But the SCI is nothing more than rich trophy hunters that seek the heads and skins of any type of animal whether endangered or not. If they had their way they would be hunting polar bears. According to Michael Satchell, a consultant to the Humane Society of the U.S., “With the help of friendly members of Congress and officials in USFWS, SCI has consistently attempted to navigate around the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and import once-banned trophies of endangered and threatened wildlife. Sometimes, the club has succeeded, sometimes not.”

It’s apparent SCI believes its hunting rights are above the law and works to make sure the law goes its way. And it did when the law to allow guns in our national parks was passed. This lovely little edict I wrote about was tucked inside a totally unrelated bill. I kept asking what good guns were inside a national park except to kill the animals that are supposed to be protected there, specifically wolves.

SCI saw it the same way. SCI just announced it will throw its money and power against any type of wolf protection in the courts, and help with planned wolf hunts in the Northern Rockies according to Defenders of Wildlife. Why is this not a surprise? SCI is behind Sarah Palin’s brutal attack on wolves and bears in Alaska. My guess is the plane she did not sell on Ebay, is now employed for some of these hunting ventures. SCI is still fighting for the right to kill the imperiled polar bears! Nice bunch of guys huh? You kinda want to float them out on a piece of ice and take pot shots at em and see how they like it.

As early as this fall hundreds of wolves are on the line. Pups as young as 5 months old can be targeted in hunts approved in Idaho. Of course SCI will be there with bells on.

The hunting and killing of animals, the Endangered Species Act, and the USFWS, should be lead by science and based on scientific approaches to wildlife management, not at the whim of wealthy trophy hunters contributing to members of congress. It appears our Dept. of Interior, and USFWS is continuing to follow the lead of the Bush Administration and its all out assault on our national treasures, the animals. Wolves are meant to live and thrive and maintain a natural balance within all sorts of our ecosystems. Because they do their job well, wolves are continuously the target of hunters who claim there won’t be enough to hunt. Taking out the wolves in our national parks will cause many of the ecosystems that began to return because of the wolves’ presence to diminish once again.

We’re so busy being a superior group in the animal chain that our arrogance overlooks the great ability of nature to do a better job on many fronts. I’m sickened by those that would hunt animals that are already suffering because of mankind. What kind of soul do they, can they have? We’d be a better country if we followed the ideas of Dr. Albert Schweitzer instead of the likes of the NRA or SCI. In the aftermath of WWII many looked to Schweitzer’s philosophy for “the restoration of hope and sanity,” according to Ann Cottrell Free’s book, Animals, Nature & Albert Schweitzer.

And in 1952 Dr. Schweitzer was awarded the Nobel Prize for Humanitarianism. He said in his acceptance speech: “There could be no peace, no harmony among men and nations unless prejudice and nationalism were laid aside, and all human kind recognized and embraced the universality of life—specifically, ‘all living creatures.’”

To quote Schweitzer:

“The human spirit is not dead. It lives on in secret….It has come to believe that compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind.”

I started to write so much for congress, the USFWS, the military, our health/research agencies, but the list was just too long. Our ethics are in the tank in this country if they are supposed to be rooted in compassion, because the last time I read my mail it was an ever-growing barrage of animal rights groups screaming for help from every direction.

Michael Satchell, “A View to a Kill: How Safari Club Int’l Works to Weaken ESA Protections”, Humane Society US, undated, accessed August 2005.

Cottrell Free, Ann, Animals, Nature & Albert Schweitzer, Washington, D.C: The Flying Fox Press, 1990.

http://www.defenders.org/

It takes so much activism by citizens of this country to stop atrocities against wildlife and for the preservation of all we hold dear in this country like our peaceful forests and parks against the likes of the NRA and big time hunting consortiums, that I’m beginning to believe America has lost its way. We simply do not present ourselves as a decent, Christian nation any longer. Our talk is cheap. We’re known for our deeds and the picture is not pretty when it comes to wildlife and habitat.

Do we as this supposed Godly nation realize the Lord specifically mentions the word wolf/wolves 13 times in the bible? In every instance He makes it perfectly known that wolves are to exist as predators. They have a purpose and in no way are they to be extinct in the world to come. They will indeed lay down with the lamb.

From a scientific viewpoint, wolves inhabited the U.S. for 750,000 years; one would think that by now in the 21st century we as “the smartest of the animal chain” would have figured out how to live with them. Stop the carnage as seen in the video below:

Science is not a part of Alaska’s wolf hunting program. There is no official wolf count. Alaska only guesses as to how many wolves it has or has not. To continue to escalate a hunting program like this with no clear figures as to how little or much the wolf populations there are being decimated is criminal.

Read about the history of wolf control in Alaska: http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled
_species/wolves/wolf_recovery_efforts/alaska_wolves/background/history_of_wolf
_control_in_alaska/index.php?ht=
An excellent read about the history of wolves in the U.S. http://www.ferrum.edu/philosophy/wolfproject.htm

Some people have wolves for pets. Amazing: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090528075841AAiDs2U.

The new ACES bill addresses global warming concerns but will it also embrace measures to safeguard wildlife and habitat? We’ve seen them left out in the cold before. According to Defenders of Wildlife, “Scientists warn that global warming could threaten one-third of the world’s plant and vertebrate animal species with extinction by 2050.”

I’ve already done blogs about reductions in fish, bird, and bat populations. The apes are always at risk, as are elephants mainly due to loss of habitat by increasing populations of people and their needs. We destroy and do not replace, and we pollute and do not clean up after ourselves.

Defender’s urges: “That’s why it’s crucial that comprehensive global warming legislation include dedicated policies and funding to ensure wildlife can survive in a changing climate.

Please contact your Representatives to urge them to support this bill and strengthen the legislation by dedicating 7 billion dollars of the revenues from it to safeguard both wildlife and natural resources from the impacts of climate change.

Monroe’s Rep. is John Dingell – (313) 278-2936 or click on Defender’s of Wildlife link on my home page.

I’ve already called this morning and evidently Rep. Dingell is getting a lot of calls about this. His office stated he is very much interested in this bill and the future of wildlife and habitat.

 

I watched a very informative documentary about wolves with interviews from ranchers, defenders of wolves, wildlife experts, park rangers, eco-scientists, and even economists. The economist called the wolves in a particular area “Million Dollar Wolves” because that is what they represent as far as extra annual income for Yellowstone Park, and all the businesses that benefit from tourists. 

 

Economists conducted a survey that was pretty productive with a 66% response. The survey revealed that 94,000 of the some 3 million visitors to the tri state area of Yellowstone Park visited there solely for the purpose of viewing the wolves, which have become famous. It was ascertained that each visitor spent an average of $340.00 each during their vacation. The result is an extra $35 million dollars in income. Because there were only 15-20 wolves, they would indeed be worth over a million dollars each.

 

One rancher said why isn’t just 10% of that income put aside to study the wolves and come up with reasonable means to contain them that would be passed on to the ranchers?  Good question.

 

Surely there is a better way. My feelings after watching this documentary remain the same. We have a “kill it” mentality in this country first because it’s the easiest/laziest way of doing things. Eradicate a species because we’ve decided to ranch there. Eradicate a people because we want to build a civilized country. So how civilized have we become?

 

Many ranchers are accomplishing no loss to their herds even moving them miles over different terrain due to more effort and diligence on their part while working smart with wildlife and park personnel. So living with nature can be done. Man just needs to realize the places we decide to settle were settled by other living things first. We are in their territory not vice versa. And every time we tend to upset the original inhabitants of an area, we more or less cause an imbalance in an ecosystem.

 

Watch the video to get a pretty unbiased picture of the dilemma. It’s very well done:

 

 return-to-the-wild-download-flash-player-installation

Almost one year to the day, the anniversary of Limpy’s shooting coincides with Secy. of Interior Salazar’s decision to take Yellowstone’s wolves off of the endangered list leaving them vulnerable to hunting once again.

 

Many environmental groups are taking this action to court. And yet others are petitioning President Obama to look more closely at the science behind the introduction of wolves in our parks once again, the benefit they provide, and the fact that they haven’t been allowed to reach their full potential in numbers that was decided upon when they were first introduced.

 

The main problem with allowing states the right to decide on hunting species relative to those that make their homes in our national parks is just that. Yellowstone is a NATIONAL park spanning several states. Why should any one state decide to hunt wolves while others do not? State parks are one thing, but national parks come under federal rule.

 

So to help with the plight of the wolves so many are trying to protect watch the following video of Limpy’s shooting, and pass it along to friends to spread the word and e-mail president Obama that we want to keep our wolves alive thank you.

 

Hopefully, watching the famous crippled wolf get gunned down will show the ugly side of what we call good sportsmanship. It looks like the only sportsmanship involved with the wolf kill is the push by the huge hunting lobby tied to the NRA. The same people that continue the movement to bring guns to our peaceful national parks.

 

This is pretty gruesome to watch but I think it’s necessary to see the unethical, unfair sport of aerial hunting that has been promoted throughout Alaska by Sarah Palin. It is from Defenders of Wildlife.

This policy has basically fueled the wolf hunting program in Idaho. Why Idaho?

Check out this list:

Dirk Kempthorne is former governor of Idaho and rushed into his appointment by Bush as Secy. of the Interior.  The Secy. of Interior is over the USFWS.

Matthew J. Hogan, the former chief lobbyist for Safari Club International, is Acting Director of the USFWS.

Safari Club International, according to sourcewatch.com, consistently lobbies against the intent of the Endangered Species Act.

Butch Otter, governor of Idaho, is known for his desire to be the first person to take a shot at a wolf.

Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho in 1987. She is the biggest catalyst in Alaska, along with SCI, for aerial hunting as a method for predator management—wolves. 

What is it with Idaho and their bloodthirst for wolves? Less wolves more hunting for people? What a totally unfair premise. It’s also a stupid act as it goes against a healthy balanced ecosystem. Wolves take care of the ever growing population of coyotes many people continue to mistake for wolves as one in the same. They are not. Coyotes are scavengers. They are usually killed by wolves for intruding on the wolves’ food. If hunting is used to replace the wolves, there will be little to no carcasses left for coyotes. Coyotes will begin to come into people’s yards as their population grows and wolf populations diminish from overkill. I had a lady comment elsewhere that people in Vermont are sympathetic to wolf hunts, and proceeded to tell me about problem coyotes in her yard. See what I mean?

Also, rangers in Yellowstone Park presented a pro-wolf video for Public TV that I watched. They showed all of the new tree, shrub, and grassy areas that were evolving because the wolves were balancing the overabundance of deer and elk that kept eating particular plant species to the ground. Over a course of time, one area went from a predominantly grassy plain to what appeared to be the beginning of a forest.

Obviously, hunting was unable to control the abundant population of deer, elk, and other vegetarian mammals.

Watch the video if you can. I could not. I do not call this hunting, and neither do real hunters. There is a place for legitimate hunting in America. This is not legitimate, nor is the reason for predator control in the extreme like aerial hunting.  Elk and deer populations in Idaho are beyond their limits based on state’s records. And Palin’s pressure to continue excessive hunting of wolves via plane/helicopter in Alaska as a form of predator management to preserve elk and caribou populations, is a complete contradiction to the detrimental outcome of elk and caribou populations within ANWR if drilling is allowed.

There was a reason Bush reluctantly put the polar bears on the endangered list but then curiously omitted protection for their habitat. Not so curious anymore. It seems in the latest round of attacks on the environment by the Bush administration and more than likely in support of oil, coal, and the natural gas industries, the president doesn’t find habitat protection necessary. To quote an article on NRDC’s website, the president will argue, “that studying and protecting the places that are essential to species survival is unnecessary. Specifically, the Department of Interior is planning to insert language into all future critical habitat designations that argues that these protections have no value in species protection.” Ah and Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior is at it again.

Protecting animals but allowing their habitat to go unprotected is so straight out of the dogma of big oil and other fossil fuel industries that we don’t even have to wonder why this underhanded push is happening. I say underhanded because the same article on Defender’s website stated that: “The first attack, contained in a rider on the House version of the Defense Department appropriations bill, would have arguably given the Secretary of the Interior sole discretion regarding where and when-and whether-to designate critical habitat for endangered species. Although the appropriations bill still contains a damaging ESA exemption for the Department of Defense, the more radical rider was defeated by the House on May 21.” Sneaky.

The Bush administration may not get their way the second time around either but there are other rotten ways of doing things.  The administration appears to be overly restricting funds for species protection by the USFWS. Bush only requested a measly $9 million dollars for it this year even though the agency knows it would take $153 million or more because there is a backlog. Congress even requested more money for the agency in the past to no avail. So no one is actually keeping track of or properly protecting our wildlife habitats because there is no money.

This is a “frightful” disregard for living things. If this administration can so ruthlessly overlook one natural resource for another, oil vs. animal habitat, than it’s not a stretch to think humanity is not being overlooked in the process either. We’re not suffering all that different a scenario from the animals on the endangered species list really. By continuing with the quest for oil and possibly more fossil fuels, our habitat won’t be around much longer either. What is it people don’t get? The earth is a closed system. If we put too much pollution into it, it will eventually break down. If we go on the way we are, we are no better than a cancer to our environment.  Yet this administration is destroying our habitat right under our noses while we go on believing someone is looking out for our best interests.

I hope that someone isn’t specifically Dick Cheney. Because when I watch what’s happening all I keep remembering is an article I read back in 2004 about Cheney. John Perry Barlow, a former Cheney supporter, said, “He has the least interest in human beings of anyone I have ever met.” That explains a lot.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030528.asp.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/.

View this video of 4 week old wolf pups and imagine plugging the cute little things in the head. It takes a heartless person to do this.

http://www.everythingwolf.com/sitewide/videolib/p1020310.wmv  

On the same website as the video, I read about people adopting wolf cubs, and even potty training wolf cubs. This is counter to the image of wolves as blood thirsty, indiscriminate killers.  

http://www.everythingwolf.com/forum/threadview.aspx?thread=1340p1.   

The big execution in Alaska was to boost caribou populations. There are approximately 950,000 caribou in Alaska. How many caribou do we need? What’s the target, a million?

 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php.

Alaskans are outraged over this aerial killing movement and are moving to “end the Board of Game’s barbaric aerial hunting of wolves through a ballot measure,” according to Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders website has a drive that ends today to help this ballot initiative with new ads. It also said that: “On August 26th voters can pass this ballot measure and band this awful practice before another deadly season begins.”

Defenders of Wildlife is “helping Alaskans for Wildlife, a coalition of local grassroots activists, hunters, and citizens who secured the 55,000 signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Already, they have reached thousands of voters across the state with their hard-hitting mailings.”

Collecting 55,000 signatures is a daunting task in the heart of hunting territory like Alaska, but everyone involved is close to meeting their goal of collecting $80,000 and running ads that will get voters out to vote for this ballot measure. The ads essentially say, “Real hunters don’t shoot wildlife from airplanes.”

I think aerial hunting is gutless. I also think shooting helpless pups is heartless. And I’m starting to think humans need to be kept in check more than animal populations. We’re starting to show our animalistic tendencies far too much, forgetting about empathy and compassion for all living things in our world.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/07_23_2008 _statement_regarding_illegal_killing_of_14_wolf_pups_in_alaska.php

I read an e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife that explained how wealthy speculators (oil) are driving up the price of oil to double or more per barrel than what it should be. It stated that, “Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, who testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, ‘with greater regulation [of speculation], oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days.’”

Well, that’s a no-brainer. Even Bush’s Energy Information Agency estimates that oil from drilling in the Arctic wouldn’t hit the market for 4 years and would only reduce gas by a few cents. It’s more of our own oil, but it’s still going to be $4 per gallon or more? What’s wrong with this picture? This speculation business looks to be true in that case. The agency also said “offshore drilling would not significantly impact domestic production or prices before 2030.”

Just yesterday I blogged that even the most environmentally minded in congress were willing to back drilling if necessary. Necessary to lower gas prices and make them look good for re-election? Now it’s really starting to look like this speculation thing is real. Look at the facts:

• Drilling for oil both in the Arctic and offshore will not bring gas prices down quickly at all.
• Those in Washington opposed to new drilling will now consider it if necessary, even though it doesn’t change the fact that drilling will not bring prices down. 
• Necessary must mean whatever it takes to bring gas prices down for re-election.
• Speculators are the only ones that can bring gas prices down quickly and drastically.

 Conclusion:  Environmentally minded congressional leaders are willing to give in to speculators wishes to drill in the Arctic and offshore in exchange for immediate relief at the pump for consumers and ultimately their re-election. Isn’t this extortion? Isn’t this our congressional leaders complying with extortion?

Congress needs to regulate speculators and quick if we want to see a fast, drastic drop at the pump. It’s a much better solution than giving in to greed and extortion while sacrificing clean water, marine life, and wildlife habitat.

We had to know this was going to happen. The U.S. has continued to sell oil leases even though the Arctic is still protected. When these guys get a plan in their head, war and extortion are not out of their realm. This is the final push during Bush’s term and it’s going to be a very bumpy ride. It appears this speculation news is being kept to a minimum.

I caught a little bit of Anderson Cooper on CNN last night asking the same question, “Are speculators driving up the price of oil?” Of course the official reply from someone official pooh, poohed the whole idea. And I guess that is supposed to be the end of it. Much of our country’s leadership, certainly wealthy corporations no longer answer to anyone anyway. 

Most of the time, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck. And this is a real game plan speculators have going here. They’re no better than thugs making us suffer until we give in to their demands. Contact your congress people and soon. Regulate speculators.

This didn’t come out of the blue. Earthjustice filed intent to challenge the decision to take wolves off the endangered list, but the USFWS didn’t answer. So now they go to court because as Earthjustice charges: “The USFWS failed to take into account basic principles of conservation biology, disregarded its own policies, and departed from past practice in delisting the wolf.” And Earthjustice will argue in court that the USFWS

used an outdated and biologically inadequate standard for determining the number of wolves that must be protected in order to maintain a genetically viable population;

ignored the agency’s own requirement that wolves in the northern Rockies’ core recovery populations must be connected and interbreed before they can be deemed recovered; and

failed to take into account that state laws that currently govern the fate of the wolves in the absence of federal protections allow unregulated wolf killing.

What angers me most about this is the time and expense that goes into something like this that shouldn’t have happened in the first place in the U.S. of America. You know from my postings that petitions with signatures in the thousands hit the USFWS before the delisting, as well as, thousands of phone calls. Washington went ahead anyway, a total disregard for their responsibility to us—again. And none of this will bring Limpy or the other 19 wolves back.