Are "they" Deliverying?
-
Similar Content
-
By mike rossi
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=86d58958-23ff-41f0-8a0e-27bd650518a3&c=0ef02960-1f28-11e3-a3de-d4ae52754dbc&ch=0f2bd2d0-1f28-11e3-a438-d4ae52754dbc
-
By mike rossi
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."
-
By mike rossi
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"
-
By mike rossi
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
-
By 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.
-
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Main Forums
New Posts
Unread Posts
Account Settings
Facebook PageCabela's / BassPro Latest Deals
-
Recent Topics
-
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.