Our World and Everything in It

The three countries of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Republic of the Congo have come together to beef up the security of Virunga National Park home to half of the world’s population of mountain gorillas, which is down to a dismal 700 in number. The parks habitat is being destroyed looking for coal, lumber, and even things like bee keeping.

These countries are impoverished and war torn, which doesn’t help the matter any. Educating the people about extinction when they look to stay alive themselves is troubling. The African nations near the park suffer from political turmoil also, making matters worse for those that seek to preserve the gorillas. An article at BBC.com said that “rebel forces loyal to the dissident Congolese general Laurent Nkunda, took over large areas of the park, forcing out the rangers and leaving the gorillas vulnerable to poachers.” And poachers will move in quickly. Just last summer 5 gorillas were shot dead like the article said: “execution style.” What would possess someone to look at something that majestic and shoot it dead? But then again humans suffering in those countries don’t fare much better. 

The article went on to say that the “10-year conservation project, which was launched in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, is to focus on greater security and ways of discouraging local communities from destroying the region’s forests.” It also said that the Dutch government is funding the first 4 years at a cost of 6 million dollars.

I think it’s smart to get other governments involved since there is so much unrest in African nations, and many times so little value for life.  The moral issues are great. Save people, or save the animals. This is a choice that we’re going to have to make more and more in the future if we don’t stop human sprawl and the resulting pollution, and don’t do something about ignorance and poverty in nations with some of the world’s most diverse wildlife.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7254357.stm
  

This week the senate will vote whether to allow guns in national parks. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but that by itself ruins the idea of a “park” to me. So I’m strolling through the park enjoying the peace and tranquility but hear gunshots instead. Was it a misfire; did someone get shot; is someone poaching? So much for the organic feel I get from the word “park” knowing that in the deepest areas of the woods a real nut gets to carry a gun, shoot someone that happens by, and bury them all in one neat tidy place. OK, a little dramatic, but it still doesn’t seem right. 

Gun legislation points to the NRA and sure enough they are pushing this Coburn amendment. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican wants to allow state law rather than federal law to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, according to (ENS) Environmental News Service today. Already I see 50 different gun laws. Even people that want to carry a gun to a park will be confused. I realize Republicans favor states authority and less federal rule, but too many different rules are a reason this is not feasible. And why carry a gun at all? I don’t get it? This looks suspiciously like illegal hunting where you’re only guilty if you’re caught. And the only thing raising a ruckus relative to illegal hunting right now is wolf hunting. This amendment will obviously encourage opportunistic poaching. Curious.

What’s more peculiar about this amendment is that there is no reason offered as to why carrying a gun in a national park is necessary or relevant to anything since hunting is either controlled or prohibited in the parks. The ENS article went on to say:

On February 1, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police wrote a joint letter to U.S. senators urging them to reject the Coburn amendment. ‘Senator Coburn’s amendment could dramatically degrade the experience of park visitors and put their safety at risk if units of the National Park System were compelled to follow state gun laws,’ warned the rangers and retirees.

The ENS article also said that the Coburn amendment actually “forbids the Interior Secretary from enforcing ‘any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System…,’ and that On December 14, 2007, a group of 39 Republican senators along with eight Democrats wrote to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne urging repeal of these regulations because they are ‘confusing, burdensome and unnecessary.’” These senators think it’s unnecessary to have laws that prohibit carrying loaded firearms where people hike, bike, and camp? One standardized federal law is confusing as compared to 50 different state laws? And the federal laws are burdensome to whom, the NRA? Hmm.
 
That just about says it all doesn’t it? We have a curious amendment that allows the states to do what they want in national parks like carry loaded guns while the federal government is told to butt out. The people who spend most of their lives in national parks, the rangers, write a letter advising against Coburn’s amendment, that it is not a good thing for the parks. But in the meantime the NRA gets 47 senators to urge the federal government to get rid of its regulations relative to possessing a firearm anyway. Wonder how much this cost the NRA? If this amendment passes it will cost the parks their reputation for tranquility and peace, and a place of REFUGE for wildlife that’s for sure, not to mention campers. It’s probably going to cost something else down the line in the way of natural resources too.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-12-091.asp.
 
 

In honor of Native American Wolf Moon Month our Federal Fish and Wildlife Service “made it much easier to kill wolves in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Rockies region — even while they remain protected under the Endangered Species Act,” according to Defender’s of Wildlife. Nice tribute to our heritage huh?

Defenders went on to say that Secy. Kempthorne changed a rule that makes it easier to kill wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and allows the slaughter of wolves in the region of Yellowstone and the Northern Rockies. All the states need to do is PROVE that wolves are a MAJOR CAUSE of the inability for elk and deer to meet state management goals. Goals include how elk herds move about or behave. So wolves can be trapped or shot by wildlife officials if elk or deer move about differently. That’s a pretty big weight to hang around a little ole wolf neck and if the officials hang around the perimeter of Yellowstone long enough surely a wolf will stick its neck out and get it shot off.

I’m interested in the part that says PROVE. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should have a really hard time proving wolves have lowered the numbers of elk in those states since Idaho’s Fish and Game reported elk populations at all time highs, 20% above management objectives for 2006. Wyoming’s elk numbers were 9000 over the state’s objective in 2006. In 2004, Montana had an elk population of over 100,000. So if herds are down, who’s the culprit?

On Ralph Maughn’s Wildlife News website, Bob Hoskins commented Sept. 4, 2006: “The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has been making a concerted effort to reduce elk numbers through late season, cow-calf hunts over the last decade to bring the herds down to objective. In most herds in western Wyoming, these targeted hunts have been successful. When you hear in the press that wolves are killing Wyoming elk by the score, recognize that the claim is absolutely false. Worse, Wyoming G&F knows that it’s false. The fact is Wyoming’s hunters have been killing elk by the score in these late season hunts, by design. Many late season hunts will continue this coming hunting season.

He went on to say there is nothing wrong with the reduction program but quit blaming disappearing elk on the wolves. It’s a lie! This story is repeated in a USA article where biologist John Vucetich of Michigan Tech University in Houghton says wolves have been wrongfully blamed for a decline elk populations around Yellowstone in Montana. They studied weather, hunting, and wolves as factors.  Yellowstone has seen 7 years of drought and 1997 winter that killed many elk. They found the weather and hunting to blame for elk decline. Another biologist, Canadian Mark Boyce of the University of Alberta, and colleagues reached the same conclusion. They have an upcoming paper reporting that: “Montana increased the ‘hunter harvest’ quota on elk that leave Yellowstone grounds, issuing a higher-than-ever 2,882 hunting permits in 2000. A decline in the elk herd was thus guaranteed, Boyce says, even if wolves were not present.

So the poor wolves play the fall guy in all of this. Government officials and hunting lobby groups are the real menace. And all of it is unnecessary. Local ranchers partnering with Defenders of Wildlife to “expand their use of non-lethal wolf control measures” experienced no wolf-related livestock losses at all this grazing season. They believe “practical, inexpensive and non-lethal methods help reduce losses and conflicts while promoting better cooperation between ranchers, state and federal land managers and wildlife conservationists.”

According to Friends of Animals, Idaho’s Fish and Game Service “based the plan for the aerial gunning of wolves on a “trend count” in the Clearwater region, relying on astonishingly unscientific data in which eight cows were reportedly killed by wolves in the area.” The Dept. of Agriculture’s very scientific study of “collared” wolves living on the perimeter of cattle fields resulted in only 8 cattle kills total over 3 years time. Hmm?

Government officials are officially caught in lies again. None of the state’s involved have proof that wolves are lowering their elk populations drastically. They’ve been caught over-hunting and blaming the wolves. Ranchers have non-lethal alternatives that are affective and have been reimbursed for their losses by charitable organizations anyway. So there is no reason whatsoever for these wolf hunts especially aerial killing. You know with a war going on I’ve got to wonder the waste of energy for aerial hunters just looking to kill something. They need redirection. Know what I mean?

Check out the latest video of a disgusting wolf aerial hunt at: http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/ads_and_psas/tv_ad_to_stop_aerial_hunting.php.

As for changing the laws making it easier to kill wolves, tell Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that the rule change for hunting wolves is unacceptable. I personally would tell him more than that, and have.

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=943&autologin=true&s_einterest=C3C4&s_Affiliate=savewolves_&JServSessionIdr004=4gy70ytnm2.app26a

About Idaho’s elk population and hunters: http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2007/july/help-stop-the-bush-a.html.

About Wyoming’s hunting laws and elk decline due to hunters: http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/04/08/wyoming-elk-numbers-are-9000-over-states-objective/.

About the USA Today article and Canadian biologist’s report that hunters are to blame for elk population decline: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-11-21-elk-yellowstone-mystery_x.htm.
 

Just 10 days ago I blogged about cloned meat and that I thought the idea of doing it for food was ludicrous, considering we throw half of all our food produce away in this country. I provided a link to an article with a picture of a stacked pile of dead pigs. We don’t need more meat, so cloning for food is a ruse to get into the research arena.

 And there is it today, in the Associated Press: “Scientists Clone Human Embryos.” Of course, we know this has been done before. As a matter of fact the article said someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute couldn’t tell that anything new was being presented. He said the ‘next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line’ from cloned embryos and that hasn’t been achieved yet.  I figured we didn’t need the food and the push to get cloned beings into research is the real reason we’re hearing cloned, cloned, cloned. Heck, people are still arguing about stem cells. It was a more viable idea to utilize stem cells that were going to be tossed, flushed, buried, or discarded. Now we’re going to end up creating life for stem cells, and eventually allow them to grow to get organs to part out–much worse than using discarded stem cells.  I think there is a whole lotta other expertise involved with creating life anyway. Many scientists concede to a Higher Being when they get so far into something and then can’t figure it out anymore. We haven’t figured out that real animals have emotions, suffer, and more than likely “think,” and we’re onto creating human life? That’s a scary thought, just as I said about meat. We don’t treat real farm animals humanely, what hope do cloned critters have? Ditto for the human clone business.  

The article stated that other doctors agreed that the report was interesting but the ‘real splash’ will about stem cells from cloned embryos. Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Institute and Children’s Hospital Boston said, ‘It’s only a matter of time before some group succeeds.’

There is a really visible push to get cloning in front of people. First, the big announcement about cloned meat being safe, then 10 days later a redundant announcement about cloning human embryos? The only purpose the last announcement serves is to keep cloning in our consciousness–safe cloned meat, cloned humans, cloned, cloned, cloned, until research is cloning away whether we agree with it or not. Real sneaky.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080117/478ee0d0_3ca6_15526200801171818674522

This is a very good documentary about wolves by researcher Shaun Ellis and also a good tribute to “Wolf Moon” month of January. Find out more about wolves and why we should stop the eradication of this species once and for all. A majority of people have spoken, but legislators, especially in Alaska, continue the sportless killing by helicopter and plane.

 Shaun Ellis doesn’t recite a documentary at you, he lives with the wolves. It’s good. Watch it. Learn.

Peace

In honor of this being Wolf Moon month and that the fate of wolves in our national parks, in Idaho, and in Wyoming hangs in balance with a Secretary of Interior that is oblivious to thousands of voices to spare the wolf, I thought I’d do a piece on dogs and wolves. I ran into this interesting page along the way.

The website page is: http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/genetic1.htm. There is a list of References for Wolf-Dog Genetic History. I started to read the summaries of a variety of books written about the genealogy of the dog. Dogs are direct descendants of wolves, all dogs, little bitty pocket dogs, hairy dogs, smooth dogs, hunting dogs, even Pekinese dogs. The DNA of dog and wolf is almost identical. The dog is not the descendant of the combo wolf/jackal as many used to believe. Our dogs are tame wolves basically.

So I kept reading the short synopsis of each entry, there must be 15 of them on this page, and one after the other: “Scientists believe that wolves are the direct ancestors of today’s domestic dogs,” and “…on the basis of a large number of skull measurements and examinations of the size and structure of the brain, blood factors, and numbers of chromosomes that all dogs, whether Pekingese, bulldogs or Alsatians, were descended solely from the wolf…[t]he domesticated wolf is the dog,” and “Although the subject continues to be controversial, most authorities now agree that all dogs, from Chihuahuas to Dobermans are descended from wolves which were tamed in the Near East ten or twelve thousand years ago.” There were some summaries more genetically oriented, but all of them concurred the dog, man’s best friend is really a wolf in pedigree skin. That is except for one entry

That one entry is odd because it’s about proving whether the canine carries wolf blood. They have the same DNA for Pete’s sake. Trying to ascertain whether the dog carries actual wolf blood, when their DNA is identical, looks like a technical way around relating man’s best friend to the wolf. And look from whom and where the study comes. The Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. contracted a New York lab to do this study and look whose questioning the ties between wolf and dog, the Idaho Fish and Game Dept. back when the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was instituted there. It was stated “There is not presently a valid test that will guarantee analysis of whether a particular canine carries wolf blood. Certain DNA studies have been conducted by a New York laboratory under contract by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, but a much larger population study of wolf and dog breeds would have to be done before conclusive results can be obtained.” Jerry M. Conley, Director, Idaho Fish and Game Dept. From letter to Gov. Cecil D. Andrus, March 19, 1992.

Idaho and Wyoming have been gunning for wolves for years. It’s coming close to a head now. And it’s not about control of an untamed, voracious animal. It’s certainly not about maintaining balance in our ecosystems of which the wolf plays an important role.  And it’s not about killing livestock.  It’s about exterminating an animal that is the grandfather of our pet dog, so that man can hunt for sport instead. And sport hunting is about money. It always gets back to money.
 

Whether or not cloned meat is safe is not an issue. It’s not a good idea based on what the meatpacking business does with real animals on industrialized farms and CAFO’s, the fact that Americans disregarded health warnings and boosted our obesity quotient some 30% last year, and our propensity to waste half of our food supply to begin with. Do we really need to clone animals for food?

It’s highly doubtful looking at these pictures of dead hogs stacked sky high that lived from birth to death confined in a box, chewing on metal bars out of distress, then died for no good purpose whatsoever:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters.

As you look at this stack of pigs, remember that science has declared them to be highly intelligent animals. If we do this to regular farm animals, what will we do with clones? Our cruelty quotient will go up and it’s not all that good now. We turn our heads to all types of cruelty already.

We don’t need to fuel obesity either. Type II diabetes is on the rise and linked with obesity from pounding down too many burgers, 20 oz. steaks, and slabs of ribs. Producing more food from cloned animals is contrary because we’re already stuffed on only half of what we produce. The average family throws away 14% of all their food. If beer and pop counts, I’m surprised it’s not higher. Rounding up cans and bottles from party aftermath is a little unnerving. There are always a bunch of them half empty and a few completely full.

So the push for cloning for more food doesn’t make sense, but the push for cloned animals for research does. We’ll be off and running in that direction all too quickly and with little recourse because we didn’t protest cloning animals for food in the first place. The FDA stated they wanted to get public opinion about cloned animals for food. So let them know.

This should be a pretty good show since Jack is bringing some rare and threatened species of animals on the set. And there should be a lot of good information about what is disappearing from the planet due to climate change. Jack is passionate about animals and so am I. I really don’t want to be the generation that remembers animals in the wild like the old Tarzan flicks because the animals no longer exist anywhere.

Just got an e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife. It appears Bush/Cheney spent their holidays plotting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to just go ahead and start slaughtering hundreds of wolves by helicopters and planes in what should be their sanctuaries, our national parks, particularly Yellowstone.

Wolves haven’t been taken off the federally protected, threatened and endangered list. Threatened by Bush/Cheney that is. Human beings are still the most heartless hunters and some of the decisions out of this administration show lack of empathy for any living thing. What is the difference between a canned hunt, Internet hunting, and the aerial chase and kill that is proposed for wolves especially in Idaho and Wyoming? The animals are trapped. They cannot possibly outrun the planes, helicopters and technology.

We citizens wrote letters, voiced opinion, and literally raised hell over the dog fighting indictment against Michael Vick and we’re going to allow this to happen? Wolves mate for life, raise their young with care, and are not the enemy of man. When are we going to stop listening to the propaganda of this administration?

Wolves are an important part of the entire ecosystem of this country that is systematically being destroyed by a handful of people in power and that power is out of control. Thousands of people have protested the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska for years. It never stops and is spreading? It’s evident no one in this administration has any regard for the opinion of its people. We are such a poor example to the rest of the world as far as the environment and wildlife, that to ask Japan to quit heartlessly killing dolphins and whales will fall on deaf ears. And our neighbors to the North will keep clubbing innocent baby seals to death as long as we keep setting stellar examples like this.

Between canned hunts, internet hunting, aerial hunting and every other kind of extremely non-sporting and bloodthirsty hunts that have come up since you know who is in office, why do we put up with it? Our world and everything in it, and our reputation as a nation of moral, decent citizens is in jeopardy over whom we’ve elected. While Christians everywhere were given a message to embrace environmentalism over the holidays, a very amoral group in Washington plotted to eradicate an entire species of animal in at least two states without ever taking them off the protected and endangered list.

According to Defenders, “Just last week, Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), George Miller (D-CA), Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and Norm Dicks (D-WA) warned in a letter to Secretary Kempthorne that de-listing wolves in the Northern Rockies now is a mistake.”

Evidently, this administration doesn’t listen to the elected officials that represent us either. I say if they would do this to an innocent animal, they would do as much to us without batting an eye. So much for trust hey? And Bush made the most admired list in a recent gallop poll? If that’s the truth than America’s average IQ of 98 just dropped a notch.

Email Dirk Kempthorne Secy. of Interior formerly governor of Idaho that helped get grizzlies and wolves under jurisdiction of the individual states and in a position for slaughter. Looks like he’s been plotting for quite awhile—almost 2 terms as governor and only a year in this position and he’s on his way. Let him know what you think of his bloodthirsty, unsporting proposal: webteam@ios.doi.gov

I just got through reading some current worldwide environmental news and have to say, we don’t seem to have a clear-cut view of anything. What we profess, what we say, and what we actually do is all contrary.  First, I saw the Pope give his blessing and speak on behalf of peace and the environment over the Christmas season to over one billion Catholics. And the World Council of Churches that represents 560 million Christians worldwide is calling concerns over global warming a matter of faith. The WCC has had a program about climate change since 1992 and books about ecotheology (I’m interested).  Dr. Samuel Kobia the Secy. General of the WCC stipulates that Christians are well aware that dominion over all living things was given to us. He said that meant, “We were entrusted with the care of the rest of God’s creation.” The emphasis is on the word “CARE” here.

Care doesn’t come under savagely taking a machete to an orangutan trying to defend it’s young, or hooking a live dolphin in the side and sending it to be stripped of skin before it’s even dead, while the resulting meat is basically poison from ingesting too many pollutants, or shooting 6 elephants dead for stepping into a coffee field that is supposed to be their sanctuary. We should actively try to get this stopped, but our demands for things like lumber and coffee encourage it.  Oh and don’t forget about native animals and the latest Internet hunting websites that have yet to be banned in over 20 states.