Or, why hating cops may be the most environmentally sustainable decision you can make in your life
by Panagioti / Earth First! Newswire
Imagine being an environmental activist in a world where police can get away with killing young people for vandalizing a fast food joint; where a government’s local law enforcers are collaborating with giant energy corporations to stifle opposition; where a sheriff demands funding for a program urging neighbors to snitch on anyone who says they hate said government.
The police state in effect at 2013 RNC in Tampa.
Sadly it doesn’t take much imagination, does it? In case you weren’t inspired to click the embedded links above, they reference recent stories of these things occurring in the US.
In light of this reality, it’s crystal clear that global ecology will never be stabilized as long as the police have anything to do with it.
That’s right. Stopping the tar sands’ atmospheric climate bomb, keeping GMOs out of our food, and defending wolves’ ability to restore biodiversity depends on getting rid of the fuzz. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new movement initiative that aims to reduce the CO2 parts per million (ppm) by simultaneously slashing the cpms (cops per million). Cops are not only the industrial empire’s first line of defense against, well, us. They are also massive usurpers of the public financial resources that might otherwise be put towards restoring the Earth.
Where the Earth First! movement was once known for its epic wilderness corridor proposals in the ‘80s which became a basic foundation for the future of conservation biology, I think this plan too will shape the face of the ecology to come. Continue reading
Major US TV channels are promoting hysterical and outdated ideas about wildlife in popular, blood-soaked shows
Wolves are depicted as “mean, ferocious animals and they can tear a man apart real easy” on TV, despite evidence to the contrary. Photograph: Alamy
by Adam Welz / The Guardian
Most people’s wild beasts live in the TV.
What I mean is that, in my experience, most people are highly unlikely to come eyeball-to-eyeball with a large wild animal in their everyday lives, and much of their knowledge of wildlife comes from a screen.
If you’re North American or get US-produced satellite TV, you’ve probably learned a lot about wildlife from outlets like the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and History. You might trust these channels because you’ve seen educational, factually accurate shows on them, unlike the ‘trashy’ material that dominates free-to-air network TV.
But not everything on on these ‘factual’ channels might be as ethical or even as accurate as you might think, and the implications for conservation could be profound.
Photograph by Joel Sartore/NGS
by the Center for Biological Diversity
In a move questioned by some of the world’s leading wolf researchers, the Obama administration announced plans today to prematurely strip Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves across most of the lower 48 states, abruptly ending one of America’s most important species recovery programs. The proposal concludes that wolf protection in the continental United States, in place since 1978, is no longer needed, even though there are fledgling populations in places like the Pacific Northwest whose survival hinges on continued federal protection. Continue reading
Barry Lopez, Of Wolves and Men / Animal Post
“Ever since man first began to wonder about wolves…he has made regular business of killing them. At first glance the reasons are simple enough and justifiable…. But the wolf is fundamentally different because the history of killing wolves showed far less restraint and far more perversity. Killing wolves has to do with fear based on superstitions. It has to do with duty. It has to do with proving manhood. The most visible motive, and the one that best explains the excess of killing, is a type of fear: theriophobia. Fear of the beast. Fear of the beast as an irrational, violent, insatiable creature.”
by Ron Meador / the Minnesota Post
The court’s logic would seem to mean that nobody can have standing to challenge the wolf hunt in court, for any reason whatsoever. (photo: CC/Flickr/Todd Ryburn)
Whether you’re for or against the killing of wolves for sport, you might think the public has a right to be heard on a matter so enduringly contentious and emotional.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) thinks otherwise and so, apparently, does the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
News reports on Tuesday’s perfunctory dismissal of a challenge to the new trapping and hunting seasons have cited the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to raise objections, but didn’t explain the legal reasoning behind it.
And I was frankly scratching my head, because questions of standing usually seem to turn on such factors as having a demonstrable stake in the issues (no injury, no standing) or whether a lawsuit was filed in the correct jurisdiction, etc. Continue reading
Cross Posted from Animal Connection
WASHINGTON— In two sharply worded letters sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today, prominent scientists argued for continued protections for gray wolves across the lower 48 states and criticized a draft federal proposal to remove those protections for being premature and failing to follow the best available science. One of the letters came from the American Society of Mammalogists, the other from 16 prominent biologists.
“The science simply doesn’t support removal of protections for wolves,” said Dr. Brad Bergstrom with the American Society of Mammalogists. “Wolves are altogether absent or barely beginning to recover in large swathes of the country that still contain excellent habitat.”
Signatories to the letter include several scientists who conducted research that’s relied on by the government in its draft proposed rule. Those scientists are now criticizing the agency for misrepresenting their work, stating: “Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule,” and “We do not believe that the rule reflects the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves.”
“No animal is more important to the North American landscape than gray wolves,” said Bergstrom. “The science shows that wolves are not yet recovered in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rockies and the Northeast.”