Leap into the Leap Year Bizarre...
A common misrepresentation many of us believe is that there are exactly 365 days in a year. However there are in fact 365.242199 days, the difference of which, despite a seemingly miniscule discrepancy, greatly impacts the seasonal and astronomical years. While it takes the earth approximately 365 and a quarter rotations on its axis to complete a full year’s orbit around the sun, our calendar therefore has to compensate, hence the invention of leap years. A leap year, which consists of one extra day, February 29, for a total of 366 days, allows for the calendar to correctly synchronize the seasons, without which we would experience a loss of almost six hours every year, amounting to 24 days after only 100 years. Historically, the ancient Roman calendar saw the addition of an extra month every few years to maintain the correct seasonal changes, and was later revised in 45 BCE, with Julius Caesar’s implementation of the Julian Calendar, which added an extra day every 4 years. Subsequently, Pope Gregory XIII refined it further in 1582, amending to the Gregorian Calendar, (also known as the Western Calendar) which is now the internationally accepted civil calendar.
As a concept, Leap Day and Leap Year have existed for thousands of years, and still attends superstition and ancient traditions steeped in legend. In the British Isles for instance, a custom holds that leap years should bestow upon women the "privilege" of proposing marriage to men, (rather than the other way around). According to conventions bound in old Irish legend that speaks of relations between St Patrick and St Brigid, any man who refuses a woman’s proposal during Leap Year, owes his scorned suitor compensation in kind - a silk gown, a kiss, or twelve pairs of gloves (presumably to hide the shame of a naked ring finger). Allegorically, the folklore appears to take similar restorative measures to balance traditional gender roles as the Leap Day does the calendar year. This romantic tale has been rooted in many early English-language sources, the likes of which include a passage from the early 17th century volume entitled, Courtship, Love and Matrimonie, which discusses the “common law” of “social relations of life,” permitting women the sole freedom of professing their love every bissectile year. A couplet from the Elizabethan-era stage play called The Maid’s Metamorphisis also alludes to the legendary custom, as well as another passage from the Treatise Against Judicial Astrologie by John Chamber dated 1601, which furtherer discusses the reversal of gender roles during a leap year. Finally, the earliest documented reference to the "ladies' privilege" is found in the couplet attributed to Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343-1400) by Vincent Lean in his Collectanea, published in 1905. Interestingly, within the same decade of Lean’s publication, postcards from the leap year 1908 express illustrations of old maids with many chins setting silver bear traps and women catching men with butterfly nets. Other such folklore traditions and superstitions surrounding the Leap Year confer that marriage in a leap year is unlucky, and that leap years can have a hampering affect on the raising of crops and livestock (in the words of the Scots, "Leap year was never a good sheep year.")
And so, while the Leap Year is a scientifically proven and necessary calendrical asset to the management of the seasonal and astronomical years, it has not only played a curious and dynamic role throughout history, but continues to hold sway upon many peoples and cultures worldwide. Like a full moon, beliefs in the bizarre and strange effects of the Leap Year and Leap Day are not soon forgotten. Therefore let us appreciate these ancient uncustomary customs, which help us to better understand ourselves in the past and present, and revel in the delights of the season as we bow to the wondrous workings of science and the masterful imagination and creativity of mankind. - Elizabeth Cucnik
Paper or Plastic?
When it comes to choosing between paper and plastic bags at the grocery store many of us are left confused, unsure, even shamed. Plastic today. Paper tomorrow. Does it even matter? “Paper or plastic” has become analogous to the trends of globalization that marks our age of consumerism. Driven by consumer demand and need, the issue stands as a slogan for environmental sustainability and communal health, born from the grassroots of a budding independently thinking public. It’s about time we begin to think for ourselves. It suffices to say, this latest trend to go green is something we can and should all embrace with a “fresh” conscience. Organic, local, all natural – this is the kind of branding that might just help save the planet, and us. Therefore we must ask ourselves: when we choose between paper and plastic, what are we really choosing? It’s not about throwing the dice at the checkout counter; much like casting your voting ballot, it is a call to action to propagate change that will exact a revolutionary effect to benefit generations to come. This worldwide insurgency begins and ends with each one of us.
The single-use shopping bag was invented by a Swedish company in the mid-Sixties as a byproduct of the oil-refining process, and was later brought to North America by ExxonMobil, introduced to grocery-store checkout lines in 1976. The plastic shopping bag revolutionized the way we began to shop for food. Unlike paper bags, plastic ones are waterproof, durable, able to support 1000 times their own weight and cheaper to produce. However plastic bags are not environmentally sustainable, and are not only toxic to our global ecosystem but to our health. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 35 of the 47 chemical plants producing plastics ranked the highest in carcinogenic emissions. Furthermore DEHP, a chemical used to stabilize the plastic, has been shown to reduce fertility and acts as a neurotoxin, while vinyl chloride, one of the key ingredients in plastic bag manufacturing, is a proven carcinogenic that may contribute to liver, kidney and brain damage.
While plastics presently account for roughly four percent of global oil production, they are also difficult to recycle (due to the loss of quality and function in the re-melting process) and are not biodegradable, (it can take up to 1000 years for a single plastic back to break down). In addition, plastic bags destroy aquatic wildlife. Hundreds of thousands of marine animals die each year after ingesting plastic bags, which choke and block intestinal functionality. Moreover plastic bags produce visual pollution, and buttress the observation of a wasteful society. Sobering statistics reveal that the United States alone uses 100 billion plastic bags a year, which requires roughly 12 million barrels of oil. When plastic bags can be found tumbling along the tips of the Himalayas or swaying at the bottom of Mariana’s Trench, it is evident the system we have created is seriously flawed and immediate changes must be made before it’s too late.
A worldwide movement to reduce dependability on plastic disposable bags has seen many nations and cities across the globe take action. It may come as a surprise that Bangladesh banned plastic bags outright a decade ago, exacting a dramatic spike in sales of reusable bags. In 2008, China followed in suit, which saw the elimination of some 40 billion bags in the first year alone, saving the energy equivalent of 11.7 million barrels of oil. Australia’s Northern Territory no longer offers plastic bags to its shoppers, who are now faced with the choice to either bring their own bags, or pay for re-usable or biodegradable bags at the checkout. This year, Italy became the first European country to issue a nationwide ban, paving the way for other countries like England and Scotland, who are now considering anti-plastic legislation. And while shoppers in Wales are currently paying a minimum of 5p per bag, Ireland has also recently instituted a 15-cent tax on plastic bags in an attempt to end the "litter menace," a move that reduced usage by 90 percent in the first three months and raised 3.5 million euros towards environmental projects. Washington, D.C., also took the up initiative, imposing a 5-cent fee per bag, cutting monthly use from 22.5 million bags to just 3 million. Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an expansion of the city’s celebrated restriction on plastic shopping bags in major super markets and pharmacies to all retailers citywide. Whole Foods Market, ranked among the most socially responsible businesses and placed third on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s list of Top 25 Green Power Partners, no longer offers plastic bags to customers, a reflection, it says, of the company’s core values of caring for public and the environmental health and safety. In like fashion, all Ikea stores in the United States and the United Kingdom no longer use plastic carrier bags in an effort to promote the use of their own brand of reusable bags from which they have donated over $300,000 to American Forests. The list of plastic bag banning goes on, from small towns like Modbury, England to the populated streets of Delhi and throughout the Indian province of Himachal Pradesh, (where plastic bag use can result in hefty fines and even jail time) the move to reduce, reuse and recycle has undeniably become a global trend.
While the issue might seem black and white, it is not however a simple question of paper or plastic, it’s a question of what we can reduce and eliminate today in order to enjoy more tomorrow. The first step is to eliminate one of the major polluting causal factors and inhibitors: plastic bags. By drastically reducing or eliminating completely our dependence on plastics we will not only help our environment and ourselves, but we would open the floodgates for a greater ecological mindfulness and consideration to flow through. If whole developing and developed nations worldwide have collectively banned outright the use of disposable plastic bags, such as China, Italy, South Africa, Australia, India, Philippines, Uganda, Kenya, Bhutan, and so on, whilst many others have introduced a plastic bag tax, why hasn’t Canada taken the initiative to follow in these footsteps? Considering we belong to the second largest country (landmass) in the world, with some of the most extensive natural landscapes and resources, it seems only commonsense that we should naturally be at the forefront of this anti-plastic campaign.
Although dependence on plastic should not be entirely replaced by a renewed necessity of the paper bag, (paper, as we all know, is made from trees, and it takes millions upon millions to sustain our yearly supply) the elimination of the plastic bag, should rather impress upon us the reuse and recycle philosophy. If taking point means keeping up with global trends, then what’s in vogue is not paper or plastic, or virgin materials, it is vintage, it is salvage and it is environmental. Reused boxes, cloth or canvas bags have created a new wave of trendy shoppers who embrace a wholesale approach to ecological sustainability. In like fashion with the growing trends of organic food, natural products, farmers and flea markets, second-hand boutiques, and all things local, reusing bags at the supermarket is simply an extension of this popular green ethos. So when we are asked, “paper or plastic?” at the checkout counter, without wanting to be an environmental cretin and in full understanding of the true issues, we are no longer caught between a rock and a hard place. We know, as the consumer, as the voter, as the revolutionary, what we need to do in order to get things done. Let’s make the choice to reuse and recycle, to refuse plastic and put forward to the City of Penticton today the move to ban plastic bags within our municipality. Change takes cause at the grassroots with towns like Penticton, who have the capacity and the power to ban plastic bags citywide, and lead by example for the rest of the country. If China, with a population of 1.3 billion can do it, so can we.
-Elizabeth Cucnik
To Cull Or Not To Cull...
Deer culling is a notorious debate that seemingly pits moral and ethical impetus against practical and convenient reasoning. It’s simply a question of which side of the deer fence you’re on. However despite the polemic dispute, Penticton City Council has approved a deer cull as part of an urban deer management program. Public education, ongoing monitoring, consultation and a ban on public feeding of deer are to follow in suit accordingly. Although the date of the cull has yet to be set, the issue lingers in the gray matter of the debate itself. Quantification is clearly lacking, and the want of accurate numerical data not only directly affects budget costs, but also the accuracy of population control by numbers. And while it is true some Penticton residents will feel relief by way of their private gardens and undamaged cedar hedges, the culling will nevertheless fall short of our ethical and moral accountability.
Deer culling is a drastic step, argued by many to be cruel and barbaric. Trapped in a cage by night, often struggling and kicking, deer frequently fracture limbs and sustain other injuries before they are shot in the head with a bolt gun. Captive bolt guns however, were designed for use on restrained domestic animals, typically in slaughterhouses, and were not, under any circumstances, intended for use on wild animals. While the bolt cannot effect a clean kill when the animal is not placed in a single-fire lane, restrained, with it’s head immobilized, a misplaced bolt can therefore painfully injure, necessitating the need for multiple attempts. If “swift” and “certain” define in part, what it means to bring about a humane end to wildlife via population control, then the humaneness of the trap and bolt technique is seriously questionable. And yet, for most of us, to cull or not to cull is simply a question of out of sight out of mind.
The deer cull, which was primarily initiated following 42 reports of urban deer sightings by residents to the City Hall, (the majority of which bordered on agricultural areas), fails to act on proportional representation, and does not seem to factor in the consideration of human overpopulation, urban sprawl and destruction of wildlife habitats. Likewise, the culling unintentionally localizes responsibility among specific property owners, potentially creating personal animosity among members within the community. On the other hand, the growing number of wayward wandering urban deer does in fact contribute to a rising increase in altercations between individuals and deer, pet animals and deer, attracts a range of other wildlife including coyotes, cougars and ticks, and makes driving more hazardous. Therefore, despite the city’s inability to generate substantial numbers in order to understand the scale of such implications and their impact, the shortlist is enough to sustain a call to action. Yet emphasis on ethical and moral integrity should not be displaced when considering such policies for human, animal and environmental protection. Hence the question becomes more distinguishable: why not seriously explore a cohesive ongoing program and non-lethal alternatives and interventions to address human/deer conflicts?
First and foremost, a one-time cull may not solve the problem. While the net-and-bolt tactic would most likely not reduce the size of the herd down to the desirable number, complaints to the city would therefore continue. Consequently an annual cull might be required, in which yearly controversy on the issue would be hard pressing upon City Council, and residents may not have the stomachs for the unremitting slaughter. Contrariwise, a non-lethal approach would help to integrate ethical and moral responsibility into the decision-making process, potentially reducing the polemical aspect of the debate itself, while providing Council with a program to help address complaints. Some of the components of an ongoing preventable program include: moving deer from the area, excluding deer from conflict areas and from specific plants and bushes through fencing, (which provides a longer term solution to the impact of deer on landscaping and backyard gardens) the use of repellents to make plants less palatable and less desirable to deer, the use of deterrents such as sound and visual scare devices, as well as planting less palatable landscape plants. Lastly, one of the most ostensibly formidable non-lethal options available would be immunocontraception. This alternative approach would require a select number of deer to be hit with a dart every two years, containing a vaccine rendering the deer sterile. According to procedures of the new method of wildlife population control, animal marking would be synchronized with vaccine penetration, allowing experts to track and recognize which deer have been hit. Furthermore at $30 per dart, the cost of immunocontraception would be significantly less than any form at lethal control, which for the city of Penticton would require $150 per deer culled. Immunocontraception thus appears to be the more “humane” and cost-effective method of wildlife control.
So when reviewing the hot topic of debate this week: to cull or not to cull, the interrogation, it seems, claws at the heart of two imposing philosophies. While one apparently supports a more tactile, less costly and humane approach, the other seemingly provides a tangible short-term eradication. Therefore as a collective community we should then ask ourselves: what are we truly looking for? Delayed gratification, or instant satisfaction with the tailing potential for prolonged problems? Penticton is a favorite destination for all sorts of people from all walks of life from all around the world. Situated in the heart of BC’s wild southern interior, Penticton is not only a picturesque place to live, but remains a refuge for a wide range of Canada’s most extraordinary wildlife without which we would be indistinguishable, empty and forlorn. As residents and inhabitants of this spectacular landscape, we are entrusted by its nature, to preserve, protect and respect the beauty and sanctity of its wisdom and love, in which it has always given back absolutely. Deer culling is like a gateway drug to bigger and more grotesque reckonings. What’s next, soylent green? Let’s replace the “out of sight out of mind” with “in your right mind” and approach this problem with steadfast moral and ethical sensibilities, long-term solutions and peaceful, harmonious resolve.
-Elizabeth Cucnik