tagged w/ Environmentalism
-
Eskimos exist to please well-to-do liberals with their noble savage rusticalness. Allowing them to improve their lot in life would spoil everything.
Written By : Dave Blount
February 8, 2013
Cindy Sheehan thinkalike Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Gabbily anti-American traitor John Kerry for Secretary of State. Advocate of killing American citizens without due process John Brennan for CIA director. Obama’s habit of selecting the worst conceivable person for each high position continues with his choice of Sally Jewell for Secretary of the Interior.
Remember Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which had survived for 80 years before getting ground out of existence largely by the envirofascists of the National Parks Conservation Association? Jewell is vice chairman of the NPCA’s board.
Kimberley Strassel sums up Jewell’s mission:
“Lock up land, target industries, kill traditional jobs.”
Jewell has never held office. But lack of experience didn’t hold Obama back. The important thing is that she will help keep the unemployment rate sky high, thus increasing dependence on government. Among her credentials:
“Ms. Jewell, who joined the REI board in 1996 and rose to CEO in 2005, has been central to campaigns that have squelched thousands of jobs in the name of environmental purity.
“REI, for instance, actively supported the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which in 2001 locked up a third of all national forests, dealing another blow to logging and mining. When former Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2006 announced she’d fight the Bush administration’s effort to inject some flexibility into the rule, she held her press conference at REI’s headquarters, flanked by Ms. Jewell. … REI’s well-heeled clientele ultimately got 58 million acres of “pristine” walking trails; Western loggers got to tell their kids they no longer had a job.
“REI’s bigger influence, however, has come from funneling money to radical groups via the Conservation Alliance, a foundation it created with Patagonia, The North Face and Kelty in 1989. Ms. Jewell was lauded by the group in 2010 for committing REI to giving more than $100,000 a year to this outfit.”
The money has been going not only to kill jobs, but to drive up energy prices, another critical front in the liberal War on Prosperity.
“The Conservation Alliance maintains a list of the “successes” it has notched via the dollars it sends to militant environmental groups like Earthjustice. In the past few years alone that list has included “77 oil and gas leases halted” in Utah, 55,000 acres put off limits to oil and gas jobs in Colorado, the destructions of functioning dams, and the removal of millions of new acres from any business pursuit.
“The Alliance is particularly proud of its role in getting the Obama team in 2012 to lock up half of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve — set aside 90 years ago specifically for oil and gas. Rex Rock, the president of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents the economic interests of the Inupiat Eskimos, wrote that the decision will “cripple the lone economic driver for our communities,” and make the Inupiat “exhibits in an outdoor museum.”
Eskimos exist to please well-to-do liberals with their noble savage rusticalness. Allowing them to improve their lot in life would spoil everything.
A third front in the War on Prosperity is ever-increasing taxation. Jewell is on board here too:
“I know tax is a dirty word, but if we were paying a carbon tax that accounted for our impact on greenhouse gases, that would in fact change our consumption,” explained Mrs. Jewell in 2009.
One last qualification: she donated $10,000 to Obama’s catastrophic reelection.
As with Obama, every decision she makes will be predicated on what is most harmful to Americans.Eskimos exist to please well-to-do liberals with their noble savage rusticalness.... more
-
-
the above video and following text is taken from www.parliament.uk
HOC ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE Wednesday 21 November 2012
Committee Room 8, Palace of Westminister, London
Meeting started on Wednesday 21 November at 9.44am. Ended at 11.30am
Insects and insecticides
Witnesses
Pesticide Action Network UK, and Buglife
National Farmers Union, and Soil Association
Mark438 says
This is a really interesting insight into this issue of wild pollinators and pesticides in the UK.the above video and following text is taken from www.parliament.uk
HOC... more
-
-
On issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists are increasingly refusing to listen to scientific arguments that challenge standard green positions. This approach risks weakening the environmental movement and empowering climate contrarians.
by Fred Pearce
From Rachel Carson’s 'Silent Spring' to James Hansen’s modern-day tales of climate apocalypse, environmentalists have long looked to good science and good scientists and embraced their findings. Often we have had to run hard to keep up with the crescendo of warnings coming out of academia about the perils facing the world. A generation ago, biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 'The Population Bomb' and systems analysts Dennis and Donella Meadows 'The Limits to Growth' shocked us with their stark visions of where the world was headed. No wide-eyed greenie had predicted the opening of an ozone hole before the pipe-smoking boffins of the British Antarctic Survey spotted it when looking skyward back in 1985. On issues ranging from ocean acidification and tipping points in the Arctic to the dangers of nanotechnology, the scientists have always gotten there first — and the environmentalists have followed.
And yet, recently, the environment movement seems to have been turning up on the wrong side of the scientific argument. We have been making claims that simply do not stand up. We are accused of being anti-science — and not without reason. A few, even close friends, have begun to compare this casual contempt for science with the tactics of climate contrarians.
That should hurt.
Continued at linkOn issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists... more
-
-
-
Death toll of campaigners involved in protection of forests, rivers and land has almost doubled in three years
The struggle for the world's remaining natural resources is becoming more murderous, according to a new report that reveals that environmental activists were killed at the rate of one a week in 2011.
The death toll of campaigners, community leaders and journalists involved in the protection of forests, rivers and land has risen dramatically in the past three years, said Global Witness.
Brazil – the host of the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development – has the worst record for danger in a decade that has seen the deaths of more than 365 defenders, said the briefing, which was released on the eve of the high-level segment of the Earth Summit.
The group called on the leaders at Rio to set up systems to monitor and counter the rising violence, which in many cases involves governments and foreign corporations, and to reduce the consumption pressures that are driving development into remote areas.
"This trend points to the increasingly fierce global battle for resources, and represents the sharpest of wake-up calls for delegates in Rio," said Billy Kyte, campaigner at Global Witness.
The group acknowledges that their results are incomplete and skewed towards certain countries because information is fragmented and often missing. This means the toll is likely to be higher than their findings, which did not include deaths related to cross-border conflicts prompted by competition for natural resources, and fighting over gas and oil.
Brazil recorded almost half of the killings worldwide, the majority of which were connected to illegal forest clearance by loggers and farmers in the Amazon and other remote areas, often described as the "wild west".
Among the recent high-profile cases were the murders last year of two high-profile Amazon activists, José Cláudio Ribeiro da Silva and Maria do Espirito Santo. Such are the risks that dozens of other activists and informers are now under state protection.
Unlike most countries on the list, however, the number of killings in Brazil declined slightly last year, perhaps because the government is making a greater effort to intervene in deforestation cases.
The reverse trend is apparent in the Philippines, where four activists were killed last month, prompting the Kalikasan People's Network for Environment to talk of "bloody May".
Though Brazil, Peru and Colombia have reported high rates of killing in the past 10 years, this is partly because they are relatively transparent about the problem thanks to strong civil society groups, media organisations and church groups – notably the Catholic Land Commission in Brazil – which can monitor such crimes. Under-reporting is thought likely in China and Central Asia, which have more closed systems, said the report. The full picture has still to emerge.
Last December, the UN special rapporteur on human rights noted: "Defenders working on land and environmental issues in connection with extractive industries and construction and development projects in the Americas … face the highest risk of death as result of their human rights activities."
• 19 June 2012 update: The number of deaths in Brazil was wrongly cited as 737 – this has been corrected to 365. The headline and opening line of this story have been changed to reflect that.Death toll of campaigners involved in protection of forests, rivers and land has... more
-
-
by Matt Standal
Besides this story I found on the web, there is no other story of this Simplot cover-up on the ABC, NBC, ABC affiliates in Idaho.
NWCN.com
Posted on June 15, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Updated today at 1:02 PM
BOISE -- The fallout from a recent Comedy Central television episode criticizing Idaho's historic J.R. Simplot Co. could hurt both the company and the state of Idaho, according to local public relations experts.
Part of that episode, which appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Thursday, was titled "A Simple Plot." The clip featured a fake news report by comedian Asif Maandvi as he "investigated" alleged environmental damages to Idaho's rivers caused by Simplot and overlooked by the EPA and various Idaho politicians.
The Daily Show is one of Comedy Central's top-rated offerings, reaching millions of viewers across the world. What's more, the particular clip is now widely circulating on social media throughout the Treasure Valley and beyond.
At least one local public relations professional told KTVB that while the Simplot clip might be funny, its message could cause big problems for both Simplot and the state of Idaho.
Leigh Ann Dufurrena is an account manager at Boise-based Red Sky Public Relations. Duferrena said her firm does not represent Simplot, and her opinions don't reflect her company's stance on the issue.
However, she said those in Boise's public relations community are well aware of the clip.
"I hope they have a crisis communication plan in place," Duferrena said, reffering to Simplot. "As a huge corporation, I assume they do."
Dufferena says a crisis communication plan is typically a public relations tactic where a company will use a top official as a mouth-piece to deflect bad publicity.
Dufferena also told KTVB she believes the video clip could damage the reputation of Idaho's natural and political landscape as well, saying that those at the Idaho Governor's office, and EPA should also be aware of the implications.
KTVB reached out to both the J.R. Simplot Co. and the Boise EPA office, whose officials were both panned in the show.
A spokesman at the Simplot Company told KTVB that Simplot declined to comment further on the issue. Officials at the Boise EPA office were not available for comment.by Matt Standal
Besides this story I found on the web, there is no other story of... more
-
-
punman
-
added this
-
11 months ago
- |
-
My friend Roy Gardner, a professor at Stetson University College of Law, wrote a great, accessible book about the crossroads of the law and environmentalism. http://www.mrmedia.com/?p=1209My friend Roy Gardner, a professor at Stetson University College of Law, wrote a... more
-
-
Want to see how severely we humans are scouring the oceans for fish? Check out this striking map from the World Wildlife Fund’s 2012 “Living Planet Report.” The red areas are the most intensively fished (and, in many cases, overfished) parts of the ocean — and they’ve expanded dramatically since 1950: Fish gone cause of fishing! (more at link)Want to see how severely we humans are scouring the oceans for fish? Check out this... more
-
-
"Sadly I agree, we are no longer worthwhile Americans, we are simply a commodity!!!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101726198
"So how do we turn this around??? Any Suggestions Folks???""Sadly I agree, we are no longer worthwhile Americans, we are simply a... more
-
-
By EDDIE BARNES
Published on Sunday 22 April 2012 00:00
US TYCOON Donald Trump will warn the Scottish Parliament this week that his plans to build a luxury hotel alongside his Aberdeenshire golf course will be axed if ministers back a series of “insane” wind turbines nearby.
The billionaire property developer will appear at Holyrood on Wednesday to attack the Scottish Government’s renewable energy proposals, accusing Alex Salmond of “destroying” the country’s natural heritage.
His championship golf course, ten miles north of Aberdeen, is scheduled to open as planned in July, but the entrepreneur’s senior representative said additional plans for a major hotel and housing development could not “co-exist” with an offshore wind farm planned for the coastal waters nearby.
George Sorial, vice president of The Trump Organisation, said: “If there is an industrial power plant on the shore line, the concept of having a luxury hotel and resort is simply incompatible. The two can’t co-exist.”
Sorial’s comments throw fresh doubt on the 500-hectare development, along with the job hopes of the thousands of workers which the Trump Organisation claims will be needed to build the entire project.
However, Trump was accused of “showbiz bluster” by environmental campaigners last night, as they produced a poll showing that 71 per cent of Scots back wind power as part of the country’s energy mix. The Scottish Government is committed to sourcing all of the country’s electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020. Trump’s dispute centres on plans to construct 11 new “next-generation” wind turbines, that will be clearly seen from his development.
The American billionaire will give evidence this week to Holyrood’s economy and energy committee. He is also expected to renew his attack on both Salmond and former first minister Lord McConnell, claiming he was given assurances that the windfarm development would not go ahead. Both Salmond and McConnell, who lost power at the 2007 Holyrood elections, deny any such guarantees.
Trump is expected to speak both inside and outside parliament on Wednesday as anti-wind farm protesters gather to rally against the Scottish Government’s plans to increase the number of turbines both on land and at sea. Trump has turned on Salmond over the push, claiming the move will do more damage “than any event in Scotland’s history”.
Both Salmond and McConnell have said the matter of the Aberdeenshire wind farm proposal, known as the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre, is now a matter for the planning authorities to decide. However, Sorial said that it was “disingenuous and ridiculous” for Salmond to claim he was not backing the wind farm programme off the north-east coast. “Everybody in Aberdeen knows that Alex Salmond is the driving force behind the EWDC application,” he said.
He added: “A lot of people won’t agree with us and a lot of people may feel uncomfortable agreeing with us but on this issue we were misled.
He went on: “It wasn’t until we built the course that the application went in. We knew the proposals were out there but we were always led to believe they wouldn’t get anywhere.”
Last month, Trump claimed he had been assured by McConnell there would be no wind turbines over-looking his course.
He said: “Jack McConnell and his administration said, ‘We really want you to spend your money in Scotland. We will not build the windmills.’ ... I said: ‘Do I have your word?’ They said: ‘You have our word.’”
However, McConnell hit back last night. He said: “Mr Trump was treated with the same respect and courtesy that I and my government treated all potential inward investors. It is a pity that he doesn’t return that courtesy now.”
Meanwhile, Trump flew into the former Soviet republic of Georgia yesterday to expand his global real estate empire, lending his name to a glitzy tower on the Black Sea coast. Unveiling a $250 million (£155m) residential high-rise planned for the Georgian coastal resort town of Batumi, Trump said the country had become a prime destination for foreign investment.
• http://snh.gov.uk/docs/B961030.pdf|Click here for a map of current and proposed windfarm projects in Scotland|Windfarm map}By EDDIE BARNES
Published on Sunday 22 April 2012 00:00
US TYCOON Donald Trump... more
-
-
There is no excuse for this needless slaughter of wolves, and it needs to be stopped.
-
-
Batteries would appear to be the inexpensive solution to our growing fuel issues, however the environmental cost of battery materials and disposal is economically and environmentally unsustainable. What if there was a battery that never needed to be thrown away, whose materials were renewable and non-toxic? Enter Dr. Donald Sadoway’s innovative “liquid battery” which provides inexpensive, reusable energy from materials as common as dirt.
How many devices do you use daily that require batteries?
Batteries would appear to be the inexpensive solution to our growing fuel... more
-
-
The FBI conducted a three-year investigation, dubbed "Seizing Thunder," into a animal-rights and environmental "terrorists" in the Pacific Northwest that devolved into widespread—and seemingly pointless—surveillance of activists for no apparent reason aside from the fact that they were anarchists, or protested the war in Iraq, or were "militant feminists." Here's the file.
I first came across the name "Seizing Thunder" several years ago while rifling through the FBI's investigative files on the Animal Liberation Front. The ALF records obliquely referenced the evocatively named investigation, which I requested via the Freedom of Information Act just for kicks. Last month—after three years—the FBI returned nearly 500 pages (it held back 784).
It turns out that Seizing Thunder, which was based out of the bureau's Portland field office, was one of several investigations into animal rights and environmental activists nationwide that the FBI eventually merged into Operation Backfire, a wide-ranging probe of ALF and the Earth Liberation Front. Backfire concluded in 2006 with the indictments of 11 activists for arson and other "acts of domestic terrorism," including a notorious 1998 destruction of a $12 million ski lodge in Vail, Colo. The Portland portion seemed to focus primarily on gathering general intelligence on activists who used tree-sitting and other monkey-wrench tactics to fight old-growth logging in the Pacific Northwest.
What makes Seizing Thunder interesting, however, is how easily the agents slipped beyond investigating actual federal crimes and devoted considerable resources to tracking political activists with no apparent criminal intent.
Seizing Thunder was opened in 2002 to target members of the "Animal Liberation front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and an anarchist group called the Red Cloud Thunder, all whose members are inter-related and they openly claimed several major arsons," according to the files. The investigation involved physical and video surveillance, warrants for phone taps, and cooperation with local police departments in Portland and Eugene, Ore. But the feds quickly dropped the pretense of tracking organized groups and quickly began surveilling people simply for identifying themselves—or for being identified by informants—as anarchists. The memos read like artifacts from the Red Scare:
July 19, 2002: "On [redacted], the source observed a [redacted] Oregon license plate...parked at [redacted], a known anarchist hangout."
August 8, 2002: "The source observed the following vehicles in the vicinity of [redacted], a major hangout for the anarchist and [redacted]"
September 19, 2002: "On [redacted] the source observed [redacted] vehicle, Oregon license plate [redacted] parked at [redacted] one of the hangout for anarchist...."
October 18, 2002: "On [redacted] the source was questioned as to the [redacted] anarchist travelling to [redacted]."
Continued at: http://gawker.com/5892639/how-the-fbi-monitored-crusty-punks-anarchist-hangouts-and-an-organic-farmers-market-under-the-guise-of-combating-terrorismThe FBI conducted a three-year investigation, dubbed "Seizing Thunder," into... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.html
Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses "Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina."
http://youtu.be/4Lbn9diK1PADr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.htmlDr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.html
Category:
*Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here:
Daniel Fine discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (two minutes)---
http://youtu.be/4Lbn9diK1PA
The full one hour video can be seen here-->"North Carolina?s approach to natural gas fracking" ---> http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/02/27/no...
Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses "Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina."Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
-
-
11dim
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Los Angeles Times...
.
PHOTO: Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in April. (Associated Press)
.
The new war on wolves
As soon as federal protection ended, the slaughter began.
.
By J. William Gibson
December 8, 2011
.
Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in April. And this fall, the killing began.
As of Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game reported that 154 of its estimated 750 wolves had been "harvested" this year. Legal hunting and trapping — with both snares to strangle and leg traps to capture — will continue through the spring. And if hunting fails to reduce the wolf population sufficiently — to less than 150 wolves — the state says it will use airborne shooters to eliminate more.
In Montana, hunters will be allowed to kill up to 220 wolves this season (or about 40% of the state's roughly 550 wolves). To date, hunters have taken only about 100 wolves, prompting the state to extend the hunting season until the end of January. David Allen, president of the powerful Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, has said he thinks hunters can't do the job, and he is urging the state to follow Idaho's lead and "prepare for more aggressive wolf control methods, perhaps as early as summer 2012."
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently concluded an agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to save 100 to 150 wolves in lands near Yellowstone National Park. But in the remaining 80% of the state, wolves can be killed year-round because they are considered vermin. Roughly 60% of Wyoming's 350 wolves will become targeted for elimination.
What is happening to wolves now, and what is planned for them, doesn't really qualify as hunting. It is an outright war.
In the mid-1990s, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released 66 wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho, most of the U.S. celebrated. The magnificent wolf, an icon of wilderness that humans had driven to extinction in the United States, would now reoccupy part of its old range. But in the region where the wolves were introduced, the move was much more controversial.
Part of the reason was the increase, particularly in Idaho and Montana, in paramilitary militia advocates, with their masculine ideal of man as warrior who should fight the hated federal government, by armed force if necessary. They were outraged by what they saw as federal interference in the region spurred by environmentalists, and their ideas found a willing reception among ranchers, who view wolves as a threat to their livestock — even though they ranch on federal land — and hunters, who don't want the wolves reducing the big game population.
The factions have reinforced one another, and today a cultural mythology has emerged that demonizes the federal government, the environmental movement and the wolves themselves. Many false claims have been embraced as truth, including that the Fish and Wildlife Service stole $60 million from federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for bringing wolves back; that the introduced wolves carry horrible tapeworms that can be easily transmitted to dogs, and ultimately to humans; that the Canadian wolves that were brought in are an entirely different species from the gray wolves that once lived in the Rockies, and that these wolves will kill elk, deer, livestock — even humans — for sport.
The false claims may have had particular resonance because they built on a long tradition in Western culture. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that wolves belonged to the devil: Demons could take the shape of wolves, as could witches. Puritans brought similar ideas to America. Cotton Mather called New England before it was settled a "howling wilderness." Asked to investigate Salem's alleged witches, Mather concluded in his book, "On Witchcraft" (1692): "Evening wolves" (werewolves and witches) were but another of the devil's tests as New England passed from "wilderness" to the "promised land."
And that attitude has persisted. Gary Marbut, president of the influential Montana Shooting Sports Assn., wrote in 2003 that "one might reasonably view man's entire development and creation of civilization as a process of fortifying against wolves."
Politicians from both parties in Western states have been eager to help with the fortifications. In Idaho, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and the state's governor, Butch Otter, made removal of wolves from the Endangered Species Act a political priority. In Montana, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg has made delisting wolves central to his 2012 Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In April, Tester in turn persuaded fellow Democrats in the Senate to approve his inserting a rider in a budget bill that delisted wolves.
In early November, Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, made his own political contribution. Thrilled at the testing of a drone aircraft manufactured in Montana, Baucus declared: "Our troops rely on this type of technology every day, and there is an enormous future potential in border security, agriculture and wildlife and predator management." A manufacturer's representative claimed his company's drone "can tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote." Pilotless drone aircraft used by the CIA and the Air Force to target and kill alleged terrorists now appear to be real options to track and kill "enemy" wolves.
How far we have fallen since the mid-1990s, when we celebrated the wolves' reintroduction. During the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama declared: "Federal policy toward animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of the environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect."
The president now should make good on that promise.
.
.
J. William Gibson is a sociology professor at Cal State Long Beach and the author of "A Reenchanted World." http://www.jameswilliamgibson.com
.Los Angeles Times...
.
PHOTO: Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from... more
-
-
Welcome to Dharavi where residents are reaching for the sky. They want Dharavi to surpass London as a great city. Unlike the poverty tourism and accolades awarded to communitarian slum living by the likes of Prince Charles and Kevin McCloud, Dharavi residents think big. Sadhvi Sharma takes us through the streets and introduces us to aspirant families for whom Dharavi is a place of transition. The least we can do, she argues, is support their aspirations.Welcome to Dharavi where residents are reaching for the sky. They want Dharavi to... more
-
