Warning over 'well-meaning' Aussie craze causing more harm than good: 'Huge issue'
Australians are warned not to discard their freshly cut hair in the environment, despite claims on social media doing so can help birds build their nests.
Keith Porteous, known as The Wildlife Rescuer online, said there's a current TikTok trend encouraging people to leave out human hair removed from brushes, for birds to use as nesting material.
Speaking to Yahoo News, Keith said while it's clear the trend has good intentions, it's actually causing more harm than good in many cases.
Sharing photos of a bird badly entangled in human hair, showing clearly visible injuries, Keith implored the public to think twice before leaving hair behind outdoors.
The Sunshine Coast local explained that human hair is both incredibly strong and fine, making it especially dangerous. "I rescue all animals, but a huge amount of my work is birds entangled in fishing line, string, twine, plastics and hair," he told Yahoo News Australia.
"I come across hair quite often and it is extremely damaging because it is fine and strong. Often it isn't spotted and the bird's issue may go unnoticed. But it's every bit as dangerous as line or string in terms of poor outcomes."
Whilst fishing line and man-made fibres are the "most frequent entanglements", he said he's also seriously concerned about the series of viral TikTok videos. "It could be a huge issue if the practice were to become widespread," he warned.
Everyday household items turning bird nests into 'death traps'
Rare sight in the sky leaves beachgoers in total awe
Aussie's sad discovery in bush sparks urgent warning
Human hair is strong and durable, but unlike natural nesting materials, it doesn't break down easily in the wild. When birds incorporate it into their nests, it can pose significant risks.
The hair's strength, while making it seem like a useful material, actually makes it similar to fishing line, which can entangle birds, small animals, or even insects. This can lead to injury, strangulation, or death.
The chemicals often found in human hair from shampoos, dyes, and treatments can be toxic to wildlife. These substances can leach into the environment and contaminate water or soil, further threatening local ecosystems.
Although it may seem like a harmless act, leaving hair behind can inadvertently contribute to long-term environmental harm and compromise the well-being of animals that rely on natural materials for survival. It's important to dispose of human hair properly, ensuring it doesn't end up causing harm to the creatures we aim to help.
Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are dads doing enough? What the data tells us about the state of modern fatherhood.
As Father's Day approaches, American dads insist they're doing a lot more parenting than the men who raised them, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Some dads even claim they're doing more than the women they're parenting with. Yet the survey of 1,560 U.S. adults also taps into the complexities and contradictions of contemporary fatherhood, revealing that even the most egalitarian dads might see themselves in ways that don't quite match up with how others see them. Their partners included. I know a little something about this. One of my duties as national correspondent for Yahoo News is to collaborate on our monthly polls with YouGov, a leading public-opinion firm. I write the questions, then analyze and report on the results. At the same time, my wife and I are trying our best to help our two kids — a 9-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy — grow up to be good people. Like many other millennial parents — I just turned 43 — we aspire to contribute equally to that effort. And so I figured Father's Day would be as good a time as any to ask my fellow dads some of the questions I'm always asking myself. How much are we really doing these days? And is it enough? Gender roles are a perennial topic in the parenting world, and the general consensus is that even though more opposite-sex couples than ever believe in 50/50 parenting — and even though dads have become more involved over the years — moms still do most of the domestic labor. According to a 2023 study by the Pew Research Center, for example, wives in so-called egalitarian marriages — that is, couples where each partner earns about the same amount of money — still spend more than twice as much time on housework than their husbands, and almost two hours more per week on caregiving, including tending to children. 'Egalitarian' husbands, meanwhile, spend three-and-a-half more hours per week on 'leisure activities' than their wives. Yet there may be more to the data than meets the eye, at least based on the results of the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. For one thing, nearly two-thirds of American dads (63%) now say they spend more time with their kids than their fathers spent with them — and a full 37% describe that generational difference as 'significant.' Dads feel like they're putting in the hours and making progress. What's more surprising, however, is that a third of fathers (34%) also say they carry more than half of their family's "mental load," while another four in 10 (39%) say they shoulder about half. Combined, that's roughly three-quarters of dads who believe the balance is either 50/50 or skewed in their direction. In contrast, just 28% of dads admit to bearing less than half (14%) or none (4%) of their family's mental load. It's fair to say those numbers contradict what researchers have found — and what most moms would tell us if we asked them the same questions about the fathers in their lives. When I shared the poll with my wife and asked how she would answer for me, we agreed on everything — except mental load. And when I told her how many dads seem to believe they shoulder at least half the mental load, she scoffed. My sense is that this disparity reveals a lot about the state of dads today. For the record, I don't really think I take on more of the mental load than my wife — not as the term is typically defined. But I also think the tasks we typically define as 'mental load' fail to fully capture what dads tend to contribute. Here's how the poll put it: 'Mental load refers to the cognitive and emotional effort involved in managing and coordinating household tasks, responsibilities and relationships. As a father, how much of your family's mental load do you believe you carry?' Again, nearly three out of four dads say they do half or more of this invisible labor — these hidden forms of care. Yet when asked which specific parenting responsibilities they 'regularly take on,' relatively few fathers with children aged 18 or younger pick things like 'make the kids' doctor appointments' (36%), 'sign up the kids for camps/school activities/lessons' (26%), 'schedule playdates with the kids' friends' (18%), 'volunteer for school activities' (15%) or 'book babysitters/child care' (10%) — i.e., the classic mental load stuff. Instead, these dads are much more inclined to say they "play with the kids" (72%), "help with homework" (54%), "take the kids on outings" (52%), 'put the kids to bed' (44%) and 'make dinner' (42%). So it's not like dads are deluded. When asked point-blank about their role — Who are your kids closer to? Who spends more time parenting? Who would your kids' school call first? — a majority of fathers answer either 'me' or 'it's about equal.' But an even larger majority answer either 'it's about equal' or 'their mother.' In other words, dads understand that the parenting scales still aren't perfectly balanced. Why, then, do so many dads seem to think that we're carrying more of the mental load than we get credit for? My guess is that we consider that category to be a little more capacious than our partners do. For the initial draft of the Yahoo News/YouGov Father Day's poll, my editors — both moms — floated a fairly narrow set of options for the 'parenting responsibilities' question: booking babysitters, volunteering at school, making doctor appointments and so on. I responded with some additional choices that 'might capture more of what most dads do': playing with the kids, going on outings, cleaning up after dinner, etc. I also told my editors that 'in general, I think mental load conversations miss things like this (even if they are more about household management than parenting, per se): take care of the house, take care of the yard, take care of the car, take care of the garbage, take care of the finances. We didn't end up asking dads about those duties. But looking back, I can't help but wonder if they would have polled even higher than, say, playing with the kids — and if they were the kinds of responsibilities our dad respondents had in mind when assessing their own share of the mental load. For me, I think the answer is yes. In 2010, I wrote an essay for Newsweek explaining why marriage mattered so much to me; it was a direct rebuttal to a piece by two of my female colleagues about why the institution is 'quite simply, no longer necessary." I agreed with my coworkers that all of marriage's 'antiquated ancillary benefits — its grubby socioeconomic justifications' — no longer really applied. But that, I argued, was 'the point.' 'Dustin and I are not 'getting anything' out of this deal,' I explained. 'Or at least we're not getting what previous generations of men and women were conditioned to expect. I'm not getting a cooking, cleaning, child-rearing machine. She's not getting a bringer-home of the bacon. I clean. Both of us cook. Sometimes, Dustin earns more money than I do. Sometimes she doesn't. We both go to work every day. We both have careers. And when we have children, we'll both take turns staying home to raise them. 'In other words,' I continued, 'our roles within the relationship are not defined by gender. They're defined by who we are as people. … In a world where the practical reasons for marriage no longer apply, the only reason left is love.' Fifteen years and two kids later, nearly every word of that essay still rings true to me. I do all of the laundry — and almost all of the cleaning. She packs lunches; I make dinner. She works longer hours. I drop off the kids at school in the morning, then pick them up in the afternoon. I coach their soccer teams. She plays with them more. We both read books at bedtime. But if I'm being honest with myself, our 'roles within the relationship' are still somewhat 'defined by gender.' As my wife was quick to point out when I shared the mental load results with her, she's the one who makes the doctor appointments, schedules the playdates, books the babysitters and signs up for summer camps. 'OK,' I said. 'But what about all the 'invisible labor' I do?' I mentioned the finances, the house, the yard, the car, the garbage. 'That doesn't have anything to do with parenting,' she responded. 'It's household management,' I responded. 'Someone has to do it.' 'But someone would have to do it even if we didn't have kids,' she said. I think we both have a point here. I feel like I'm doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our lives running smoothly. She feels like she's doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our kids' lives running smoothly. We've gravitated toward these roles — mine indirectly related to parenting, hers directly — because of gender. Or, more specifically, because of gender expectations. The truth is, I don't feel judged for not volunteering at school, or not packing a particularly healthy lunch, or not hosting a playdate. My wife does. She even judges herself. As a dad, I tend to feel OK about how much I do. As a mom, she tends to feel guilty for not doing more. We've inherited and internalized different standards of what it means to be a parent — and hers are higher. That's hard to shake. Egalitarian dads might think they're shouldering half of the mental load, or more. But as hard as we're lifting, most of us still don't know what that feels like. __________________ The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,560 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 22-27, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.
New York Times
6 hours ago
- New York Times
The Subversive Joy of BookTok
My professional life revolves around reading and writing books. But for years, I carried a little secret: I didn't read much for fun or pleasure. This wasn't always the case. As a teen I devoured books, and my library card was my most prized possession. In college, I passed the slow hours of my part-time job at a hotel gift shop lost in works of magical realism — where ghosts lingered, kitchen spices conjured heartbreak and love defied the laws of nature. But somewhere between graduate school and professional academic life, books became objects to analyze, critique or assign. After I spent my days deciphering dense academic jargon and grading student papers, the last thing I wanted was to crack open a book at night. Slowly, without realizing, I traded reading for binge-watching Netflix and doom-scrolling social media. But after November's election, the doom-scrolling that once numbed me only fueled my anxiety. I needed an escape from the barrage of dread. In a bid to improve my sleep and reduce the time I spent staring at my phone, I bought an e-reader. At first, I loaded it with books I thought I should read — prizewinners, critical darlings. But that just felt like homework. Soon, I was back to social media. Then, late one night, the algorithm led me to a whimsical and hilariously dramatic corner of TikTok known as BookTok, where people gush about novels that supposedly altered their brain chemistry, or that they wish they could inject directly into their veins. The algorithm caught on, and soon my feed was full of people speaking passionately about the thrill of a good story — reading on lunch breaks, or in moments where the joy of reading overpowers exhaustion. Of course, the algorithm also recognized my personal usage, filling my feed with queer and BIPOC creators and providing a different picture than someone else might get. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2FTAL-lead-image-EMERGENCYEXIT0625-7c5e169571e04144a14046ef2de88d94.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Travel + Leisure
18 hours ago
- Travel + Leisure
What Would Actually Happen If You Tried to Open the Airplane Emergency Door Mid-flight?
The most important thing in the exit row on a plane isn't the extra legroom—it's the emergency door. These doors are strategically located throughout the aircraft so that passengers can easily evacuate, regardless of whether they're in first class or the last row. The Airbus A380—the world's largest commercial aircraft—has 16 emergency doors. That's approximately one for every 50 passengers. While part of the flight attendant safety speech includes pointing out where the nearest emergency doors can be found, it doesn't include the answer to one burning question. What happens if you try to open the emergency door mid-flight? If you ask American Airlines First Officer Steve Scheibner, nothing would happen if you tried to open the door—because you can't open the emergency door mid-flight. Unless you're capable of lifting 25,000 pounds, it's physically impossible. 'Once this door gets pressurized in flight, it's nine pounds per square inch,' says Scheibner, who goes by Captain Steeeve on TikTok where he has more than 380,000 followers. Another pilot-turned-social media sensation explains it further on YouTube: 'We pressurize our aircraft to a lower altitude so that you guys can breathe,' says Pilot PascalKlr. 'The inside pressure pushes the door in its frame.' Scientists liken it to how a drain plug works. Given the small size of sink and bath drains, it takes a substantial amount of effort to pick them up. Also, most emergency exit doors on planes open inwards. Still, physics isn't the only thing keeping emergency doors closed during flights. On most commercial aircraft, all cabin doors automatically lock once the plane has reached a certain speed. According to Scheibner, it's approximately 80 knots (92 miles per hour). They can't be manually unlocked until the plane slows down again. Obviously, these locks weren't customary back in 1971 when the infamous 'D.B. Cooper' parachuted out of a Boeing 727's rear door with $200,000 in cash somewhere over southeastern Washington. In fact, because hijacking passenger planes was common in the late '60s and early '70s, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amended their safety regulations in 1972 and started requiring large passenger aircraft exits to be designed so that they can't be opened during flight. Exit sign in an airplane. Margot Cavin/Travel + Leisure Even though it's not possible to open an emergency door mid-flight, people have tried. In fact, every year passengers make headlines for trying to do so. A few weeks ago, an All Nippon Airways flight from Tokyo to Houston was diverted to Seattle after an unruly passenger kept trying to open the emergency doors. Cabin crew and fellow passengers managed to restrain him using zip ties. Upon landing in Seattle, the passenger was handed over to the local police and FBI. And when an American Airlines passenger on a flight from Albuquerque to Chicago tried to open an emergency door 20 minutes into their flight last year, the plane returned to Albuquerque where law enforcement was waiting. If the plane isn't far from its final destination, it will usually try to land there. That's what happened on another American Airlines flight in 2024 when a passenger flying from Milwaukee to Dallas attempted to open an emergency door mid-flight. A flight attendant was injured in the process, and the man was charged with a federal crime. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. At the very least, trying to open an emergency door mid-flight is a great way to get yourself on the dreaded no-fly list. While most passengers who try to open emergency doors fail, at least one appears to have succeeded. In 2023, a passenger on an Asiana flight about to land in Daegu, South Korea allegedly opened the emergency door he was sitting next to. The plane was more than 700 feet off the ground at the time. While the plane was able to safely land, and no one was seriously injured, 12 people went to the hospital and were treated for hyperventilation. 'The wind was stinging my legs and hitting my face so hard I couldn't even breathe properly,' the passenger sitting next to him recalled in an interview with CNN. Asiana immediately launched an investigation to see how the door was able to be opened. It also issued a statement saying it would stop selling certain exit row seats on its Airbus A321-200 aircraft. But this doesn't exactly mean that sitting next to an emergency door is dangerous. On the contrary, some experts say the exit row boasts the safest seats on the plane. 'If there was a seat that was safer, being close to an emergency exit increases the chance of getting out quicker,' Cary Grant, an assistant professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's College of Aviation, previously told T+L.
