No, it's not some kind of wacky new band:

60 Minutes: Gorillas: Kings Of Congo (includes video)

As CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, it's gotten so bad for many of the remaining gorillas that conservationists genuinely fear the entire species might become extinct. They live in east Africa, in a forest that straddles Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a family of gorillas was massacred last summer.

So last month 60 Minutes went to Congo, a desperately poor country, to see why those gorillas were slaughtered, why the surviving gorillas are in jeopardy, and what can be done to save them.

No time for commentary. I'm deeply sorry. I know it's been about a week without a peep, but things are rather busy behind the scenes here at HQ. December will likely be spotty, with a likely resurgence in January. Hang in there!

Labels: endangered species, environment, habitat encroachment, primates, wildlife

I was invited to contribute a blog as part of PBS.org's Remotely Connected project. They chose an episode of Nature for me to write about, Simon King's "The Cheetah Orphans."

As some of you long-time readers might expect, I ended up putting in something like 1,300 very earnest words, so check it out if you're looking for some fresh animal-friendly content. "The Cheetah Orphans" raises some interesting questions, so maybe you'll give the film a look when it airs this coming Sunday, November 11th at 8pm (check local listings). It gave me the opportunity to write about wildlife issues from the point of view of animal interests in a venue known more for conservation than for animal rights.

And, while you're at it, check out some of the previous posts listed down the left sidebar. I'm a fan of Merlin Mann (43Folders.com), who wrote up a fairly humorous entry that is typical of his work.

Labels: blogs, endangered species, exotic animals, habitat encroachment, wildlife

Tribune-Chronicle: ProAnimal Coalition

GET THIS: The ProAnimal Coalition is a group of people "dedicated to getting out the truth about the excellent care farmers give their animals and the misinformation from the various animal rights activists." Time for a double-take.

Nowhere in the article is it explained how you can be pro-animal and still breed, kill and eat them. Nor does the author attempt to point out the inherent deceit in calling a group ProAnimal Coalition when your goal is to ensure that you can continue to breed, kill and eat animals.

It's difficult from the way the article was written to discern which passages are the author's editorial comments, and which are the author paraphrasing speakers from the ProAnimal Coalition meeting, but somebody in this article adds more of the emotional fuel to the fire that animal rights activists (ARAs) are accused of stoking by resorting to language such as "our way of life in this country at stake" and "[groups like HSUS and PETA] keep nibbling at our rights as consumers."

Of course, nowhere does the author explain what ARAs are doing to threaten our way of life, or what exactly our way of life is. If the American way of life is to kill other beings for fun, profit and taste, then perhaps we are threatening it. Good for us. Certainly the American way of life should be about compassion and freedom for all beings, not just humans.

As for nibbling away at consumer rights, this is a common right-wing tactic that means nothing in reality. Consumers aren't permitted to buy certain things for very intelligent reasons. Would we consider the prohibition on trafficking in human body parts an infringement upon consumer rights? Again, the author is merely trying to stoke up basic fears in a demographic that is particularly sensitive to having their freedoms "taken away." Talk about emotionalism.

In stating "Truth means nothing to [animal rights groups]," the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation's Joe Cornely tells his own bald-faced lie. If ARAs (and, by the way, here we have more conflating of animal rights groups with animal welfare groups) were lying, they would be brought to court, they would lose, and they would no longer be able to function. It's a straightforward insult and, correct me if I'm wrong, libel to suggest that truth means nothing to animal rights groups. The whole point of animal rights activism is to expose the truth behind animal exploitation so that people can make up their own minds about whether or not to reject their use. We may not agree on whether animals are ours to use or not, but that does not entitle either side to accuse the other of lying, unless that side is deliberately deceiving people. But nowhere does Mr. Cornely or the article's author back up their inflammatory claims.

Now, this article appears in a smallpaper in a small town I've never heard of. But it may well have been read by more people than read this blog, and it represents a certain backlash I've been noticing in the farmed animal sector, which we are already starting to see ripple in the public with the co-option of animal welfare language like "humane-raised" meat, labels like "United Egg Producers Certified," and articles extolling the virtues of "happy veal."

As much as they're fighting animal rights, the animal exploiters are looking more and more to become the final word on what animal welfare means, which only makes the need for promoting animal rights that much more urgent. The welfare of animals will never be entirely secure so long as they are used as a means to human ends.

IN HAPPIER NEWS, The U.S. Forest Service agreed to withdraw plans for logging 190 acres of spotted owl habitat in the Central Oregon Cascade Range that was burned last year in the Black Crater fire:

The lawsuit said the timber sale violated federal law by distorting science that shows spotted owls still use forests after they burn and by keeping the public out of the decision making.

The lawsuit also said the project would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by logging in an old growth forest reserve primarily to make money from the trees, and not to improve the forest.

SOURCE: MSNBC

ALSO AT MSNBC.COM: Mothers again urged to eat fish. After going on paragraph after paragraph about the benefits of fish, finally an alternate source of omega-3s is mentioned: Flax seed and oil. It would be nice if they included other sources, but at least alternatives are being mentioned. I'm gravely concerned about this new push to increase fish consumption, particularly when so many species are being pushed to the brink of collapse.

Labels: animal agriculture, animal rights, animal welfare, endangered species, environment, fish, habitat encroachment, health, humane meat, omega-3

Recent news has been full of confused stories on animal welfare (thanks for covering that one, Mary) and the all-over-the-map farm bill, including requests to incorporate more animal welfare measures into the bill before it is passed. Also, Michael Vick continues to make the news.

Until a disturbing story came along, I had intended to cover the good news that California's Supreme Court unanimously rejected an argument by Adidas that federal law pre-empts a California ban on products made from kangaroos. What this means is they won't be able to circumvent California's law if the pro-kangaroo leather bill S.B. 880 does not pull through. It is currently anticipated that the legislation will arrive on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by September, so animal groups have been asking their supporters to contact him and ask him to reject the bill. If you'd like to do so, call (916) 445-2841, then press 1 for english (2 for spanish), 2 to voice an opinion regarding legislation, 1 to choose S.B. 880, 2 to oppose. After that, you can hang up.

But, really, I'm not feeling the good news today. I'm outraged.

MSNBC.com: Four endangered gorillas found shot dead

Four endangered gorillas were murdered in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Virunga National Park. While most definitions of murder confine their scope to intentionally killing other human beings, the difference between humans and gorillas is insignificant when it comes to being willfully deprived of life. Morally, this is murder, and it continues despite efforts to curb the killings. 3 other gorillas were killed earlier this year.

With just over 700 gorillas surviving, not only does each death end the life of another sentient being, it also pushes the entire mountain gorilla species toward complete collapse:

The four were members of a family group known as Rugendo, and the male served as a leader of that group, which the IGCP feared would now be compromised. "Before the killings the Rugendo group comprised 12 individuals," the IGCP said. "Six are confirmed as safe, but two gorillas, a female and an infant, are missing."

We need a new Dian Fossey out there, one with the John McClane skills to stop this madness. We cannot allow this killing to continue.

Labels: animal welfare, dogfighting, endangered species, farm bill, primates, wildlife

Current news. I presume you can figure out which is bad, which is mixed, and which is good.

International Herald Tribune: Judge allows last US horse slaughterhouse to stay open a few more days (AP)

CHICAGO: A judge has extended an order allowing the United States' last operating horse slaughterhouse to remain in business while it challenges a state law that would force it to close.

MSNBC.com: Wildlife trade talks end with surprises

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Elephants emerged safer and tigers won a vote of support, but sharks and corals failed to win protection at a two-week wildlife trade conference that ended Friday.

The conference also saw a shift in conservation politics, with ministers throwing their weight behind negotiations.

China emerged for the first time as a major player at the triennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered species, or CITES, surprising delegates with its activism.

Indybay/Go Vegan Radio: "GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" to Debut on AIR AMERICA NETWORK weekend of June 30

GO VEGAN RADIO is excited to announce that an agreement has been reached with the AIR AMERICA Network to carry "GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" on a weekly basis for a year. Finally, the animals have a voice of compassion coming to the media to advocate for kindness on their behalf, improved human health through complete vegetarianism, and environmental sustainability. The Air America audience, already acquainted with the major problems of the day -- war, violence, world hunger, disease, energy crises, global warming, deforestation, resource depletion -- will now have exposure to the most important solution for all of these -- to GO VEGAN!

"GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" will also have greater exposure through five weekly 30 second commercial announcements on other AIR AMERICA programs, ten 60 second commercials during web broadcasts of other AIR AMERICA programs, and a banner ad and page on the AIR AMERICA website.

Now, YOUR work begins. This is a grassroots group effort and you are being asked to do your share. GO VEGAN RADIO is now faced with a $200,000 annual expense for program production and distribution (and no, there is no salary in that figure).

If you made a pledge to make a tax-deductible donation, please send it now.

Make checks payable to GO VEGAN RADIO and mail to International Humanities Center, PO Box 923, Malibu, CA 90265. You may also donate on-line at http://www.GoVeganRadio.org.

If you were only considering a donation until now, please -- now is the time to decide to do it. GO VEGAN RADIO has promised to deliver $50,000 to AIR AMERICA on June 23 and $33,000 every three months after that. It can't be done without your tax-deductible donation NOW! If you pledged to be a "make-it-happen" vegan committed to raising $1000, please collect and send it now. All donations are important - $10, $100, $1000, $10,000. The animals are asking you to get your checkbook now.

You can also support this incredible outreach opportunity by advertising your vegan and cruelty-free products and services. Rates start as low as $300. Advertising opportunities are very limited, with two of available ten already committed. Please email or call (818) 623-6477 if interested in advertising.

Labels: endangered species, exotic animals, extinction, horse slaughter, horses, media, wildlife, wildlife trade

Is it publicly acceptable for feeling people to be angry about this yet? Do we honestly want to live in a world where humans and domesticated animals are the only species left in abundance? I certainly hope not. Would nations like the ones below cry foul over sovereignty if there was a Sea Shepherd for primates ("Primate Protectors")? I wonder.

The emphases below are both mine.

MSNBC.com: Rare gorilla orphaned when mother shot dead

KINSHASA, Democratic Republic of Congo - National park rangers here are battling to save a 2-month-old gorilla found clinging to its dead mother, who was shot dead through the back of the head.

MSNBC.com: Orangutan habitat shrinking faster, U.N. warns

Indonesia's tropical rain forests are disappearing 30 percent faster than previously estimated as illegal loggers raid large national parks, threatening the long-term survival of orangutans, according to a U.N. report released Monday.

Sorry, this is depressing. I know many readers won't have the first idea how to help, and I don't want to leave you hopeless. The best I can think of at the moment is to assist eastern Congo's Virunga National Park, where more than 150 rangers have been murdered in the past decade.

Conservation group WildlifeDirect takes donations (see the donation form in the right sidebar of this page) that pay the salaries of park rangers who protect the endangered apes. WildlifeDirect takes no administration fee for the funds that are transferred through them, so your financial support will go to where it is intended (though I did notice a 3.5% bank transfer fee -- the banks always get you).

Park rangers have extremely dangerous jobs, and need all the help they can get. Last month, Mai Mai rebels attacked patrol posts in Virunga park, killing one wildlife officer and critically injuring three others. According to conservation group, the rebels threatened to slaughter gorillas if park rangers retaliated.

Follow the news at WildlifeDirect's gorilla blog feed.

Labels: endangered species, primates, wildlife

Environmental News Network: Embattled Interior Official Julie MacDonald Resigns In Wake of Inspector General Report

One of the more despicable instruments of the Bush Administration has finally been dislodged:

According to the Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, a high-level Bush administration appointee has resigned in the aftermath of a devastating Inspector General investigation, just days before a House congressional oversight committee will hold a public hearing on her violations of the Endangered Species Act, censorship of science, and brutalizing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.

Julie MacDonald tendered her resignation on April 30, 2007. She was the Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that oversees the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program. As revealed in numerous media exposés and a recent Department of Interior Inspector General investigation, MacDonald used her position to aggressively squelch protection of endangered species. She rewrote scientific reports, browbeat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and colluded with industry lawyers to generate lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service.

MacDonald's specialty was blocking agency efforts to place imperiled species on the endangered species list, stripping tens of millions of acres from agency proposals to designated "critical habitat" areas and working with industry groups to remove species from the endangered list and thus from federal protection.

It's not all good news, though:

MacDonald's recently hired counterpart, Todd Willens, is equally dedicated to undermining endangered species conservation. Willens spearheaded Richard Pombo's (R-CA) anti-endangered species agenda as lead staffer of the House Resources Committee, then was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks on October 19, 2006. He has since been directly involved in developing sweeping anti-endangered species regulations and efforts to remove the Florida manatee and West Virginia northern flying squirrel from the endangered species list.

No word on whether Willens will also get the boot. Perhaps the May 9th "congressional oversight hearing into the Bush administration's rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act and censorship of endangered species science" will result in further house cleaning.

Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife

Buffalo, nearing extinction, moved to safety

Sixteen buffalo, relocated from the National Bison Range in northwestern Montana, were released Saturday morning in an enclosed 1,400-acre section of the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal, near where nerve gas and other chemical weapons were once manufactured.

This site is barely 10 miles from downtown Denver, and already there has been an incident with one buffalo, though it's unclear from this paragraph what relation the event had to the relocation:

Later in the day, residents of Lakewood, a suburb west of Denver, literally had that opportunity. A pet buffalo escaped. Police had it corralled for awhile but it escaped and it had to be put down, said Lakewood police animal control officer Michael Brogran. He said the young animal had done minor damage to a couple of cars but no one was hurt.

Yeah, but an animal was killed.

Bush administration reinterprets species law

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, contacted in Washington, D.C., said the new policy would allow them to focus on protecting species in areas where they are in trouble, rather than having to list a species over its entire range.

One activist's response:

Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said the new policy was a sophisticated effort by the Bush administration to gut the Endangered species Act by ignoring the loss of species from their historical range, making it easier to deny endangered species listings.

If upheld by the courts, Suckling estimated the new policy would remove 80 percent of the roughly 1,300 species from threatened and endangered lists — because most species have at least one stronghold where they are doing well.

"It's just so clearly illogical and anti-wildlife that I can't wait to get this before a federal judge," Suckling said. "They are rewarding industry for driving populations extinct. Because as soon as you drive a population extinct (in a certain area) it is no longer on the table. It no longer counts toward whether a species is endangered."

Battle to save Tasmanian devil from extinction

The Tasmanian Devil, a rare carnivorous marsupial found only on Australia's southern island state of Tasmania, faces extinction in 10 to 20 years without a cure for the facial cancer now decimating the population.

With half the population of this fierce, black furry animal now wiped out, leaving less than 75,000 devils, Professor Hamish McCallum at the University of Tasmania is battling to establish offshore colonies of healthy devils.

Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife

It's been widely-feared among animal lovers that if northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list, they would be hunted back down to the verge of extinction once again. This The New York Times piece drives the concern home:

In Idaho, the governor is ready to have hunters reduce the wolf population in the state from 650 to 100, the minimum that will keep the animal off the endangered species list. “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself,” Gov. C. L. Otter said, according to The Associated Press.

Such an attractive sentiment from the governor of one of the last remaining "unspoiled" states. Sadly, the state is not as unspoiled as one imagines, due to federally-subsidized grazing on lands that ought to left untouched for wild species. Attacks on livestock fuel the passion for killing wolves in these rural areas.

But if we did not permit ranchers to encroach on wildlands with their cattle, we wouldn't see this problem occur in the first place. In other words, this conflict is man-made. As is too often the case, financial interests are being put above the lives of animals. Perhaps the governor of Idaho should pay attention to one economist's projection that wolves in Yellowstone are responsible for $35 million in annual revenues.

That 650 wolves can be seen as an acceptable population for any animal species is, to me, mind-boggling. Consider, for instance, Idaho's population of 1.3 million people (to say nothing of their companion animals and livestock).

Is this what we've come to? Turning our wilderness areas into tightly-"managed" gene pools, just shy of extinction? Doesn't that more or less turn the natural world into some kind of pathetic outdoor zoo?

One can, of course, reduce one's impact on the wolves by avoiding the consumption of these ranchers' products. This is one of the easiest solutions, considering that a reduction in the demand for animal products would likely ease the introduction of these domesticated animals into areas where they come into contact with predators. No other solution presents so direct an opportunity to help.

But obviously not everyone is going to stop eating these products overnight. So, in addition to voting with one's fork, what can one do?

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, comments from the public are encouraged on the proposal to delist these wolves. You can send your comments via Email or via post to:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wolf Delisting
585 Shepard Way
Helena, MT 59601

All comments must be received within 60 days of the proposed rule's publication date in the Federal Register (I believe that was 01/29/2007).

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service maintains a web page on gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, including news, information, recovery status and reports.

Photo credit: Jim and Jamie Dutcher/National Geographic — Getty Images

Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife, wolves

news @ nature.com

Not that intentional whale kills aren't a problem, but this story refers to the incidental deaths of extremely vulnerable western grey whales caught in the nets of Japanese fishermen:

In January, fishermen found the dead body of a juvenile female in fixed fishing nets in Yoshihama Bay, northeastern Japan. It was the fourth such whale to be found trapped, entangled and drowned off the Pacific coast since 2005; all of them have been female.

Can I just point out that this is one more good reason not to eat fish? In addition to plundering our oceans beyond their capacity to reproduce fish for the human population to consume, the process of commercial fishing affects countless other species as well.

Unfortunately, this critically endangered species doesn't have a lot of help, as of yet. While fishermen are not compensated for their damaged nets from these accidental captures, it is not yet illegal, and there are no methods in place to avoid trapping whales (other than not fishing with nets anymore, of course).

Toshio Kasuya, a retired researcher in Tokyo who specialized in marine mammals, says the government should take more initiative. They should call for a greater effort to get whales out of traps alive, he says, and develop technologies to prevent whales from getting trapped in the first place. Kasuya says nets that produce warning beeps may be one way of doing this.

"So far, we don't have technologies that could work effectively," Kasuya says. "And the government's efforts are far from enough."

Special thanks to my wife for making sure I saw this story!

Photo by Dave Weller

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife

NRDC: Grizzly Bears in Peril

NRDC urges us to write the British Columbia government to reject the Cline open-pit coal mine proposal and protect the wildlands of the Rocky Mountains' Flathead River Valley:

If constructed, the mine would destroy this unspoiled wilderness by degrading water quality, killing migratory trout species and jeopardizing threatened grizzly bear populations.

The Flathead Valley is a key migratory corridor for Rocky Mountain wildlife. This region supports the highest density of grizzly bears in the Rockies and is therefore crucial to ensuring the long-term recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. The Flathead also lies at a geographic crossroads, creating a rich diversity of plant species from the Canadian Arctic and boreal region, the prairies, the Pacific and the U.S. Rockies.

Click through the link above in order to quickly send a letter.

Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife

MSNBC.com

Here's a different kind of coup.

London-based Africa Conservation Fund reports that rebels in Eastern Congo have agreed to stop killing mountain gorillas and permit government rangers to recommence patrols.

While Virunga's senior park warden, Paul Ngobobo, called the agreement one small step and urged continued international pressure to prevent killings from occurring again in the future, this turn of events is certainly a win for diplomacy and offers some hope of survival for the nearly 400 hundred gorillas living in the area.

Labels: endangered species, primates, wildlife

MSNBC.com | World Environment

I've previously bemoaned the endangered state of so many animal species, and I find it particularly troubling that the 700 remaining mountain gorillas on our planet continue to be pressured by human forces such as war.

In this case, rebels in eastern Congo have killed and eaten two of the few surviving mountain gorillas. If not comparable to cannibalism, and I think it is, this is most certainly a most murderous act.

Unfortunately, Virunga's park patrols are not as reliable due to rebel attacks that have led to abandoned posts. Conservationists fear that, in this climate, more endangered gorillas in the area may well have been killed.

What pains me most is that the gorillas trusted humans, allowing the killers to get close enough to easily seal their fate.

Paulin Ngobobo, a senior warden at the park where the gorillas were found dead, wrote about the most recent killing at his blog:

His name was Karema, another solitary silverback that had been born into a habituated group (meaning that he had grown to trust humans enough to let them come to within touching distance). Above all, we learned that the remaining gorillas are extremely vulnerable - the rebels are after the meat, and it’s not difficult for them to find and kill the few gorillas that remain.

It's an awful situation, fraught with conflict and danger.

At his blog, Ngobobo has described being shot at and beaten by the military when trying to persuade them to stop cutting down the forest. And in Virunga alone, some 97 rangers have died on duty in the past 10 years, according to Africa Conservation Fund. The park has been decimated by poachers and deforestation over the decade, much of it spawned by the 1994 Rwandan genocide that drew millions of refugees into Congo.

Gorillas are not the only species endangered by the rebels and militias. The last remaining hippos in Congo are located in Virunga and are also on the brink. According to conservationists, more than 400 hippos were killed last year, primarily for food. The 900 remaining hippos represent a massive plunge from the 22,000 recorded in 1998.

The MSNBC story reminds us that the endangered animals in Virunga and elsewhere need our help:

Richard Leakey, a conservationist credited with helping end the slaughter of elephants in Kenya during the 1980s, said: "the survival of these last remaining mountain gorillas should be one of humanity's greatest priorities. Their future lies with a small number of very brave rangers risking their lives with very little support from the outside world."

One way you can help is by providing support for the rangers who patrol the park, many of whom are behind on pay.

Labels: endangered species, primates, wildlife

Time.com: When Pandas Go Wild

You know, people are suckers for pandas. After all, they're so cute! But that doesn't mean they should remain in captivity just to please us. Of course, it's commonly argued that certain captive animals are being bred in order to repopulate protected areas and stave off extinction. We find plenty of examples to demonstrate that we're better off protecting the populations in the wild, along with their habitat, instead.

After millions of dollars in expenditures to finally breed pandas successfully in captivity, the Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda made good on its mission to place Xiang Xiang, a captive-bred panda, into the wild. Unfortunately its first attempt has not exactly been a huge success. Wonder of all wonders, Xiang Xiang is pretty clueless out in the cold, cruel world, and the Center has already had to bring him in once to treat him for an injury related to a run-in with a wild panda. Another encounter left him with a likely broken leg, though they haven't seen him since the incident. Doesn't it make you want to just shake your head?

But, true to form, researchers have the best intentions:

"We did not want to keep Xiang Xiang because that would have shown our experiment had failed."

With hubristic attitudes like this one, I prefer people keep their mitts off animals altogether. Not to slam all scientists, but few people are willing to admit failure and have to go find some other source of funding, much less a different career.

But Panda numbers have actually rebounded somewhat in China after the government set aside a protected area for them, obviating any apparent need for continuing the expensive failure of a program. In fact, Xiang Xiang's misadventures lend credence to the belief that wild animals should be left to their own devices, with lots of room to live their lives out naturally, and that captive breeding programs are generally a lost cause for all but the most dire scenarios.

Labels: endangered species, pandas, wildlife

"We are bulldozing the Garden of Eden, and the first large animal has fallen." -- Robert L. Pitman, NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem Studies Program

Most people look at the environmental movement as a whole separate ball of wax from the animal rights movement. You often see major environmental organizations working to rescue and preserve entire species of animals for various reasons typically having little to do with the notion that animals rightly deserve to have their natural habitats left unspoilt for their own use. Often we hear about the role of predators in the ecosystem and those sorts of rationales. But all animals would appear to have as much of a stake in their own environment as we do, perhaps more so, owing to their inability to adapt their environments as radically as we have.

Animals born in the wild depend on their environments being somewhat preserved to what they are adapted to inhabit. To protect these ecosystems, we can create protected areas, we can "manage" populations, and we can try to regulate individual cases, treating some species as endangered or threatened, for instance. Or, we can examine what gives us the impunity to toxify their rivers, raze their forests, build back yards in their hunting grounds, and encroach on their lives in so many other unspeakable ways.

If we recognized the inherent right of animals to live free from the artificial interference of humanity, and enforced that right, we might well have averted our present environmental disaster. Now we're just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You know it's late in the game when the environmentally-backward Bush administration finally proposes listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

It is horrifying to me that we can allow hundreds of species to wind up in such a precarious position in the first place, and that--in some cases--this is considered a good thing. I mean, why is it okay to "manage" the numbers of some species into the low hundreds, as in the case of North American wolves? Well, the answer to that is: Because our expansion into the wilderness brought with it conflicts between our economic interests and the survival instincts of indigenous wildlife, as if that somehow justifies destroying our environment.

We permit ourselves to expand our species as much as we want, projected to grow beyond 9 billion in the next 30 years or so, but some of the most recognizable species in the world are limping along with our "protection." There is nothing remotely sustainable about this. If we can't figure out a way to live without decimating our fellow inhabitants, then we are bad planetary stewards indeed.

---

This rant was inspired by the above-linked polar bear article, mountain lion action alert (thanks, Deb), and word from The New York Times that rampant economic development has rendered species like the baiji dolphin "functionally extinct":

Locally, the Yangtze River is in serious trouble; the canary in the coal mine is dead. In addition to baiji, the Yangtze paddlefish is (was) probably the largest freshwater fish in the world (at least 21 feet), and it hasn’t been seen since 2003; the huge Yangtze sturgeon breeds only in tanks now because it has no natural habitat (a very large dam stands between it and its breeding grounds). The whole river ecosystem is going down the tubes in the name of rampant economic development. There is a huge environmental debt accruing on the Yangtze, and baiji was perhaps just the first installment.

...Nobody eats baiji and no tourists pay to see it — there were no reasons to take it deliberately, but there was no economic reason to save it, either. It is gone because too many people got too efficient at catching fish in the river and it was incidental bycatch. And it is perhaps a view of the future for much of the rest of the world and an indication that the predicted mass extinction is arriving on schedule.

For the Chinese, I think that losing a half-blind river dolphin and a couple of oversize fish was a fair trade for all the money that is being made there now. China is an economic model envied by most of the rest of the world, and I think that many other (especially third world) countries will be confronted with similar decisions of economic development versus conservation of habitats and animals, and the response will be the same. From now on we will have to choose which animals will be allowed to live on the planet with us, and baiji got cut in the first round. It is a sad day. I know it is their country, but the planet belongs to all of us.

Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife

MSNBC.com | World Environment

I'm exhausted right now, so don't expect anything terribly insightful from me, but here are some quotes from the article that struck me deeply:

In 2002, it was estimated there were 56,000 orangutans in the wild but the population has dwindled at a rate of 6,000 a year, conservationists say. Ed Wray / APA rescued orangutan peers out of a temporary holding cage Monday in Mantangai, Indonesia.

Nearly 90 percent of their habitat has been destroyed by illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming practices. If the rate of deforestation continues, orangutans will disappear from the wild in around a decade, experts say.

A decade. Unless more is done to stop this, there's no way these orangutans will survive.

The next quote lets people know what they can do:

Most of the annual dry season fires are deliberately lit by farmers or at the behest of timber and oil palm plantation companies.

In other words, end the global demand for timber and palm oil, and you may save the orangutans. Doesn't sound too hopeful, does it?

Jennifer Miller is covering the disaster at the IFAW blog:

• Day 1: 50 Hours to Indonesia


• Day 2: Fire in Every Direction


• Day 3: A Heartwrenching Scene


• Day 4: Releasing Pet Orangutans From Bondage


• Day 4: Dramatic Tree Rescue

Labels: emergency rescue, endangered species, environment, orangutans, wildlife

The Seattle Times

Yesterday the Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN) and two private citizens had their lawsuit against the city of Seattle and a local zoo dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector.

The suit accused Woodland Park Zoo of violating the federal Endangered Species Act and the State Environmental Policy Act with its treatment of elephants at the facility.

Judge Spector stated that none of the claims against the city, the zoo, its directors and staff had merit, except for the claim filed under the Endangered Species Act, which the judge ruled falls under the jurisdiction of federal court.

NARN will consider pursuing its case in federal court if it can raise the necessary funds.

Labels: animal law, endangered species, exotic animals, wildlife, zoos

Chicago Sun-Times

It's just a preliminary injunction, but (by definition) it's a start:

A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction barring Wisconsin from killing gray wolves, siding with animal welfare and environmental groups that argue the killing violates the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the killing of up to 43 gray wolves. The state argued the permit was necessary to maintain social tolerance for the wolves, which are listed as endangered.

But in a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly mocked that rationale.

''Simply put,'' she wrote in her decision, ''the recovery of the gray wolf is not supported by killing 43 gray wolves.''

Special thanks to Jeff Bryant for bringing this news to our attention while I'm busy traveling.

Labels: endangered species, environment, hunting, livestock predation, wildlife, wolves

Leaving town for a couple of weeks tomorrow, so blogging may or may not be scarce. As always, subscribing through RSS or e-mail (see sidebar), is the easiest way to know if there are new posts available.

In the meantime, AlterNet has an article on mass extinction. According to prominent biologists, we're on currently par with the five previous mass extinctions in life's history on earth.

The end of the piece suggests that much of the species projected to go extinct could survive, if we create protected areas and alter our own activities, but it does not go into detail about which activities would be most beneficial to alter, like our diet and modes of transportation. Missed opportunity, though it certainly has sparked conversation in comments on the story.

Labels: endangered species, environment, global warming, wildlife

Independent Online Edition | Environment: The whale's tale

It is estimated that there are only about 100 western north Pacific gray whales left alive. According to the article, the death of "just one female a year for the next three years would be enough to send the population into catastrophic decline.":

The whales' feeding ground lies directly above huge reserves of gas and oil, which some of the biggest companies in the world are determined to exploit.

This small stretch of water off Sakhalin island, in the far east of Russia, has become the battleground for a struggle between environmentalists determined to save these whales from extinction and oilmen equally determined to push ahead with what one of them calls "the mother of all projects".

It wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, whales were so plentiful that it was dangerous to send boats through the waters. But,

In the mid-1800s, the Sea of Okhotsk was the region of choice for the whaling fleets of Japan, Korea and the United States. Intensive whaling had its inevitable effect - numbers dropped off steadily towards the end of the century, and by beginning of the First World War, the whale was thought to be extinct.

Russian marine biologists "rediscovered" the whales in the 1980s, at around the same time that the massive oil reserves were found. The projects to exploit these reserves are massive and well-funded by companies such as Shell and Mitsubishi. Billions are at stake, and so are lives.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), along with about 60 local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are working to protect them, their main fear that the noise from drilling, pipe-laying, and construction will distress the whales, driving them away from their feeding grounds. As western grays are seasonal feeders, surviving for the over half of the year on blubber reserves from a feeding period that can last as little as 4 months, an interruption to this cycle threatens their survival:

Scientists have observed apparent behavioural changes in the whales in relation to the operation of seismic survey ships working up to 30km away. They also reported 14 "skinny" whales in 2005, a considerably larger number than in any year since 2001. The cause of their emaciation is unknown, and it cannot be scientifically linked to the oil projects, but the environmentalists are deeply concerned.

And this says nothing of other risks posed to the magnificent creatures, including the threat of ships hitting them, and damaged pipelines releasing oil into their habitat.

Despite all these concerns, the projects are moving forward. Currently 75% complete, the construction will continue once public banks step in to invest $6.9 billion, which looks it could well happen. With that kind of money at stake, the environment takes second position to politics. Environmentally-concerned citizens can only hope that the prospect of transparency inherent in public financing is as realistic as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's director of the environment, Alistair Clark claims:

He refuses to say whether the loan will go ahead, but it is probable, given the EBRD's views on the value of its involvement. "It's a bad thing for the environment and people if public institutions don't have involvement, because we bring transparency to the process," Clark says.

As much power as we have to protect animals in our daily lives, this is one area where I feel the issue is way above my head. Maybe if I was a multi-millionaire investment banker or something... All I can recommend at the moment is for you to reduce your fuel consumption in every way imaginable, certainly removing any financial ties to Shell and the other financiers, as well as supporting the IFAW, which seems to be the most empowered to hold the involved parties accountable.

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife

MSNBC.com | Environment

It seems that all the whale news I relay on to my readers here at AAFL is bad. I'm sad to say the trend continues with this story on beluga whales:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - In the 1970s, there used to be about 1,300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet, delighting locals and tourists alike in the body of water around Anchorage. Last year, the number was estimated at just 278.

Why their numbers are dwindling has scientists puzzled — and scared. The National Marine Fisheries Service is embarking on a status review to determine if the belugas need the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.

[snip]

One cataclysmic event — a large stranding in the inlet’s 20-foot tides, perhaps, or an oil spill or tsunami — could push the remaining whale population over the edge, said [Lloyd Lowry, a professor of marine mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks].

“Having a small population for a long time is very risky,” he said. “If the decline continues we are going to get to very critically low numbers soon.”

In contrast to the isolated belugas whales of Cook Inlet, belugas overall are thriving in Alaska, with at least 35,000 to 40,000 animals in four Arctic stocks.

[Brad Smith, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service] said the status review will be expanded this time. It will include a prediction at what point the inlet whales — considered a genetically distinct population — could go extinct. The last review was done about a decade ago and the data shows the decline.

“It certainly does not look encouraging,” Smith said.

Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife