Wildlife/FreeLiving Animals
-
Why Is the Nature Conservancy Killing Animals?
-
Is Golf More Important to San Francisco Than Endangered Animals?
-
Highway Construction That Considers Animals
Obama Administration Still Neglecting Endangered Species
Published November 08, 2009 @ 10:47AM PT
President Obama's record on animal issues in his first year in office has been less than inspiring, including his decisions to give responsibility for protecting animals in his administration to decidedly un-animal-friendly people (Sam Hamilton to head the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, for example) and, on a more personal level, his unfortunate failure to set an example that could have benefited shelter dogs.
And the Center for Biological Diversity has just weighed in on an administration report regarding candidates for endangered species protections. Obama's administration, the Center reports, has identified "a total of 249 species in need of protection." So what's the problem?
The review also describes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s progress in listing these species, showing that the administration has, to date, only listed one species – a Hawaiian plant reduced to a handful of individuals.
“This review shows that the Obama administration has not substantially improved the dismal record of the Bush administration in providing protection to the nation’s critically endangered wildlife,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Protection of only one species in 10 months reflects a failure to enact substantial reforms in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
Please read more here.
---
Photo of juvenile yellow-billed loon retrieved from Wikimedia Commons
Ethical Hunting Awards That Ignore the Actual Victims
Published November 06, 2009 @ 07:56AM PT
This one is just begging for commentary: For the 13th year, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is accepting nominations for its annual "ethical hunting award." What, I first wondered when I saw the headline, does that even mean? When I read about last year's winner in a brief AP piece published in the Chicago Tribune, I learned that at least last year, the "ethics" that won someone the award had absolutely nothing to do with how or why or whether the person killed an animal, but rather was about how he treated a fellow human while hunting: "An 18-year-old Rhinelander hunter won last year. He helped a sobbing young female hunter alone in the woods trail, field dress and retrieve a 17-point buck she shot but couldn't find."
I almost don't know what to say. The great almost-tragedy in this scenario was that someone wasn't going to get her trophy antlers, bragging rights, and meat if she didn't find the animal she'd shot. The animal who had been shot, who had fled in fear and pain to die a slow death, was incidental in the story. The celebrated ethical behavior had nothing to do with the ethics of hunting.
Are Vegans Responsible for More Deaths in the Fields? No Way
Published October 31, 2009 @ 09:08AM PT
The comment threads around here have been home to a lot of arguments over the last year, and a few discussions have a habit of resurfacing from time to time. One of these typically starts with a defender of animal-eating accusing vegans of being responsible for more animals' deaths than animal-eaters because of the animals who die as a result of raising and harvesting crops. The person making the argument assumes that people who eat plant-based diets must be responsible for more deaths in the fields than those who eat animal-based diets full of flesh, dairy, and eggs, failing to acknowledge, of course, the enormous amounts of plant foods that must be raised and fed to the animals people kill to eat -- more than must be raised for direct consumption by vegans. As has been discussed in those comment threads each time, the logic fails. And recently, Animal Visuals gave animal advocates a great new tool to answer this weak but common argument. Continue after the jump to view the powerful graph settling the debate.
The Tiniest Rescues and the Building of Compassion
Published October 30, 2009 @ 06:15AM PT
I have a habit of not only rescuing the insects and arachnids I encounter but also, if there's a camera handy, photographing them obsessively (one of many reasons that getting a good camera and learning how to use it is high on my to-do-when-I-have-money list), and this post and the images in it stem from that.
I've been fascinated by these tiniest of animals for years, and transporting them outside or out of harm's way brings me a form of peace, albeit passing, that I don't quite know how to explain. There's something about those quiet moments of gently gathering the little one up, of peering at him and the wondrous details of his delicate body, of carefully moving him to safety, and of watching him go on his way that oh-so-briefly stops the world around me.
"Shooting a Moose Is an Accomplishment Whether You're 12 or 38"
Published October 22, 2009 @ 04:03AM PT
The latest in the ongoing series of "Yay! We taught kids to kill!" stories: "12-Year-Old Bags a Moose in Hunt of a Lifetime."
"I feel really happy and proud,’’ Kelly said Wednesday. "Shooting a moose is an accomplishment whether you’re 12 or 38 – you’re going to put the same amount of effort into it. It’s a big sense of accomplishment because I am 12. The moose is as wide as I am tall. I can sit inside his antlers.’’
Elk "Calf Production" Down? Kill More Elk!
Published September 29, 2009 @ 07:17AM PT
Welcome to the latest episode of Hunting and Wildlife "Management" Logic! (See WTF? 101 here, and try using a browser other than IE if the long comment thread is making it difficult to open the page.) Today we head to South Dakota's Custer State Park, where elk numbers are dropping rapidly; the elk are giving birth to only half as many calves as usual.
The "management goal" is 750 elk, yet there are only around 450 of the animals left. But don't worry, hunters: the state of South Dakota still absolutely encourages you to go out there and get yourself a permit and a "trophy" kill; there are still bulls out there just waiting to be killed, and all the state asks is that you quickly stick a needle in the dying animal and get a blood sample after you shoot him.
Wolves Are Not the Dangerous Predators; Humans Are
Published September 22, 2009 @ 06:39AM PT
If you want an example of essentially all that's wrong with the way humans think of, talk about, and interact with their fellow animals, do I ever have an editorial for you. The publisher, editorial board, or some unnamed journalist from an Oregon newspaper (the byline is vague) yesterday published this doozy: "Give Ranchers Right to Kill Problem Wolves."
Early on in the editorial, the authors set up wolves as the indisputable bad guys. First we learn that wolves in one general area killed twenty-something sheep total in April and August incidents, and thus those wolves were deemed "rogue" and were tracked and killed by the trusty U.S. Wildlife Services. This, it is argued, was justifiable because the wolves clearly intended to cause the ranchers trouble: "Since the wolves were bent on mayhem, and since efforts to relocate them did not work, it’s right that they were killed."
Bent on mayhem? Seriously? I mean, seriously? It gets better:
