I keep several spiders as pets, so I'm a bit biased.
The greatest threat to these rare species isn't the pet trade, it's rather the destruction of their habitat. You'll find that most tarantula keepers prefer to buy captive-bred specimens, both for conservation reasons, but also due to risk of parasites.
Mexico handles this issue better than most countries: they let licensed breeders breed these animals in captivity and export them for the pet trade. This strategy reduces the pressure on the wild spiders, while not banning it entirely (which just leads to poaching)
I can't speak toward tarantulas, but some jumping spiders definitely recognize, acknowledge and seemingly even appreciate individuals. Honestly, they sometimes look excited to see you as a dog would -- though that's likely just a basic recognition that you act as their food delivery service. They even appear to understand the concept (if not reasoning) behind their enclosure.
Some folks who spend a lot of time with their jumping spiders will actually leave the enclosure door open, as the spider will happily stay there unless it lacks water or food for a long period of time, and typically only leaves when its human stops by. It will come to the door when you get close, jump on your hand and hang out very calmly (some people even go on walks with them), then gladly jump back into the enclosure when you're done and patiently wait for you to bring it food.
They make movements which are easily anthropomorphized, probably because of their jumping nature. Imagine a dog seeing its human after a long vacation, where its quickly moving back and forth, and doing little jumps, etc. It may just be the spider preparing to jump or exhibiting some other behavior, but they'll even exit the enclosure when you're close, looking up at you with those oversized eyes, seemingly hopeful that you'll let them hang out and watch whatever you're doing.
* An analysis of online sales listings turned up more than 1,200 species of spiders, scorpions and other arachnids; just 2 percent of them are subject to international trade regulations, the researchers report
* Fish and Wildlife Service trade database included only 267 arachnid species, the scientists found
* The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, which regulates the international trade of a variety of plant and animal species, had just 30 species in its trade database
* Nearly 200 of the species that have been discovered since 2000 are already being traded; dozens were available within a year or two of first being described, the researchers found
* In another recent study, researchers at Cornell University found multiple species of endangered tarantulas being sold online
* “Arachnids are being massively traded,” Dr. * Hughes said. * “And it seems to be going completely under the radar.”
> To learn more about the scale of the global arachnid trade, the authors of the new paper used a handful of search terms — “spider,” “scorpion,” “arachnid” — in nine languages to identify websites that might be selling the animals.
I get the sense that something has changed about the NY Times approach to journalism. Instead of uncovering, breaking, and headlining news - what they were famous for and world leaders at, 'all the news that's fit to print' - it's long explanatory articles and narratives, and lifestyle stuff, plus their take on well-known stories but not so revelatory. It's less inflammatory, which is valuable, but I don't feel like it's news - shining light on the dark corners of power - which is an enormous loss. I'm not sure how to characterize it because I'm not sure what they are doing.
Has anyone else noticed? It seems like it's been going on since last autumn, at least.
They realized that the investigative journalism type of news was too costly and produced smaller returns compared to this type of lifestyle "news". In addition, a lot of investigative journalism cannot even be reported on anymore because of their newly acquired woke bias. The NY times used to be a centrist/moderate source of news, but now wokeism has taken over and it's really not the same credible publication it was 30 years ago.
> They realized that the investigative journalism type of news was too costly and produced smaller returns compared to this type of lifestyle "news".
That's been true for a long time. Do you have any evidence of this decision at the NYT?
> wokeism
I think that words like that are inflammatory (as is well known). Could you use more specific language and is there evidence? I know that's repeated a a lot in a certain segment, but reptition has no relationship with truth - facts (sometimes from investigative reporters) do. Thus chemistry not alchemy.
>For an exposé of New York City’s taxi industry that showed how lenders profited from predatory loans that shattered the lives of vulnerable drivers, reporting that ultimately led to state and federal investigations and sweeping reforms.
They still do tons of investigative journalism. It likely just doesn't cross your path unless you are an active NYT reader.
The NYT could do long risky exposes on power when they had a near media and print advertising monopoly in NYC. There’s not enough money for this anymore now that they compete for eyeball-seconds with Buzzfeed listicles like “what celebrity do these chihuahuas most look like?”
Looking at the front page of the NYT right now and I don't see anything like what you are claiming. In fact their top article today is a long-form investigative piece into Haiti's debt to France.
>THE RANSOM - For generations, Haitians were forced to pay France for their freedom. How much was a mystery — until now. The Times scoured centuries-old documents to find out.
While that's an interesting piece, it's more fitting a history book. It's not 'French corporations interfering in Hatian elections', or 'Biden administration hiding corruption in Justice Department prosecutions'.
The piece highlights how the history of crippling debt impacts Haiti right now. In fact, most of the piece is about the present-day impact. Not for the history books.
I keep several spiders as pets, so I'm a bit biased.
The greatest threat to these rare species isn't the pet trade, it's rather the destruction of their habitat. You'll find that most tarantula keepers prefer to buy captive-bred specimens, both for conservation reasons, but also due to risk of parasites.
Mexico handles this issue better than most countries: they let licensed breeders breed these animals in captivity and export them for the pet trade. This strategy reduces the pressure on the wild spiders, while not banning it entirely (which just leads to poaching)
Do you find that they interact with you/recognize you?
I can't speak toward tarantulas, but some jumping spiders definitely recognize, acknowledge and seemingly even appreciate individuals. Honestly, they sometimes look excited to see you as a dog would -- though that's likely just a basic recognition that you act as their food delivery service. They even appear to understand the concept (if not reasoning) behind their enclosure.
Some folks who spend a lot of time with their jumping spiders will actually leave the enclosure door open, as the spider will happily stay there unless it lacks water or food for a long period of time, and typically only leaves when its human stops by. It will come to the door when you get close, jump on your hand and hang out very calmly (some people even go on walks with them), then gladly jump back into the enclosure when you're done and patiently wait for you to bring it food.
When hearing annecdotes about the intelligence of jumping I’m always reminded of and David Attenborough’s narration of Portia
https://youtu.be/UDtlvZGmHYk
Well worth the watch if it’s new to you! Quite the perspective shifter
> they sometimes look excited to see you as a dog would
What does that look like?
They make movements which are easily anthropomorphized, probably because of their jumping nature. Imagine a dog seeing its human after a long vacation, where its quickly moving back and forth, and doing little jumps, etc. It may just be the spider preparing to jump or exhibiting some other behavior, but they'll even exit the enclosure when you're close, looking up at you with those oversized eyes, seemingly hopeful that you'll let them hang out and watch whatever you're doing.
My key takeaways:
* An analysis of online sales listings turned up more than 1,200 species of spiders, scorpions and other arachnids; just 2 percent of them are subject to international trade regulations, the researchers report
* Fish and Wildlife Service trade database included only 267 arachnid species, the scientists found
* The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, which regulates the international trade of a variety of plant and animal species, had just 30 species in its trade database
* Nearly 200 of the species that have been discovered since 2000 are already being traded; dozens were available within a year or two of first being described, the researchers found
* In another recent study, researchers at Cornell University found multiple species of endangered tarantulas being sold online
* “Arachnids are being massively traded,” Dr. * Hughes said. * “And it seems to be going completely under the radar.”
Real life animal crossing
Did they use a web crawler to find this?
Yes. From the article:
> To learn more about the scale of the global arachnid trade, the authors of the new paper used a handful of search terms — “spider,” “scorpion,” “arachnid” — in nine languages to identify websites that might be selling the animals.
+1 for the clever title.
I get the sense that something has changed about the NY Times approach to journalism. Instead of uncovering, breaking, and headlining news - what they were famous for and world leaders at, 'all the news that's fit to print' - it's long explanatory articles and narratives, and lifestyle stuff, plus their take on well-known stories but not so revelatory. It's less inflammatory, which is valuable, but I don't feel like it's news - shining light on the dark corners of power - which is an enormous loss. I'm not sure how to characterize it because I'm not sure what they are doing.
Has anyone else noticed? It seems like it's been going on since last autumn, at least.
They realized that the investigative journalism type of news was too costly and produced smaller returns compared to this type of lifestyle "news". In addition, a lot of investigative journalism cannot even be reported on anymore because of their newly acquired woke bias. The NY times used to be a centrist/moderate source of news, but now wokeism has taken over and it's really not the same credible publication it was 30 years ago.
> They realized that the investigative journalism type of news was too costly and produced smaller returns compared to this type of lifestyle "news".
That's been true for a long time. Do you have any evidence of this decision at the NYT?
> wokeism
I think that words like that are inflammatory (as is well known). Could you use more specific language and is there evidence? I know that's repeated a a lot in a certain segment, but reptition has no relationship with truth - facts (sometimes from investigative reporters) do. Thus chemistry not alchemy.
They won a Pulitzer in 2020 for their series on predatory lending.
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/brian-m-rosenthal-new-york-...
>For an exposé of New York City’s taxi industry that showed how lenders profited from predatory loans that shattered the lives of vulnerable drivers, reporting that ultimately led to state and federal investigations and sweeping reforms.
They still do tons of investigative journalism. It likely just doesn't cross your path unless you are an active NYT reader.
I mean the timeline makes things tight, but maybe you're just becoming desensitized?
https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/2022-pulitzer-airstrikes-g...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-traffic-stops-k...
Like sure neither of those are 'Watergate' takedowns of individuals or organizations, but unfortunately, Trump killed that kind of journalism.
My impression is not simply defined and hard to provide evidence for, I admit.
> Trump killed that kind of journalism
How did he possibly kill that kind of journalism?
Maybe that attitude explains it, in some way.
The NYT could do long risky exposes on power when they had a near media and print advertising monopoly in NYC. There’s not enough money for this anymore now that they compete for eyeball-seconds with Buzzfeed listicles like “what celebrity do these chihuahuas most look like?”
Looking at the front page of the NYT right now and I don't see anything like what you are claiming. In fact their top article today is a long-form investigative piece into Haiti's debt to France.
>THE RANSOM - For generations, Haitians were forced to pay France for their freedom. How much was a mystery — until now. The Times scoured centuries-old documents to find out.
While that's an interesting piece, it's more fitting a history book. It's not 'French corporations interfering in Hatian elections', or 'Biden administration hiding corruption in Justice Department prosecutions'.
The piece highlights how the history of crippling debt impacts Haiti right now. In fact, most of the piece is about the present-day impact. Not for the history books.
Wow. I literally thought this was about web crawling technology...
Instead it was literally about spiders.
dang me too, I thought web spiders too