts. As with birds, females tend to be less colorful. Brightly colored dewlaps have evolved in many species of lizards.

Photo by Stevens2005's via Flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/steven2005/135652139/

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

A biologist buddy of mine took us newt hunting a couple of years ago. He handled them with aplomb (too slimy for my tastes). Most folks should probably not be encouraged to handle the wildlife because they'll get themselves or the wildlife hurt, but well-informed types can do it safely.

Thanks for the car camping with Prius report. I had suspected that they would perform admirably, and your experience certainly bears that up.

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

Many human beings have a curious characteristic of their own: They go totally morally comatose, once they discover they can easily get other animals into their control, and can exploit them as mechanistic resources.

With all respect to Permie Writer, the "computer analogy" is chilling and unsatisfactory.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

While I fully agree that it's vitally important to teach children about nature and wildlife, the world doesn't revolve around human children.  It's more important for wildlife to be left alone than to "teach" children by allowing them to harass the wildlife.  Or maybe a mother grizzly should have her cubs "play" with your kids so they could learn about humans?

Parents are often one of the worst groups of anti-environmentalists when it comes to the natural environment.  They support their children to the point of prioritizing their every wish, to the detriment of the rest of the planet.  While this attitude might work when living in small numbers as primitive hunter-gatherers that can't do much damage, it certainly does not work for the rest of the planet with grossly overpopulated humans who have machines and contraptions.  What human children really need is to be taught to properly respect other animals and plants, and one aspect of that respect is to keep their hands to themselves.

And BTW, my mutually agreed to comment was in reference to the occasional wild animal that allows people to get very close and perhaps touch it.  I have always declined to touch these animals in fear that doing so might in some way harm the animal, but it couldn't be considered harassment if the animal consented.

Combine it with self loathing!  Yikes.  That's the mess we are in now.  This industrial age seems to be built on it.  Freud used mechanistic thought to inculcate the principles of self loathing as a cultural, philosophical under current.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Feel free to teach your children to keep a respectful distance from frogs, bugs, turtles and snakes. Get back to me after you have raised them. We can compare notes then.

The idea that children across the globe are causing damage to the planet's biodiversity by catching the occassional bug or frog is, ah, pick a word for me.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Symbiosis rules.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1. I never said I was speaking for traditional Native Americans or anyone else.  I said if you ask them, what they'll say, which they've said to me, is that it's disrespectful to touch an animal (wild) and their culture does not allow for doing this, aside for rare rituals and killing to eat.

2. My information comes from Native Americans with whom I've worked on issues, a couple of whom became close enough friends that they stayed at my place.  They don't sound like me, we just have the same sensibilities when it comes to the natural world.  If this is what a "self-parodic white environmentalist" sounds like to you, well I guess you don't know any radical environmentalists who are wilderness and wildlife advocates.  You obviously don't know any traditional natives.

BioD is a treasure, and I love him greatly.  As seriously boring as he may be, puttering around with his e-bike throughout most of the year ( : ) ), he is nevertheless doing beautiful work, to make the world a better place, by working with these kids.

Hey BioD, what happened to the kid who is the animal prodigy?  You did not mention him in your post, though he was your star last year.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Let us understand what "temporary confinement" might mean, purely quantitatively.

Given:

• an average human lifespan is 70 years (VERY conservative; North Americans who survive past age 5 can expect to live rather longer);

• 70 years sequentially is 53 years of 365 days, and 17 years of 366 days, hence 25,567 days in total;

• times 24 hours per day, that is 613,608 hours, for an average human lifespan (which does not sound like all that much, does it).

Those four hours are equivalent to 3.9 days, in the life of a human being with a 70-year lifespan.  Such a confinement, totally surprising and alienating, would be life-changing, for most of us.

Presumably, BioD's kids did not hold on to their animals for anything like four hours.  Nevertheless, we should recall how fragile those animals are, and that some of them belong to species with lifespans much shorter than three years.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

So let's stick to the present reality and our present culture, of which we at least we have some direct first-hand knowledge. BioD's post shows children intentionally exposed, for deliberate educational purposes, to both the richness and the vulnerability of the wildlife around them. What does this mean? Do we think these kids are thence more likely to become mean and callous predators of their fellow creatures, or their generous and mindful protectors? If the latter, how does that balance against the harm (carefully limited, I would assume, by the adult mentors) that may have occurred to these creatures in the process? And how specifically can that balance be further improved?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

In an earlier longish comment of mine posted to this thread, which infuriatingly got lost in the ether (as happens rather often, in my Gristmill experience), I wrote on that very subject, how Native Americans should not be taken as positive moral examples regarding the respectful treatment of animals.  Consider: Makah whaling; buffalo jumps; Mesoamerican Chihuahuivory.  We may hope that the Andean peoples treat their llamas well, but who knows?

It is indeed true that Native Americans (in the large sense of course, from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego) have assigned great spiritual value to even small, apparently negligible animals, such as BioD's daughter's lizard.  And that is a great lesson that they may teach us.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

What is the species of my own lap-dog, Little White?  Is it Canis familiaris, as I long believed?  Or, as some other experts say nowadays, recognizing the impossibility of truly distinguishing the genomes of wolves and dogs, is it Canis lupus familiaris? -- i.e., Little White is basically a wolf!  (And indeed, one of the names I give her is Pleistocene Carnivore.)

There was, once upon a time, a very subtle and difficult initial intercourse, between the less fearful, more friendly (or cynically, more opportunistic), more domesticable wolves (Canis lupus), and the human beings who, as human beings tend to do, were producing a lot of garbage.  So, one thing led to another ...

But knowledgeable breeding, selecting for traits in dogs, seems to be a fairly modern thing.  Charles Darwin himself was fascinated by the breeding of doves, and that is an important part of his "On the Origin of Species."  If you want to call that "genetic engineering," well, fine.

"Engineering" and "mechanicization" work fine, to a point, even with manipulable little animals.  But that does not represent a good relationship between human beings and the other members of the community of living creatures which environmentalists recognize as the principal treasure on Earth that they are dedicated to preserving.

In one story, a T. rex may destroy a visitors' center, and render a resort unvisitable: good.  But what is the lesson learned?  If it is only a matter of "genetic engineering," then the engineers can move in and re-wire the wiring, so to speak.  But then, when we return and see the tweaked T-rex, would we not have a case if we complained that this was just Disneyland?

We need to understand that mechanistic, practical, hard-ware-ish/soft-ware-ish thinking is great, to some extent.  But when we apply it by way of exploitation to living creatures, we are doing an injustice, both to those other living creatures, and to ourselves.

We are better than this.  We can try harder.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.