Category Archives: News Feed

Updates and other news

How livestock endangers biodiversity, and why it matters

Posted on by

The following is an excerpt from Living the Farm Sanctuary Life, which was just released by Rodale Books:

Possibly the most chilling effect of the livestock industry is how it alters our planet in ways that change its composition forever. Duncan Williamson, food policy manager at the World Wildlife Fund, UK, estimates that approximately 30 percent of global biodiversity loss can be attributed to aspects of livestock production. Our planet is rich in biodiversity, meaning it hosts an enormous variety of life-forms. And healthy ecosystems comprise a complex system of millions of interrelated species. Insects, bats, and birds pollinate flowers and feed on pests. Microbial species live on, and in, plants and animals, and are especially abundant in soils. These creatures serve to maintain balance and recycle nutrients so that life can regenerate, convert atmospheric nitrogen to soil nitrogen compounds vital for plant growth, and live in association with plant roots to facilitate the uptake of water and nutrients.

How Does Livestock Production Alter Biodiversity?
For one, via the spread of grazing and crop-land. Turning forests and savannas over to agriculture–especially animal agriculture, because it requires so much land–destroys native plant and animal species and their habitat. In addition, animal farming saps soil nutrients and pollutes the environment as waste runoff from farms causes algae blooms that consume oxygen in water, killing essential bacteria and destroying healthy ecosystems. During most summers today, between 13,000 and 20,000 square kilometers at the mouth of the Mississippi River become a “dead zone” due to agricultural runoff. Nearly 400 dead zones ranging in size from 1 to more than 70,000 square kilometers have been identified, from the Scandinavian fjords to the South China Sea.

In addition to crowding out native ecosystems and the land’s natural biodiversity, modern farmers grow only a handful of crops for animal feed, which further reduces plant biodiversity. Public health scientists at Harvard University have estimated that just 15 plant species constitute more than 90 percent of those grown to support global livestock production.

Why We Need to Preserve Biodiversity
The earth’s ecosystems are delicate and complex, and scientists warn that such a drastic reduction in biodiversity could be catastrophic, especially when compounded by climate change. As the Harvard scientists write, “Genetic diversity in crops reduces the odds of crop failure secondary to changing weather, protects against the spread of plant diseases and attack by plant pests, and can lead to greater yields. As agriculture continues to rely on fewer and fewer species and varieties of crops and livestock, and as wild relatives are increasingly threatened, the need to preserve the genetic diversity of crop species and domestic animals for future generations grows steadily.” Shifting away from animal agriculture would free up millions of acres that could be returned to their more natural state, allowing balanced, diverse ecosystems to function.

As you can see, the effects of an animal-based diet create a vicious cycle. Livestock contribute significantly to the release of gases that hasten global warming while simultaneously making our environment much more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The livestock industry deprives the planet of water and space while making it impossible to accommodate the expected population growth in the coming decades.

At Farm Sanctuary, we follow a plant-based diet that seeks to reverse these ominous trends. Living in harmony with animals and the environment is not simply a matter of being in nature and communing with our fellow creatures. It’s also about acknowledging that communing with animals rather than eating them is the healthiest choice that we can make for the planet and the future generations that will inhabit it. Plus it makes the animals happy (I couldn’t help but throw that in there).

Wild Vertebrate Populations Have Dropped 52% Since 1970

Posted on by

The World Wildlife Fund‘s annual Living Planet Report surveys over 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. The 2014 report has just been released and it shows populations of wild vertebrate species declined 52 percent between 1970 and 2010. The report points the finger at habitat loss and destruction and the exploitation of animal populations as the primary causes of the die-off. The effects of climate change are also having a significant impact and are anticipated to have an even greater impact in the future. While the WWF admits the report “is not for the faint-hearted,” they hope that the information will prove useful so “humanity can make better choices that translate into clear benefits for ecology, society and the economy today and in the long term.”

The statistical breakdowns in the report are disturbing reading indeed: terrestrial and marine species declined by 39 percent over the 40-year period, while freshwater species declined by 76 percent. For the populations where threats could be identified and monitored, responsibility for population decline was attributed to exploitation 37 percent of the time, habitat degradation or change 31.4 percent of the time, habitat loss 13.4 percent, and climate change 7.1 percent. Other threats identified were invasive species or genes, pollution and disease. To break it down further, including the good news and the bad news, the WWF have produced an excellent infographic showing the impact of human activity on biodiversity….

For the full article, click here.

Wildlife services: Death from the air (taxpayer funded)

Posted on by

Wildlife Services: Death from the Air
by wolf advocate and author Rick Lamplugh
From his Facebook page

Each of the 58 wolf-paw stickers adorning this Wildlife Services aircraft represents a wolf kill. This photo surfaced in 2011, after the federal agency had stopped using the stickers. But they haven’t stopped aerial gunning. Just last month, their gunners in helicopters slaughtered 19 wolves in the remote Lolo region of Idaho. The killing was kept secret until recently.

While I shake my head in disgust at this agency’s mission and methods, I find another bitter pill to swallow: all of us help fund Wildlife Services with our tax dollars. The amount paid by taxes is reduced by income from what the agency calls “cooperators”—counties, public institutions, private businesses, or special interest groups that want animals removed and will pay the agency’s bargain rate. Idaho’s Department of Fish and Game paid Wildlife Services to deliver death from above the Lolo wolves.

The other four Rocky Mountain wolf states also use the agency. Here’s how much was spent in each state in 2013 (most recent data) and the percentage of that total paid by taxpayers. Idaho—site of the recent slaughter—managed to get us taxpayers to pick up three-quarters of the tab for their wildlife killing.

Wyoming spent $4,254,043, and taxpayers paid 36%
Washington spent $3,832,996, and taxpayers paid 57%
Oregon spent $3,628,846, and taxpayers paid 37%
Montana spent $3,077,910, and taxpayers paid 52%
Idaho spent $2,066,106, and taxpayers paid 75%

While Wildlife Services reports the amount paid for their deadly work, they do not reveal the reasons for removal or exactly what they did. That secrecy is one of critics’ biggest complaints. “Wildlife Services is one of the most opaque and obstinate departments I’ve dealt with,” said U.S. Representative Peter Defazio. “We’re really not sure what they’re doing.” Defazio—then the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources—questioned the agency about its lethal methods and poisons. He’s still waiting for an answer.

Defazio is not alone in his wondering. In late 2013, the US Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General announced that it would audit Wildlife Services. Tom Knudson, from the Center for Investigative Reporting, reported recently that the audit still hasn’t been released. When it will come out and what it will find is anyone’s guess, he says.

Knudson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning environment reporter, once asked to observe Wildlife Services’ lethal predator control in action on public land in Nevada. Their answer: NO. Knudson says he was shocked because, “Even the military allows reporters into the field on its missions overseas. Here at home, on land owned by all Americans, Wildlife Services does not.”

Wildlife Services has operated under various identities and hidden within different departments for more than 100 years. Some say it helped clear the West for our nation’s expansion. But times have changed and so have public attitudes about protecting wildlife. It’s time for Wildlife Services to stop the senseless carnage, to be open about what they do, and to focus on nonlethal control.

As always, I’d love to read your comments on this issue. I most appreciate comments free of cursing or threats.

To read Tom Knudson’s latest report on Wildlife Services: http://bit.ly/1baAr9k

Rick Lamplugh is a wolf advocate and author of the bestseller In the Temple of Wolves
To order an eBook or paperback: http://amzn.to/Jpea9Q
For a signed copy from the author: http://bit.ly/1gYghB4

Essential species quiz

Posted on by

Here is a short multiple-choice quiz to test your knowledge of our fellow animals.

Instructions: Choose the species that best fit the descriptions below.

Note: Although some may share a few of the characteristics, they must meet all the criteria listed in order to qualify as a correct answer.

1. Which two species fit the following description?
Highly social
Live in established communities
Master planners and builders of complex, interconnected dwellings
Have a language
Can readily learn and invent words
Greet one another by kissing

A. Humans
B. Prairie Dogs
C. Dolphins
D. Penguins

Answer: A. and B

2. Which two species fit the following description?
Practice communal care of the youngsters on their block
Beneficial to others who share their turf
Essential to the health of their environment
Without them an ecosystem unravels
Have been reduced to a tiny portion of their original population
Vegetarian

A. Humans
B. Prairie Dogs
C. Bison
D. Hyenas

Answer: B. and C.

3. Which two species fit the following description?
Out of control pest
Multiplying at a phenomenal pace
Physically crowding all other life forms off the face of the earth
Characterized by a swellheaded sense of superiority
Convinced they are of far greater significance than any other being
Nonessential in nature’s scheme

A. Humans
B. Prairie Dogs
C. Cockroaches
D. Sewer Rats

Answer: Sorry, trick question; the only species fitting the criteria is A.

If this seems a harsh assessment of the human race or a tad bit misanthropic, remember, we’re talking about the species that single-handedly and with malice aforethought blasted, burned and poisoned the passenger pigeon (at one time the most numerous bird on the entire planet) to extinction and has nearly wiped out the blue whale (by far the largest animal the world has ever known). Add to those crowning achievements the near-total riddance of the world’s prairie dogs, thereby putting the squeeze on practically all their grassland comrades, and you can start to see where this sort of disrelish might be coming from.

When the dust settles on man’s reign of terror, he will be best remembered as an egomaniacal mutant carnivorous ape who squandered nature’s gifts and goose-stepped on towards mass extinction, in spite of warnings from historians and scientists and pleas from the caring few…

Click here for the original article.

Predator control: the problem of thinking linearly in a multi-dimensional world

Posted on by

By Bod Ferris, 5 Feb. 2015

“These results should serve as a cautionary tale for those wishing to increase ungulate numbers via predator control without regard to other ecological factors, such as the proximity of the prey population to ecological carrying capacity (K).” in Abstract of “Population density of Dall’s sheep in Alaska: effects of predator harvest” from Mitchell et al. (2015) in Mammal Research Vol. 60 pp. 21-28

If there is one thing that we are learning of late in regards to lethal predator control, it is that the myth of its broad efficacy and appropriateness has been whittled away to nearly nothing and the shavings are still coming off. Unfortunately the transmission of the news of that happenstance and its acceptance by some in the population seem to be working about as well as trickle-down economics is for 99% percent of Americans.

I have written about this topic a lot over the last 20 years and the conclusions seem to be about the same: Predators generally do not drive down prey populations in the absence of other—usually more important—habitat issues. An exception seems to be when depressed populations are low and not hampered by habitat constraints then predators can slow recovery. But even this example is problematic as one has to ask why, if habitat was not an issue, did the populations become depressed in the first place? Mismanagement? Disease?

The study quoted above coming out of Alaska and looking at Dall’s sheep is one more indication that the lethal control of predators—while appealing to those who think linearly (i.e., simply in terms of prey versus predator numbers)—can be tricky when you throw in other factors (dimensions) such as availability of escape habitat, severity of winters and the prey population’s closeness to carrying capacity.

This Alaska study looked at areas where lethal control was employed and those where it was not. And while populations climbed quicker in those areas where predators were killed, some of those gains were erased (and then some) when those populations hit the carrying capacity wall and starved during winter.

Most wildlife biologists understand and embrace the above. The problems come when these professionals try to explain the complexities and the need for caution to a sector of the public that has been allowed and even encouraged to think that dead wolves, coyotes, and lions always mean more deer, elk and sheep. This situation is not helped when fish and wildlife commissions are too heavily influenced by livestock interests mistakenly echoing the same call for control. And the climb out of this pit of predator prejudice is further hampered because it is all happening within regulatory settings and agency cultures—particularly in the West—that have historically treated predators as unwanted and undeserving of much in the way of consideration and thought.
“As trained scientists, Idaho Fish and Game stands by our data and our wildlife management plans. We manage wolves to ensure we keep state management authority and address conflicts with people, livestock, and other big game populations.” Statement by Virgil Moore, Director, Idaho Fish and Game January 29, 2015

Unfortunately while the solutions to much of the above are obvious —follow science and sound management prescriptions —the path forward is not and the mountain left to climb is very steep. Evidence of the extent of this challenge is clear when we read items like the recent statement by Mr. Moore above. In this release he talks about maintaining management authority, people, livestock and big game populations but nowhere in that statement is a clear or even implied commitment to continued recovery of wolves or any hint of this keystone species’ ecological value. While it is great to have truckloads of wildlife scientists, if the voices of ranchers and trophy hunters are treated as trump cards the quality and volume of science has little value. And the above from Idaho is by no means unusual or the worst. The rhetoric around the discharge of respected wildlife biologist Ken Mayer in Nevada took this rancher-influenced, pro-lethal control ethos and ecological ignorance to an art form (please see 1,2).

“I’m sure most of the people being considered for his [Mayer’s] job graduated from a college,” he said. “These people are the cause of the destruction of wildlife.” Cliff Gardner, 74, a rancher in Nevada’s remote Ruby Valley. In “Ouster Sharpens Debate on Sage Grouse”

All sea change takes time particularly when there are economic interests standing in strong opposition to knowledge and progress. But I and many other biologists long for the day when wildlife agencies in the West and elsewhere are run by folks who stand up for what current science says and are overseen by those who embrace and understand science as well as set aside their self-interests in favor of those of the wildlife and habitats under their care.

Click here for the original article.

Lawsuit challenges Wildlife Service’s killing of wolves

Posted on by

Indian Country Today Media Network

The second lawsuit in three weeks has been filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Wildlife Services program over the federally sanctioned killing of wolves and other wildlife.

Most recently the Western Environmental Law Center filed suit in U.S. District Court in Seattle on March 3 on behalf of five conservation groups, alleging that Wildlife Services has overstepped its authority in killing wolves to protect livestock. The agency’s efforts are based on outdated analysis of how to deal with wildlife, the complaint states, and more often than not the job is bungled—as with the shooting last year of the female leader of a wolf pack instead of another wolf that had been seen attacking livestock, Reuters reported.

“Wildlife Services’ activities related to wolves in Washington have been extremely harmful,” said Western Environmental Law Center attorney John Mellgren in a statement. “The science tells us that killing wolves does not actually reduce wolf-livestock conflicts, but Wildlife Services is continuing its brutal assault on this iconic animal, and it needs to stop.”

In mid-February, five conservation groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Idaho over what they called the indiscriminate killing of wolves, coyotes and other wildlife, the Associated Press reported on February 13.

“The lawsuit notes that the federal agency in 2013 killed more than 200,000 animals, much of that number representing the killing of birds that can pose problems on cattle feedlots or dairies,” AP said of the Idaho lawsuit. “The agency in 2013 also killed 2,739 coyotes and 79 wolves.”

Both suits allege that Wildlife Services’ actions are antithetical to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies conduct thorough environmental analyses of the effects of their activities. The Idaho lawsuit also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as defendants because the groups allege that it is inadequately enforcing the Endangered Species Act by not challenging Wildlife Services, AP said.

The Endangered Species Act protects wolves in the western two-thirds of Washington State, according to Reuters, but in eastern Washington, protection is up to the state. The same is true in both Idaho and Montana, Reuters said.

In western Washington, the Wildlife Service’s activities constitute negligence under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an in-depth environmental impact statement, said the Washington plaintiffs—Cascadia Wildlands, WildEarth Guardians, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Predator Defense and The Lands Council.

“The agency completed a less-detailed environmental assessment, but the document contains significant gaps and does not address specific issues that will significantly impact wolves and the human environment,” the groups’ statement said. “The EA prepared by Wildlife Services fails to provide data to support several of its core assertions. For example, Wildlife Services claims that killing wolves reduces wolf-caused losses of livestock, yet recent peer-reviewed research from Washington State University directly contradicts this conclusion, finding that killing wolves actually leads to an increase in wolf-livestock conflicts. The EA also fails to address the ecological effects of killing wolves in Washington, including impacts on wolf populations in neighboring states and on non-target animals, including federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynx.”

Wolf culling is causing controversy in several states and at least one Canadian province.

Click HERE for the original article.

Is trapping doomed?

Posted on by

Tom Reed
High Country Times, April 12, 1999

The day after Christmas 1997 is a day that Liz Kehr shudders to remember.

Kehr and her husband, Kevin Feist, live in the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana, snug against Glacier National Park. It’s a place where publicly owned land stretches for miles in all directions, though in the past 10 years the valley has boomed with more and more people moving in. Flathead County swelled from 59,218 people in 1990, to an estimated 71,707 in 1997.

It’s an outdoor community where many people enjoy hunting and fishing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling – and trapping.

Kehr chokes up when she recalls Dec. 26, 1997, an overcast day with snow threatening and everything washed in the gray of a northwestern Montana winter. Kehr was out for a little afternoon skiing, a chance to burn off some holiday sloth and exercise her two dogs. She chose the Trail Creek road, which is often impassable to even four-wheel drive vehicles but still sees heavy use from snowmobilers and cross-country skiers. Near Kalispell, the road is on public land – the Flathead National Forest.

With her were Tara and Buddy, the family’s two mutts. A year before, Buddy, a good-natured dog with a seemingly perpetual grin, had come to Kevin and Liz’s house, a stray looking for a home.

“It was like he picked us,” remembers Kehr.

Now, Buddy was part of the family. Leaving her car parked beside a few others, Kehr moved up the road, following the ruts made by other skiers and enjoying the rhythmic squeak of the snow beneath her skis. Two miles up the trail, Buddy peeled off to investigate some smells. He had moved just out of sight behind a snow berm, less than 50 feet from Kehr, when “there was this horrible screaming sound,” she says. “It was Buddy, and he had this thing around his neck. I didn’t even know what it was.”

The dog had come across some raw chicken parts in a white bucket. At the mouth of the bucket was a Conibear 220, a steel trap designed primarily to catch and kill beaver, otter and raccoon. Buddy had gone for the chicken and gotten the trap.

When new, a Conibear 220 exerts an impressive 90 pounds of pressure per square inch. It can break a human hand, and it is designed to quickly kill whatever it catches. It is among a family of so-called humane traps that dispatch an animal rather than hold it by a foot or leg.

It also requires some knowledge to use. Springs line the sides of the trap and must be squeezed in order to release or unspring the trap. It usually takes a strong person using both hands to squeeze each spring. If you know how to open it, you have between three and eight minutes to save an animal from suffocation.

This was the contraption that Kehr was faced with, a trap she had never seen or even heard of. A high-pitched scream came from Buddy as the Conibear clamped around his throat. Her other dog barked frantically, running in circles. Kehr wrenched off her skis and threw aside her ski poles, screaming for help. She struggled to figure out how to release Buddy as the dog thrashed in pain. Kehr is a small woman, barely five foot three.

“I was just pouring sweat, trying to figure this thing out,” remembers Kehr, her voice trembling. “Then I finally figured out how to release it and I couldn’t. I didn’t have enough strength. I worked and worked on it and I moved it, but it only made it worse for Buddy. Cut off more air. Which was probably good. He was really suffering.”

She squeezed the springs to no avail and called for help for what seemed like a long time. Finally, Buddy’s howls of pain quieted, though Kehr still tried to free him. “I heard voices and Bob and Laurie showed up.”

Bob and Laurie Muth were neighbors out for an afternoon ski. Bob helped pry Buddy out of the trap. “But he was gone,” says Kehr.

“I’ve never seen anything as traumatic as this girl trying to raise the dog from the trap,” Bob Muth later told a local newspaper.
…..
The fight to ban it all

But is there a “need to trap’? No, say a half-dozen animal-rights groups around the country.

“We’re not going to rest until body-gripping traps are banned from all of the states,” says Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States. With 6.7 million members, the Humane Society is the largest animal protection group in the world.

“There’s this stubborn attitude among trappers that “By God, this is my lifestyle, and I’m not going to change,” “””says Pacelle. “Trappers have been coddled by the state agencies for so long, and the state agencies have been controlled by hunters and trappers for so long, that trappers haven’t been held accountable until recent years.”

It is in the 1990s that animal-rights groups have made significant inroads in the fight to ban commercial and recreational trapping. In 1992, voters in Arizona were asked to vote on Proposition 200, which proposed a ban on leghold, instant kill, and snare traps on public lands. That measure was rejected, only to reappear in 1994 as Proposition 201. It passed.

In 1996, voters in Colorado and Massachusetts approved similar laws that included both public and private lands.

This spring, state lawmakers in Oregon are debating Senate Bill 599, which would prohibit the trapping of wildlife for recreation or commerce. Trapping is on its way out, maintains Pacelle.

“We’re taking it to the next tier,” he says, noting that states such as Nevada, Washington and Maine could pass similar laws in the coming years.

Click HERE for the full article.

A baited conibear trap near trail killed my dog

Posted on by

Valerie Strain
Pet owner, outdoor enthusiast and founder of No Traps on Trails
20 February 2015

It started out as a normal afternoon walk through the woods near our home in the Kawarthas; cottage country near Peterborough, Ontario. It was a beautiful December day. My friend and I set out with my two yellow labs, George and Gracie, on a well-used snowmobile trail on Crown Land. The dogs were a bit ahead of us but within sight. Suddenly, George yelped and I knew he was in trouble. The dogs had been lured to a baited kill-trap and George’s head was caught. He died a slow death while I struggled unsuccessfully to free him.

The dangerous “conibear” trap that killed George was set within a few feet of the trail. We were shocked to learn from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that there are no rules in Ontario about how close to trails traps can be set and no requirement to notify the public that they are there. There does not seem to be any way for the public to find out where traplines are — they could be anywhere on Crown Land, on your neighbour’s property, even in Provincial Parks and you wouldn’t know. Tourism groups promote our great outdoor spaces and show families cross-country skiing or hiking with their dogs running beside them off-leash. I’d like to know where it’s safe to do that.

The reality is that it’s not only pets that are at risk. Anyone using a trail could easily stumble upon an unmarked hunting trap. While leashes are one way to keep dogs close, many pet owners use extendable leashes that can reach up to 20 feet. And there’s nothing to prevent someone from setting a trap closer than that to a trail.

My husband and I both grew up in rural areas and we thought we knew all the potential hazards of the woods. But we had no idea the risk we were taking every time we took our dogs out on this trail. One of our responsibilities as pet owners is to keep them safe. We failed George in that regard.

We don’t want this to happen to another family pet, or worse, a curious child. That’s why my family started the No Traps on Trails Campaign including a Change.org petition. In just over a week, more than 43,000 people signed their names and lent their support. Many have shared their own experiences with encountering baited traps. Unfortunately, we are not the only family to experience a traumatic loss because of an unmarked trap.

We’re gratified that our petition has caught the attention of MPP Bill Mauro, Ontario’s Minister of Natural Resources, who has asked his staff to review current trapping regulations. Mauro told the CBC, “…it’s also about young children that could be walking with their families on the trails. I just want to look into it. I think it’s a legitimate issue.”

Here are our recommendations to Minister Mauro:

1. Improve trapping practices and regulations by setting a minimum trapping distance from public trails and roadways, and marking trails that run near traplines.

2. Launch a public awareness initiative to promote safe practices, including an online map showing where registered traplines are.

Our goal is to enable the public to avoid traps and traplines; a goal that we hope everyone, including trappers, can support. Other jurisdictions have already successfully addressed this issue.

We are still struggling with the experience of losing George in such a horrific way. My family hopes we can turn this terrible tragedy into a positive force for change. More than 43,000 Canadians — and counting — are insisting on it.

Petition: change.org/notrapsontrails
Facebook: notrapsontrails
twitter: @notrapsontrails

See the full article here

Humanity is in the “Existential Danger Zone,” study confirms

Posted on by

January 22, 2015, by James Dyke

The Earth’s climate has always changed. All species eventually become extinct. But a new study has brought into sharp relief the fact that humans have, in the context of geological timescales, produced near instantaneous planetary-scale disruption. We are sowing the seeds of havoc on the Earth, it suggests, and the time is fast approaching when we will reap this harvest.

This in the year that the UN climate change circus will pitch its tents in Paris. December’s Conference of the Parties will be the first time individual nations submit their proposals for their carbon emission reduction targets. Sparks are sure to fly.

The research, published in the journal Science, should focus the minds of delegates and their nations as it lays out in authoritative fashion how far we are driving the climate and other vital Earth systems beyond any safe operating space. The paper, headed by Will Steffen of the Australian National University and Stockholm Resilience Centre, concludes that our industrialised civilisation is driving a number of key planetary processes into areas of high risk.

It argues climate change along with “biodiversity integrity” should be recognised as core elements of the Earth system. These are two of nine planetary boundaries that we must remain within if we are to avoid undermining the biophysical systems our species depends upon.

The original planetary boundaries were conceived in 2009 by a team lead by Johan Rockstrom, also of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Together with his co-authors, Rockstrom produced a list of nine human-driven changes to the Earth’s system: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, alteration of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling, freshwater consumption, land use change, biodiversity loss, aerosol and chemical pollution. Each of these nine, if driven hard enough, could alter the planet to the point where it becomes a much less hospitable place on which to live.

The past 11,000 years have seen a remarkably stable climate. The name given to this most recent geological epoch is the Holocene. It is perhaps no coincidence that human civilisation emerged during this period of stability. What is certain is that our civilisation is in very important ways dependent on the Earth system remaining within or at least approximately near Holocene conditions.

This is why Rockstrom and co looked at human impacts in these nine different areas. They wanted to consider the risk of humans bringing about the end of the Holocene. Some would argue that we have already entered a new geological epoch – the Anthropocene – which recognises that Homo sapiens have become a planet-altering species. But the planetary boundaries concepts doesn’t just attempt to quantify human impacts. It seeks to understand how they may affect human welfare now, and in the future….

….
Click here for the full article.

Woflandia: the fight over the most polarizing animal in the west

Posted on by

From Outside magazine.

Twenty years after wolves were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies, many politicians would still love to see them eradicated, and hunters and ranchers are allowed to kill them by the hundreds. But the animals are not only surviving—they’re thriving, and expanding their range at a steady clip. For the people who live on the wild edges of wolf country, their presence can be magical and maddening at once.
—————

The switchbacks on the old logging road still held two-foot-deep patches of snow in late March, when we set off on four-wheelers to scout for wolf tracks in the Boise National Forest, north of Garden Valley, Idaho. The riding was easy lower down, where the hardpack traced the course of a snowmelt-swollen stream through a tight canyon. Spiny rock towers rose from the banks, disintegrating into forbidding walls of scree and timber. If you were an elk or a deer, it would be a tempting place to come for a drink, but you’d be taking your life in your hands. Wolves love a terrain trap.

As we climbed, our engines strained against the grade, mud, and snow. We were headed to a vantage point above a place called Granite Basin, where we could scan hundreds of acres of forest with spotting scopes. Zeb Redden, a 35-year-old soldier based in Fort Carson, Colorado, carried his girlfriend, Joni, on the back of his ATV. Zeb had paid Deadwood Outfitters, owned by Tom and Dawn Carter, $3,500 for the weeklong wolf hunt. I was along as an unarmed observer.

Zeb’s tricked-out, AR-15-style rifle was tucked into a scabbard built into his backpack. A couple of days before, I’d watched him drop to the prone position, press his cheek onto the stock behind his scope, and put a 7.62-millimeter round on a bull’s-eye-painted rock 600 yards away. He was deadly at long range, but he said he probably wouldn’t take a first shot at anything farther out than about 500 yards.

“I’m shooting jacketed hollow-point boat-tails, and at that distance they’ll just go right through. They won’t open up like they’re supposed to,” he’d explained. “If he’s wounded and beyond 500, I’ll keep putting lead on him. But if it’s a first shot, I’d rather get in closer.” I wondered if adrenaline would change his mind if we actually saw a wolf…..

……….
“Some people find it ironic that U.S. taxpayers paid tens of millions to restore Northern Rocky Mountain wolves under the Endangered Species Act, only to have hunters tart blowing them away as soon as they were delisted.”
……….

For the entire article please click here.