Search the Community

Pennsylvania could lose $27 million over bills to amend endangered species laws GOP measures would cost two state agencies more than 20% of their budgets, the U.S. Interior Department warns. August 28, 2013 HARRISBURG — Republican-backed bills to give the Legislature more control over the protection of endangered and threatened wildlife could cost the state more than $27 million annually, according to the federal government. If the bills become law, Pennsylvania could lose eligibility in two of the nation's oldest grant programs geared toward preserving, restoring and protecting wildlife and waterways, according to an Aug. 9 letter the state Game Commission got from the U.S. Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service. "I have significant concerns with this bill and the risk it presents to the Game Commission relative to loss of federal funding," wrote John F. Organ, chief of the division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. But Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Armstrong, the prime sponsor of the House bill, said the legislation does not strip the Game or Fish and Boat commissions of their authority. Rather, he said, the bill, which was the subject of a public hearing Monday, is meant to check the commissions' authority. Pyle said they are the only state agencies that do not have their policy decisions vetted through the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which sets up public forums for new government regulations prior to final approval by lawmakers. The bill is needed, Pyle said, because the Game Commission made his local school district spend extra money to preserve Indiana bats, which are endangered, even though the bats were not on the land where a new school was being built. "Those guys are the judge, jury and executioner," he said. The threat of losing federal money is "hollow," Pyle added. House Republican Caucus lawyers, Pyle said, have assured him that the state would not lose federal money because other state agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) also have jurisdiction over environmental protection. "We got a bunch of safety checks built into this thing," said Pyle. Drew Crompton, chief of staff to Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, who has sponsored a similar bill in that chamber, said the federal government's concerns can "be easily addressed" in the legislative process. But Rep. Steve McCarter, D-Montgomery, a critic of the bills, said the threat of lost federal revenue should be taken seriously. The bills are meant to appease industry at the expense of the environment, he said, because they would create a prolonged, 11-step process to having species listed or delisted as threatened and endangered through the Independent Regulatory Process. "The chance of any species getting through the process would be impossible," McCarter said. In addition to putting the commissions under the scrutiny of the regulatory review process, the bills call for the commissions, plus the state Agricultural Department and DCNR, to create a centralized database to replace the decades-old computerized system of endangered species and fauna. The commissions argue that the database would jeopardize wildlife because it would pinpoint their locations. The bills also would require the agencies to remove species from the endangered or threatened lists within two years if the agencies cannot produce "acceptable data" that the species' numbers remain weak. The agencies also could not define new endangered or threatened species if their numbers are acceptable outside of Pennsylvania, or if they are not already covered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Those changes could make the state ineligible for federal funds, says Organ's letter to Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe. According to the letter, Game Commission could lose $19 million — or 24 percent of its 2012-13 budget — because it may not be eligible for the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program. The program dates to 1937 and is used to "restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals" while making their habitats accessible for hunting, shooting and other recreation. The Fish and Boat Commission could lose $8.3 million — 29 percent of its 2012-13 budget — from the federal Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Program. That program, started in 1950 and modeled after Pittman-Robertson, seeks to make fishing and boating more accessible to the public. To be eligible for both grants, state have to have fish and wildlife agencies that have sole discretion over how revenue for fishing and hunting licenses are used. The agencies also have to have the authority to ensure "the conservation of fish and wildlife."

Are “they” delivering? Prior to 2013 NY Governor Cuomo proposed a sporting license fee reduction justified to increase non-resident hunting and simplify the existing program. NY already ranks 7th in non-resident hunters, likely due to bordering states with little hunting opportunity rather than abundance of game. The Governor’s proposal was backed by the NY State Conservation Council because they said that sportsmen are paying more and getting less from the DEC and therefore it is not necessary to maintain such a high balance in the conservation fund. In 2013 the proposal was signed into law and takes effect in February 2014. A number of years ago a lifetime sporting license was created along with a separate account within the conservation fund in which revenue from lifetime licenses was to be staged and then turned over to the state comptroller to be used in the short term investment pool. On the federal level during 2013 Congress and President Obama began to sequester five percent of federal conservation trust funds derived from the Pitman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. The trust funds are not the only programs affected this year. Despite federal conservation investment being less than one percent of the total budget; Congress and the administration opted to make deep cuts into conservation funding cutting 20 programs by either eliminating them or zeroing them out. Those same programs have already been cut by 25% the last few years. The federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp has not seen a price increase since the 1990s and is still only $15. This year a complicated scheme was launched to allow the fee to float with economic factors. New York phased out its state migratory bird stamp a number of years ago and is unwilling to take advantage of increased conservation funding which would be generated by instituting a mourning dove hunting season. Conservation funding is correlated to sporting license revenue. In 2012 license sales stabilized nationwide but the long term trend is a decline in license revenue every year as less and less people hunt. Four special youth seasons have been established in NY under the rationale of sustaining hunter numbers thereby conservation funding. While residents desire more access and opportunity non-residents, mostly from New Jersey and Connecticut flock to NY for better hunting and public land opportunities. At a very minimum it is very arguable that the state chose a bad time to increase the burn-rate of its conservation fund considering the simultaneous negative activity with federal conservation programs. 20 Programs and Agencies Zeroed Out in FY 2014 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill 1. Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition (-$22.3 million) 2. Fish and Wildlife Service Construction (-$19.1 million) 3. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition (-$54.6 million) 4. North American Wetlands Fund (-$35.4 million) 5. Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund (-$3.7 million) 6. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (-$61.3 million) 7. National Park Service Land Acquisition and State Assistance (-$101.8 million) 8. Forest Service Land Acquisition (-$52.5 million) 9. Forest Service Special Acquisitions (-$0.9 million) 10. Forest Service Land Exchange Acquisitions (-$0.2 million) 11. Forest Legacy Program (-$53.3 million) 12. Forest Service Planning (-$39.2 million) 13. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (-$7.7 million) 14. Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts (-$8.5 million) 15. Woodrow Wilson Center (-$10.9 million) 16. Eisenhower Memorial Commission (-$1 million) 17. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields (-$90 million) 18. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Native Villages Water Infrastructure (-$9.5 million) 19. Environmental Protection Agency US Mexico Border Water Infrastructure (-$4.7 million) 20. Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth (-$1.7 million

Is this the new face of conservation? Is this a sincere promotion of the federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp? Are they mocking hunters who 1) boast about paying for conservation / being conservationists? 2) take pictures of themselves posing with harvested game? This was in Western New York, by the way and is a movement not an isolated incident... The money and the volunteer hours they are donating is no small piddly amount either... On a related note the University of California and other colleges have acknowledged that most wildlife biology graduates have no experience with hunting which is different than in the past and quote: "People without any exposure to hunting will soon be managing hunters"

DEC Announces Habitat Management Workshop for Private Landowners Learn Tips on How to Manage your Land to Benefit Wildlife New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will conduct its first Habitat Management Workshop for private landowners on Saturday, August 24, 2013, at the Hanging Bog Wildlife Management Area in New Hudson, Allegany County. The workshop will feature presentations from biologists and a brief field trip to help private landowners learn how to manage their property in a way that benefits wildlife. Over the years as our forests continue to mature, there has been a drastic decrease in shrubland habitat in New York," said DEC Regional Land Manager Emilio Rende. "Many species of wildlife rely on this type of young forest habitat for food, cover and breeding areas. Since much of the land in New York is privately owned, private landowners have become primary stewards of our wildlife and woodlands and can play an important role in helping to maintain critical wildlife habitat." Local private landowners are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to learn property management strategies that benefit wildlife and various programs available to help. To register, please contact Emilio Rende at 716-372-0645 or at via email. The workshop is co-sponsored by the New York State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), the Ruffed Grouse Society and the Quality Deer Management Association. Space is limited to 30 participants, so please register soon. There is a registration fee of $10, which includes refreshments and lunch. Please make checks payable to the New York State Chapter of the NWTF. The deadline for registration is Friday, August 16th.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The model illustrates how conservation evolved in the U.S. and Canada since its beginning during the Teddy Roosevelt era. Although The Model is considered to have seven basic tenants, its roots go back to the fundamental reasons that our European ancestors got on boats and came to the New World. That is, that fish and game should not belong to a king or nobleman, but should be held in public trust. (Probably not what were you taught in elementary school about why Europeans immigrated to the USA.) Video (43 minutes) Note: The video does not address the fact that the public majority, not just hunters, is heavily engaged in conservation these days. : http://youtu.be/xRx-HcVQDRQ North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the world’s most successful. No other continent has conserved as many species of native wildlife as North America. While other countries struggle to conserve the wildlife they have left, we enjoy great abundance and diversity of wildlife. This is due, in large part, to forward thinking by early conservationists who saw the need to conserve wildlife and their habitats. Their efforts were the source of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which strives to sustain wildlife species and habitats through sound science and active management. There are TWO basic principles to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. In addition to these two basic principles there are “Seven Sisters” that make up the framework of this model. THE SEVEN SISTERS Wildlife Is Held In The Public Trust: The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone. Through shared ownership and responsibility, opportunity to enjoy wildlife is provided to all. Commerce In Wildlife Is Regulated: Early laws banning commercial hunting and the sale of meat and hides ensured the sustainability of wildlife through the regulation of harvest and the sale of wildlife parts such as teeth, claws and antlers. Hunting And Angling Laws Are Created Through Public Process: Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations. Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. Hunting And Angling Opportunity For All: The opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base support for wildlife law enforcement, habitat conservation and research. Hunters And Anglers Fund Conservation: Hunting and fishing license sales and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for management of all wildlife, including wildlife species that are not hunted. Wildlife Is An International Resource: Proper stewardship of wildlife and habitats is both a source of national pride and an opportunity to cooperate with other nations with whom we share natural resources. Cooperative management of migrating waterfowl, songbirds and marine life is one example of successful international collaboration. Science Is The Basis For Wildlife Policy: The limited use of wildlife as a renewable natural resource is based on sound science. Wildlife agency professionals adapt management strategies based on population and habitat monitoring to achieve the sustainability of wildlife populations and their habitats. Source: Georgia Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE, Social Circle, GA 30025 A Primer on the Wildlife Trust Source: Jeremy Bruskotter The wildlife trust doctrine–a branch of the broader public trust doctrine that deals specifically with wildlife–was established in a series of court cases that provide the foundation for state-based conservation of wildlife that some refer to as the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation. Two Supreme Court cases (i.e., Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. 367 (1842) and Geer v. Connecticut 161 U.S. 519 (1896)), provide the basic foundation of this legal doctrine. In Martin v. Waddell, the court applied English common law to reject a landowner’s claim to an oyster fishery that was located under the public waters of the state of New Jersey. The court concluded that with the formation of the United States, the lands that had once belonged to England passed to the state of New Jersey; applying English common law, the court held that the “land under navigable waters…were to be held…in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown.” English policy, since the time of the Magna Carta, was to preserve such resources “for the benefit of the public”. Thus, the landowner could not lay claim to the oyster fishery because his actions deprived the citizens of New Jersey any access to this resource, which was held collectively by the citizens of that state. Although the dispute in Martin v. Waddell focused on the lands under the navigable waters and the oyster beds attached thereto, the Court in Geer v. Connecticut, using a similar rational, extended the trust obligation to terrestrial wildlife (woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail). In this case, again relying on English common law, the court held that wildlife (ferae naturae ) were public property – “the ownership of the sovereign authority . . . [to be held in] trust for all the people of the state” and that it was the” duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.” These cases set the stage for modern wildlife management by state agencies, in which states act as trustees, managing and conserving wildlife resources on behalf of their citizens. This doctrine underpins our system of wildlife conservation in the United States, and is recognized by the Wildlife Society as one of the seven “pillars” of the North American Model. An Obligation to Conserve? While the notion of sovereign ownership of wildlife is well established, there has been little discussion regarding states’ obligations under the wildlife trust doctrine. The Court in Geer made it clear that the trustee-beneficiary relationship establishes an obligation on the part of the state to “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust” (emphasis added). The court added that: “..the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good” (emphasis added). Yet, the nature of states’ obligations is ill-defined for, as Freyfogle and Goble (2009:33) noted, “there is no trust document that sets forth the precise terms of the trust.” Moreover, there has been little opportunity–or need–to establish the case law necessary to “flesh out” these obligations because the statutory protections provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the associated federal control have largely precluded the need for protecting species outside the ESA framework; that is, because the ESA provides federal protections for species that are imperiled, there has been no need for interested citizens to force states to protect species through litigation, thus establishing the case law necessary to formalize states’ obligations. (Note: We disagree with part of this; lawsuits against state wildlife agencies and the FWS of the nature described have actually been common for at least 15 years and are not always the subject of federally or state listed species, although true most are ESA issues.) Confusion at the crux: Science, policy and wildlife management The interplay between science and policy and how it affects the objectives of wolf management lies near the heart of the wolf issue. Scientifically-collected and analyzed data has traditionally played an essential role in wildlife management in the United States. Time-tested methods are used to assist wildlife managers in understanding population trends and the factors (e.g. immigration, mortality, birth rates) that can potentially impact wildlife populations. This tradition has been symbolically codified as one of seven “components” or principles of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (see also Organ & Mahoney 2007). It has also led to the wide-spread perception that wildlife management objectives should be determined by science rather than politics. Thus Malloney (2011:179) recently expressed frustration that “wolf management…tends to be guided by opinion and politics rather than science.” This perception misunderstands the role of science in wildlife policy; in fact, it misunderstands what types of questions science is capable of answering. Science can answering factual or “is” questions–bounded, of course, by some error. Science, cannot answer questions questions are fundamentally subjective or “normative” in nature. According to the Wildlife Society, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation demands that “science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy” (Batcheller et al. 2010 ). Here the use of the word “discharge”, which Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines as “to throw off or deliver a load, charge, or burden” further contributes to the confusion regarding the role of science. Science simply is not capable of “discharging” (or “delivering”) wildlife policy (or any other policy, for that matter); to set such high expectations for science is to set it, and scientists, up for failure. Rather, science merely informs policy decisions, which, as the term “policy” implies, are ultimately discharged via political processes. Some may think this distinction trivial, but it is a fundamental source of conflict where wolves are concerned. Until stakeholders–including wildlife professionals–recognize the limitations of science and the types of information it provides, the role of science will be a continued source of friction and conflict. (Note: the average person is a stakeholder and usually there are public comment opportunities, both by attending hearings and giving oral testimony or by submitting written comment. For science to inform a stakeholder, that person must distinguish between propaganda, pseudo-science, real science, and science journalism. Science Journalism is the most frequent form of information which is confused with scientific reports). Further Reading: 60 page PDF: http://www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org/documents/scientific/North%20American%20Model%20of%20Wildlife%20Conservation.pdf 43 page PDF: http://www.wafwa.org/html/pdfs/AZ_NAM%20Training%20and%20Resource%20Guide%20-%20july2009.pdf 7 page PDF: http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/HUNT/4%203%20Scandinavia%20plus%20cover.pdf 17 page , non PDF document: The History of Wildlife Conservation and Research in the United States – and Implications for the Future http://cnr.ncsu.edu/fer/directory/documents/Article-HistoryofWildlifeResearch.pdf

Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife? Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case.... News August 19, 2013 Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers? August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones. On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week. Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets. “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania. There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said. Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers. “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.” That is where drones could play a crucial role. “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said. “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.” Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania. “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added. However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1. Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem. “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said. An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy. A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.” “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.” Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching. The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn. “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya. The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said. The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said. Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements. Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said. Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa. In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia. The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong. “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said. Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation. The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation. “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said. However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns. Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done. “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said. Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July. Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking. “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said Appeals courts considers shark fin ban Obama's staff backs challenge to California law Bob Egelko Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013 With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy. The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins. But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources. Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown." But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination. "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked. The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks. By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught. The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey. The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future." "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court. If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html

Hillary Endorses Poaching Crack Down Hillary Clinton Joins Fight Against Elephant Poaching The news comes just a few weeks after President Obama pledged $10 million to slow illegal wildlife trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa By Amanda Taselaar July 18, 2013 Follow @timenewsfeed Despite international bans, demand for ivory from elephant tusks has grown so strong that it has devastated elephant populations in Africa. Now former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, wants to help. According to the Washington Post, Clinton has met with representatives from many environmental groups and National Geographic to formulate a plan. “She will use her political connections as America’s former secretary of state to enlist other world leaders in the effort to curtail the illegal ivory trade.” Because China buys about 40 percent of the ivory traded globally, she will focus her efforts there, according to the South China Morning Post. Clinton’s move comes just two weeks after President Obama announced new funding to curb elephant poaching: He has earmarked $10 million to combat wildlife trafficking in sub-Saharan Africa. The African elephant population has dropped from 1.2 million in 1980 to just 420,000 last year. According to the Post, about 30,000 elephants were killed illegally last year, with their tusks selling for as much as $1000 a pound. (The U.S. banned the import of ivory from African elephants in 1989, with the exception of antiques). While all elephants have been devastated, the African forest elephants are particularly at risk. These elephants are smaller than the renowned savannah African elephant and live in more open forest clearings that easily attract poachers. The Wildlife Conservation Society estimated that their population has fallen by about 76 percent in the last decade. Reuters A Kenyan wildlife ranger inscribes markings on the 775 elephant tusks, weighing around 1300 kg (2900 pounds), that was seized by the port police at the container terminal destined for Malaysia in the coastal town of Mombasa July 3, 2013. REUTERS/Joseph Okanga (KENYA – Tags: ANIMALS CRIME LAW) – RTX11B58 (MORE: Obama Moves to Fight Wildlife Trafficking in Africa. But the Real Work is in Asia) Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/18/hillary-clinton-joins-fight-against-elephant-poaching/#ixzz2Zsws9yV5

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013, the House Natural Resources Committee passed H.R. 638 – “ The National Wildlife Refuge Review Act of 2013” — which would remove the Department of the Interior’s authority to establish new national wildlife refuges, instead requiring an act of Congress. Representative John Fleming (R-LA), the bill’s sponsor, expressed concern regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s capacity to manage existing refuges. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), opposed the bill, arguing that Congress already has the power to reverse wildlife refuge designations. HR 638 IH 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 638 To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to require that any new national wildlife refuge may not be established except as expressly authorized by statute. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 13, 2013 Mr. FLEMING (for himself, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. JONES, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. AMODEI, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. SOUTHERLAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources A BILL To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to require that any new national wildlife refuge may not be established except as expressly authorized by statute. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `National Wildlife Refuge Review Act of 2013'. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES. (a) In General- Section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `(6) The Secretary may not establish any national wildlife refuge except as expressly authorized by a law enacted after January 3, 2013.'. ( Existing Refuges Not Affected- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any national wildlife refuge established on or before January 3, 2013.

This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon. http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4

Last week, President Obama completed his week-long Africa trip to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania, where he promoted an increased partnership amongst African nations and the U.S. He ended his trip in Tanzania where he focused on highlighting the country’s economic potential as well as combating illegal wildlife trade. Tens of thousands of African elephants (Loxodonta africana spp.) are slaughtered every year by poachers who seek their tusks for the illegal ivory trade. African rhinoceroses are targeted for their horns, and intense poaching has nearly decimated the black rhino (Diceros bicornis) population. Currently, the market value for rhino horns is $30,000 per pound, and $1,000 per pound for the ivory from elephant tusks (Greenwire). The total global market from illegal wildlife trade is $7 billion to $10 billion a year, and growing. President Obama has pledged to curb the illegal wildlife trade before the African elephant and black rhino go extinct. Obama’s plan to cut down on illegal trafficking of wildlife parts is an effort to stabilize African governments. He created a $10 million initiative that will train police officers and park rangers in Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya, and other African countries to fight organized gangs involved in poaching. The U.S. Department of State will provide the $10 million in regional and bilateral training, as well as technical assistance. A new executive order announced last week would set up a Presidential Task Force to create a strategy for stopping criminals from poaching and thus cut off the demand for ivory in other countries. In addition, the order would establish an Advisory Council on Wildlife Tracking, consisting of eight non-government individuals to oversee the Task Force. Sources: Greenwire (July 3, 2013), Mongabay (July 3, 2013), The White House (July 1, 2013), National Geographic (October 2012).

Join the Central New York Chapter at their 4th Annual Sporting Clays Challenge Sunday, July 21, 2013 451 McCormick Road Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108 1-888-JOIN-RGS Confirm that you like this.Click the "Like" button.