what is Obama doing?

[mike rossi]

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.

[WNYBuckHunter]

So wheres the group from China that hes "working with"? It sounds like its a group of Chinese food businesses that are asking that the shark fin ban be lifted. They are American businesses, not Chinese. What am I missing here?

[mike rossi]

I think you are largely right, but most of the market is actually oversees. Still it suggests lack of commitment and insincerity on the issue by the  administration. Personally, I cant see cutting off 50 pounds of meat and dumping 500 pounds as a legitimate or wise use of a resource, even if it was a  fish with a more stable conservation status. Blink an eye and next we hear about the poor we need to feed.... Granted  large predators are not the healthiest  thing to eat but that seems to only enter when it supports one agenda or another...

 

Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error, but I think if one looks at the whole picture it appears to be a horse & pony show... Like I said elsewhere, Obama, Cuomo, and both Clintons have had their hands in the expansion of the energy industry and they made a lot of enemies with environmentalists just like they have with gun owners... Despite the fiscal cliff, sequestering conservation funds in the US and  zeroing out a number of US conservation programs which survived every other administration; they all of a sudden are concerned with international conservation... Humm...

[WNYBuckHunter]

Its all a dog and pony show. Nothing to see here folks.

 

BTW, I dont agree with the cutting of the fins and tossing the rest, Shark steaks are delicious!

[shawnhu]

There are finning laws already in place, and since they can't enforce that, they decided to do an entire ban on the sale of fins instead. I think that is where the problem lies.

And WNYB is right, don't make this an international debate, this stays within the US.

[Elmo]

This is one of the ugly sides of the economic boom China has faced in the past couple of decades.  In years past, the country was mainly divided by the filthy rich who were educated, and the uneducated who were poor and didn't have the means to do anything.  The economic all of a sudden created a huge group of people who were uneducated but all of a sudden came upon a bunch of money and now has the means to do a lot of stupid sh#t.

[mike rossi]

Anytime it involves a migratory species, it is international conservation, But your comment can be taken a number of ways. First, lets talk about Cuomo's proposal to ban the sale of fins in New York. I am not to familiar with this issue, but unless you tell me otherwise, I don't have any reason to believe our governor is addressing shark harvest off the coast of NY within NYs waters. I think Cuomo is addressing the demand for fins by the restaurants in NY.

 

Obama recently pushed a flurry of international conservation proposals, including ones which would require investment in other countries. Included in that flurry was bills about shark conservation. Only days later this article surfaces indicating  the Obama administration is sympathizing with the  American restaurant industry who oppose the fin ban and want to continue to profit off of a public resource which is not doing well from a population standpoint.

 

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is suddenly making public statements in support of international conservation. Do you know What else is going on at the same time? On the state level NY passes some suspicious proposal to slash sporting license fees for some reasons which make no sense whatsoever to any reasonable, thinking person. On the federal level a portion of conservation trust funds are being sequestered and not distributed to the states. Additionally a number of Farm Bill and other conservation programs have been zeroed-out this year.

 

Fast forward back to all the above pro- conservation action by Obama, Cuomo, and Hillary and let me see you reconcile it with the above anti-conservation action  also occurring right now?

 

As I said, your comment can be interpreted several different ways, and I am not going to side-step the issue of other countries having cultures which overexploit international resources. This certainly is a real issue. However, one article indicates Obama is considering lending drones to Africa to combat poaching for foreign markets; but the other article says Obama is softening on his position to protect sharks from American markets... At least you can agree that is hypocritical?

[shawnhu]

This whole government is built on hypocrisy. Nothing new here. What I have a problem with is the way you phrased your title to be misleading and confrontational. More than likely, these restaurant owners and those that oppose to the banning of shark fun are legal US citizens. You seem to be making this into an economic power issue between two nations, which clearly it is not.

Like I said, this is about OUR policies and OUR business here in the US.

[mike rossi]

This whole government is built on hypocrisy. Nothing new here. What I have a problem with is the way you phrased your title to be misleading and confrontational. More than likely, these restaurant owners and those that oppose to the banning of shark fun are legal US citizens. You seem to be making this into an economic power issue between two nations, which clearly it is not.

Like I said, this is about OUR policies and OUR business here in the US.

 

The title is not appropriate and doesn't even make any sense as WNYBH already pointed out. I would say China and the US are getting along quite well these days. One disagreement between a number of countries is in the commercial harvest and pet trade of certain wildlife. In many cases certain countries including the USA treat such wildlife as contraband and ban it's importation. And naturally, many legal American citizens who run businesses oppose such bans. Just like any other industry, if it cuts into profits they oppose it. However, you are correct my title is misleading.  Obama was pandering to American businesses not the Chinese government by softening his stance on shark fins.