In an unusual Sunday vote called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Bill 22 moved forward with a vote of 66-12 that would add 200 million more acres of U.S. land under the Wilderness Protection Act. The Associated Press reported that this bill is “the largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years. Prior to this, the bill met with opposition from Republicans. The Sunday vote was an effort to bypass their stalling that some say will “derail” the pledged cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in the near future.
In any event, the bill is making its way through to senate approval and according to the same AP article includes California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia for protection under the act.
This is pretty binding stuff once it’s decided. It would take another act of Congress to take the same land away from the Wilderness Protection Act. I wondered what the Wilderness Protection Act actually does. In my mind if a place is already a national park, why does it need further protections? According to Wikipedia, which is a good enough source for explaining things, the basics of the Wilderness Protection Act are:
The lands protected as wilderness are areas of our public lands.
Wilderness designation is a protective overlay Congress applies to selected portions of national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.
Within wilderness areas, we strive to restrain human influences so that ecosystems [the Wilderness Act, however, makes no specific mention of ecosystems] can change over time in their own way, free, as much as possible, from human manipulation. In these areas, as the Wilderness Act puts it, “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man”—untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered.
Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species, while logging and oil and gas drilling are prohibited.
Along with many other uses and values for the American people, wilderness areas are popular for diverse kinds of outdoor recreation—but without motorized or mechanical vehicles or equipment. Wilderness is the haven of quiet beyond the end of the road, the wild sanctuary we meet on its own terms by leaving the machinery of twenty-first-century life behind. The wild popularity of wilderness recreation shows how hungry Americans are for just such sanctuaries.
The Wilderness Act was reinterpreted by the Administration in 1986 to ban bicycles from Wilderness areas, which led to the current vocal opposition from mountain bikers to the opening of new Wilderness areas.
Interesting, because I did see some protesting the fact that this will be 200 million more acres no one can use, unless we decide to see the place the good old fashion way—by hiking. But the whole idea is to protect the wilderness from man so we either walk through it leaving the least amount of impact, or we don’t see it at all.
There is also the questionable $3 million earmark to Alaska for another road to nowhere through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge there.Maybe they should add that area to the Wilderness Act. No mechanical or motorized vehicles in protected areas, no need for a road. And didn’t Alaska’s governor denounce earmarks anyway?
With Michigan’s economy in the dumper and deficits rising, it’s hard for many to stick to a green path in Michigan. Construction of two new coalburners by Wolverine Power Supply and Consumers Energy are planned that will bring work there for a while.
But how do we think this will fair alongside new green industry Michigan is looking to entice to our area? We can’t expect green companies to park themselves next to one of the greatest pollution producing industries—coal. It would make for strange neighbors.
And what about our health in Michigan? If we expect to horde our water to keep it here, than we have the responsibility to keep that water fresh. Exposing more of our open fresh water to toxic mercury from these plants is unacceptable. Besides that our own health from the air born toxins are in jeopardy. The following is an excerpt from those in Michigan’s medical profession:
As medical doctors conducting health research at Michigan State University and the University of Michigan respectively, we feel compelled to warn that construction of these plants would gravely impair Michigan’s air quality and expose our communities to severe, even lethal, health impacts.
Coal plants release at least 70 different pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter and mercury. These pollutants are known carcinogens, teratogens, neurotoxins, and/or cardiopulmonary irritants.
And we wonder why there are so many new cases of autoimmune disease and cancer? This isn’t just about jobs, this is about our health and welfare, which is supported by our environment, the air we breathe, water and food we drink and eat. There are so many more pollutants and toxins in our environment than our ancestors experienced that our bodies are overworked daily. So when we face something as simple as allergies our immune response is flooded. Just yesterday a friend called me to say that another dear friend died of problems arising from his immune system.
As Americans we have a tendency to seek instant gratification, only that can sometimes lead to acting without foresight and create more drastic problems down the road. We can’t wait to get jobs in Michigan and are quick to overlook the ramifications of adding more pollution to our state with these coalburners without really, really attempting to facilitate other sources. We gets jobs, get a paycheck for building coal fired power plants, but down the line we suffer grief and lose that income and more to illness. It isn’t worth it.
We have a new president on the way with new economic ideas that are environmentally friendly. It looks like this push to start construction on these coalburners is a rush to get by before the new president takes office. And when everyone finds that there are many, many jobs waiting in green industry also, that we have a choice of work, and alternatives for energy, there won’t be much of a long-term future for the archaic fossil fuel industry will there? That’s motive for the fossil fuel energy companies that isn’t in the best interest of the people in this state. The more we manage to forge ahead into green technology, the greater the strides we will make toward some pretty remarkable energy sources that won’t infringe on the environment and ultimately on our own well being.
Looks like some enterprising people in Denver struck on a good idea. There is plenty of grease leftover after Thanksgiving especially when deep fried turkey is so popular. So the folks in Denver advertised for everyone with leftover grease from Thanksgiving to bring it to a particular place for storage. It will later be made into biofuel. Good idea Denver.
I wonder if the cars running on this particular biofuel will smell like roast Thanksgiving turkey all over again?
Recently I caught someone’s smart remark after reading that scientists are studying shrimp, putting them on treadmills, that’s right, on treadmills to find how they are coping with toxic algae. It probably doesn’t sound important to most people other than their favorite food may disappear. I answered the remark that the study is important, because first the shrimp, then us.
Then yesterday I watched a Nova presentation on PBS about a marine animal rescue facility in CA that is seeing a surge of Domoic Acid poisoning in the past 3 years after a rise beginning in 1998. In 1998 tests were done to determine the effects of this natural occurring marine neurotoxin. It is found in algae/plankton and was formerly believed to be cyclical. Until this Nova presentation.
Nova showed satellite pictures of the coastline of California. Heavy concentrations of plankton that produces Domoic Acid showed up as a specific color on the map. Satellite images viewed after large storms that carry an overabundance of groundwater and stream/river water to the coastline also showed an increase in the plankton growth immediately afterward. This Nova presentation shows the connection of heavy runoffs of inland water that usually contains high concentrations of agricultural fertilizers and the resulting increase of “natural” plankton growth. It’s not looking so natural. Gee why would there be a steady rise since 1998, coinciding with the very anti-environmental, deregulation happy Bush administration?
The poor sea lions that are suffering seizures on the beach from this stuff were sad to watch. They were pretty much paralyzed, aware of humans but listless. Domoic Acid poisoning has no antidote. Plankton is a natural food source for sea lions and they are literally dying from too much of it. The poisoning was formerly thought to affect short-term memory. Now it’s believed that it is literally eating holes in the brain of the sea lions. Most of the poor animals we viewed will die.
Now the bad part. Humans and their pets can suffer the same poisoning. Rarely, for now anyway, Domoic Acid poisoning has sickened and killed humans in the past. Sardines, and all types of seafood eat plankton. And studies even before the Nova presentation have already ascertained that this over abundance of toxic algae is around the entire coastline of the U.S. Remember first the shrimp, then us.
The Nova presentation about the CA rescue facility is so new it isn’t available yet on this website. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ocean911/.
National Geographic’s previous info on Domoic Acid. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080617-sea-lions.html
There are still arguments whether or not global warming has contributed to the onslaught of wildfires in California that certainly appear to be getting worse. As a matter of fact, I read an article that suggested it is because of invading populations of people moving into fire prone areas, and/or forest management practices instead. But a scientific paper published a year ago stated “that the changing climate was a greater influence on wildfire activity and intensity than forest management.” http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/Global-Warming-California-Wildfire-47102305.
As for people moving into fire prone areas, sure there would be more likelihood of fires, and more property damage, but Mother Nature is seriously contributing to the wildfire fiasco with a record drought, temperatures in the 80’s-90’s instead of the 70’s for this time of year, and winds that are clocking at 60 and 70 mph, with gusts up to 85! Besides authorities declared that the wildfires in California this past July set a record. There were over 1781 fires burning at once, but luckily most were in sparsely populated areas. So much for the “people-cause-the-fires” theory. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/california-wildfires-set-a-record/.
What I find odd is that the same people that deny the fire activity in California is due in part to global warming but instead caused by people, simultaneously deny that people cause global warming. Is this not selective reasoning? Certainly the smoke from these fires contributes heavily to air pollution.
Even an article in Business Week suggested that if we don’t do something soon about global warming the costs of the bad weather produced by it could be devastating for California. It stated that there could be “as much as $3.9 billion in annual damages caused by wildfires, rising sea levels and extreme weather events.” I say ditto for many other parts of the country. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94EAOUO1.htm.
California isn’t the only area of concern. Hurricane ravaged Galveston, Texas did not get enough press during the presidential campaign. There are still what can be termed “Katrina victims.” I’ve noticed a pronounced change in path and verocity of tropical storms up the east coast of America. We do not want to see anything that resembles a hurricane hit NYC. This past spring our midwest was hit with horrible floods. Tornadoes in the South in November are becoming common. And let’s get real here. Five states in the SW have experienced huge growth, even though 4 of those states collectively rely on one and the same Colorado River for all of their water needs. Add the mentality that wants to maintain a steady growth in population in America, and we have to ask, “Just where is everyone supposed to live that won’t pose some sort of weather and/or uninhabitable terrain problem in the U.S.?” Can’t run, can hide from Mother Nature.
A majority of Floridians didn’t just vote for president-elect Obama last Tuesday, but also for Amendment 4 to the Florida constitution. According to Environmental News Service (ENS), Amendment 4 will “allow land that is being used for conservation purposes, but which has not been permanently set aside, to be taxed according to its conservation use.” In other words, no property taxes as we know them.
Time will tell if more regulation needs to be added to the new amendment because other groups have cited possible problems with lost tax base while others tout it as the saving grace for the Everglades and the endangered Florida Panther.
The Nature Conservancy had a hand in getting this amendment passed, and hopes that it will be “a powerful incentive for more private landowners to engage in conserving Florida’s forests, waters and wildlife.”
You’ve got to admit it is a cheap and easy way to nudge people into another way of thinking about conserving places that are at once beautiful and vital to our ecosystems that would have been too costly to maintain under the former property tax structure.
It will be interesting to see how this works out. The tax exemption begins in 2010.
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 managementwolves.
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.
As someone with a daily environmental blog, I’m more than interested in Sarah Palin. Environmentalists have known about Palin for quite some time. And it’s those environmental groups that were targeted first for attempting to protest at the RNC.
There is much footage out there of the emptied EarthJustice bus of protestors left by the side of the road by the Minneapolis police. It appears to be overkill and ridiculous with at least 10 police cars surrounding the bus as if it carried felons escaping prison. What a display of force to stop protestors for the environment. From many accounts, the Republicans had plants inside of these types of groups to report what, when, and how they would be going about protesting at the convention in order to stop them from reaching their destination. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/.
This is frightening for the U.S.A. More news has shown up on video on websites of outright abuse. One article stated that 3 homes where protestors were staying were entered by police SWAT teams. Citizens banned for peacefully assembling in protest, especially before they do so is a direct hit on our constitutional rights and perpetrated by our own federal government. SWAT teams? Just a tad bit of overkill. Obama’s bigger convention didn’t utilize SWAT teams or infiltrators. When I saw a GOP rep head butt, yes, head butt an ABC reporter, well, how juvenile, not to mention mean.
It’s not right. Without protestors, many citizens are being denied, albeit short term, the facts of Palin’s horrible environmental decisions and her ruthless record of predator management, which is the aerial killing of wolves.Besides that, the state of Alaska under Palin sued the USFWS to keep the polar bear off the endangered list stating that their numbers have increased and they are a stable population.
I’ve already given the definition of endangered in another blog. The meaning should resonate with Palin since she has a BA in journalism and knows well that it means: “exposed to danger.” If anything could be more exposed to danger it would be the wildlife of Alaska under Palin and her buddies (SCI) Safari Club International who believe it’s their right to hunt any animal, endangered or not. SCI still pushes to allow hunting polar bears.
Palin stands strong against lobbyists, maybe, but only the lobbyists of her choice, because on the other hand she sought millions in earmarks for Wasilla, Alaska. Environmentalists have known that she’s bad news for our environmental future with a script right out of the mouths of big oildrill more.
As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier with this pick. I had to laugh when it was said her campaign for governor was run on “ethics.” OMG!
Wait until the large environmental groups disclose her ethics.For example Rodger Schlickeisen of Defenders of Wildlife issued this statement already about Palin’s destructive environmental policies:
Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaskas coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.”
To be to the right of the Bush/Cheney regime is a scary thought. That’s pretty far out there. Sarah Palin is a scary thought for wildlife. Alaska’s predatory management program is barbaric. I recently blogged about 14 wolf cubs shot in the head on the spot after an illegal stakeout by Alaskan Wildlife Agency employees? Bears have been added to the predatory list now. Funny how wolves and bears have always been a part of the Alaskan landscape, but now they are intolerable. Animals in Alaska do not have a friend at the governor’s house.
I don’t think Sarah likes living things as much as money. That will come out sooner or later. Cruelty is not a nice trait to see in a woman.
Sad to say, despite door-to-door grass root efforts that got 75,000 voters in Alaska to the polls to vote to permanently stop the aerial assault on wolves, the initiative failed.
Those lovely guys at Safari Club International, who think it’s their right to shoot and kill just about ANYTHING, lobbied for the kill, and talk about a pro-active government/lobbyist relationship in Alaska. Coldhearted Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska paved the way and added $400,000 out of the state’s coffers to keep the kill going. After Ted Steven’s indictment, I think everyone should direct more attention toward Alaska.
The reason the assault on wildlife continues, is that sport hunting is a main industry in Alaska, therefore, Alaska will slaughter predators to preserve that game for humans to hunt for fun and Alaska’s profit. But the predator management system is out of control according to residents of Alaska. http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_1626.htm
It looks like the taste of blood is irresistible after all. The current predator management in Alaska includes bears too. Are we going to start killing the bears because they eat too many salmon and it interferes with sport fishing?
What I want to know is what are the great white hunters are going to kill when the population of critters is diminished not only by hunting but by loss of habitat from industry and global warming, and the many diseases that are going to crop up in the future as a result?
People are already being hunted. I posted a blog about hunting albino human beings in Tanzania. And the bushmeat trade is near cannibalism in my book.
It’s as if the example we’ve been given over the past decade by the Bush/Cheney group has infiltrated our spirit here in America, and the example continues off of our shores. How are we to tell Canada not to club baby seals, or Japan to quit whaling and butchering dolphins, when we’re slaughtering our own wildlife everywhere? And everyone knows it’s for the MONEY!
This type of cruelty is a growing concern to me. If we have a generation of kids that never enjoy nature by stepping away from the Internet long enough to go outside, it’s not hard to imagine that empathy, sympathy, and responsibility for nature, all the traits that are supposed to put humans a step above the animals, will be gone
If this cruelty continues against innocent wildlife, where a hunter can just walk up to a den of small pups and plug each one in the head with a bullet without flinching, my prediction that seniors will live in gated communities in the future for safety sake is just a generation away.
We must break the growing cycle of cruelty against nature for our own human sake.
