Wildlife/FreeLiving Animals
The Navy versus the Whales (Again)
Published August 03, 2009 @ 05:30PM PT
From NRDC's Switchboard:
Today the Navy released its Record of Decision to begin construction of an undersea warfare training range right next to the only known calving grounds for the critically endangered right whale. Hunted nearly to extinction, North Atlantic right whales are one of the world's most endangered species, with only about 300 remaining. The North Atlantic right whale remains extremely vulnerable to the continuing threats posed by ship strikes, entanglement and ocean noise - a triple threat that will be exacerbated by the Navy's disastrous plan to build an undersea warfare training range adjacent to their last remaining calving grounds.
Once constructed, the proposed undersea warfare training range will be the site of intensive, year-round exercises employing the same kind of active sonar that has caused multiple marine mammal strandings leading to injury and death. It would effectively transform the waters off the Florida coast into an epicenter of sonar use.
Continue reading here.
"Guilt-Free" Sushi Doesn't Include Bits of Fish
Published July 29, 2009 @ 08:21AM PT
Apparently, between yesterday's post and this one, we have a theme going: foods that require the killing of animals are not greed- and guilt-free just because they don't require the killing or exploitation of some other animals. Yesterday, I wrote about the problem of referring to Fair Trade milk chocolate as free of "greed" and as a win for the "socially conscious" when dairy consumption and "production" involve some of the greediest, cruelest human acts. And today, I'm writing in response to a Christian Science Monitor article titled "Guilt-Free Sushi."
Refuges for Killing and Fishes as Trophies and Tools
Published July 27, 2009 @ 07:57AM PT
A sharp-toothed, large, prehistoric-looking species of fish called the alligator gar made it into two news stories in recent days, both of them concerned with how people can "benefit" from alligator gars, by killing the gars themselves or by using the gars to help them kill other fish species--all, of course, for good clean fun.
I'll comment on the second story in a later post, but first, there's this story out of Missouri, which is bothersome on multiple levels: "Young Alligator Gar recently stocked at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge." A group of 275 young alligator gars has been "stocked" in the so-called refuge because, biologists believe, they will act as scavengers and clean the water of "invertebrates and dead carcasses." But why do state biologists want the gars to fill this role? So that "sport fish" populations will rise. We're not really worried about "a clean and healthy water system," as the Missouri Department of Conservation is cited as saying near the end of the article--our priority is increasing the number of "game fish" so that people can enjoy killing them more often and in greater numbers, and in a refuge:
Three Reasons Not to Eat Fish
Published July 07, 2009 @ 01:54PM PT
With a hat tip to the Twitterin' Mary Martin of Animal Person, I give you this smart, short video on the fish issue, which I'd not seen before last night:
Obama's Nominee for FWS: No Friend to Endangered Species
Published July 07, 2009 @ 05:10AM PT
President Barack Obama continues to make some mind-boggling decisions with regard to animals--decisions we would have expected from Bush, but not from someone who promised us better. In this latest instance, Obama has nominated, to enforce the Endangered Species Act as head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sam Hamilton: the FWS official with "by far the weakest record on Endangered Species Act enforcement of any comparable official in the country," the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reports.
U.S. Forest Service, Louisiana Declare "Emergency" to Pander to Hunters
Published July 03, 2009 @ 07:29AM PT
In a move that I haven't yet found a way to make intelligent sense of, the state of Louisiana--upon the U.S. Forest Service's request--declared a "state of emergency" (and no, there's no real emergency) to allow the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to vote yesterday "to eliminate the need for a special permit to hunt with dogs on Kisatchie National Forest and the requirement that hunters use electronic tracking collars and other forms of identification on their dogs." Even putting aside consideration for the animals intentionally wounded and killed (as everyone involved in this has), this move completely disregards the safety of the dogs exploited and endangered by hunters as well as the other people endangered by hunters.
In Louisiana, hunters barrel recklessly through Kisatchie National Forest to hunt deer, shooting recklessly as well and not paying much attention to the dogs they're using as hunting tools either, dogs who run off and get lost. And apparently, some landowners have complained (not, it seems, because they're terribly worried about deer or dogs, but because the dogs end up on their property). But the state government (and apparently even the federal government now) has moved to protect hunters' so-called right to do whatever they want, rather than protect animals, public safety, or other non-hunting humans.
Watch how this played out--how the federal and state governments went from moving to limit hunting and promote safety to trying to entrench and protect hunters' practices in law; it's nauseating-fascinating:
Wisconsin Encourages 10-Year-Olds to Hunt, No Safety Training Required
Published June 23, 2009 @ 02:00PM PT
Note: I removed the photo that was included here because of increasing discomfort with how visible the kids' faces were. The photo showed too very young boys posing with a gun about as big as their bodies and a dead bloody-mouthed deer.
The state of Wisconsin is worried that not as many people are hunting these days, but they have a plan: start legally arming grade school kids.
The legislature has passed, and the governor is expected to sign, a bill making it easier for children to hunt, by lowering the legal age from 12 to 10 (that's fourth or fifth grade) and by removing safety-training requirements.
Now the kids--according to the law, and we could have a whole other conversation about how likely it is that all the points of law will be (or currently are) followed by everyone--need merely be accompanied by an adult, with only one weapon between them and with the adult staying within arm's length of the child. And I want to be clear: it is my understanding that there was a safety training requirement when only kids 12 years and older were allowed to wield deadly weapons and kill animals for fun, but now that the kids will be two years younger, two years less mature, and two years less responsible, no more safety requirement--and they're "offer[ing] youngsters reduced license fees in an effort to preserve the state's hunting culture" too. Someone, please, explain the logic to me. Explain to me how arming "youngsters" is a good idea.
Oh wait--here's the logic:
