Really Obama? REALLY????
Since before the elections I have had my doubts as to whether Obama was truly pro-environment. Yesterday he proved that he is not, by cutting a deal with the state of Wyoming to slaughter the wolf population in the state. The deal provides protection for the wolves within Yellowstone, creates a Trophy Game Management Area where licenses will be sold so trophy hunters can prove their manhood, and allows for a shoot on site policy in the rest of the state.
If the wolves within the Trophy Game Management Area are threatening livestock they will take out entire packs using helicopters. There was outrage when Sarah Palin bragged about doing this in Alaska - well, Obama just put himself in a helicopter in Wyoming doing the same thing - not literally mind you but his allowing of such a policy puts him right there next to the person doing the gunning down. Permits can be applied for to take the same action against wolves in the rest of the state.
Thank goodness the Yellowstone population is still protected but any wolf that wanders outside of the invisible boundaries of the park will do so with a target on its back.
People who lobbied for the open season on wolves claim it is for the sake of the livestock because wolves are evil killers. The facts are that less than 1% of all livestock losses in areas where wolves exist are due to wolf predation. Countrywide losses due to predators are only about 5%. Since many ranchers lease public lands at a very cheap price I for one believe a small loss due to the predators they share that land with is a small price to pay for being allowed to use our public lands for grazing.
Another argument is that fewer wolves mean more elk, and yes this is true. But when the elk herds get too big people complain there are too many, they get sick, they spread disease, they eat hay intended for livestock.... In 2008 ranchers around Yellowstone (the same ones lobbying against the wolves) were lobbying to cull the elk herds around the park due to the fact that elk were spreading brucellosis to cattle! A quote from 2008 - "We've got way too many elk," said John Scully, a rancher living in Montana's Madison Valley. "Clearly with so many elk, the risk rises. We need to reduce their numbers." (quote taken from an Associated Press article 7/6/2008)
Yet these same ranchers want to get rid of a predator that can help do this the natural way! The real problem with the mentality of many of the ranchers is they believe they should control and sterilize any land they are using. They put poison down gopher holes to kill the gophers, they put out carcasses laden with poisons to kill small predators like coyotes (how many birds, including Bald Eagles, die from these same carcasses every year?). Wolves, and predators in general, create a balance between ungulates and the land but ranchers and trophy hunters don't want a balance and they don't want nature to be part of that "balance" - they want to forcibly try to create an environment that favors the cattle or favors giant trophy game - to heck with the natural balance, it's all about me.
Please don't think I am anti-hunting, I'm not. Humans are a part of the food chain and hunting to put food in your freezer is a natural thing. Hunting to watch something die so you can mount it on your wall is nothing more than an ego trip.
What lead to this new wolf plan in Wyoming? In April a provision was attached to a budget bill stripping endangered status from the Northern Rockies gray wolf population. It is the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act (lobbied for and signed into law by President Nixon in 1973) that Congress forcibly removed protections from a plant or animal. The provision was challenged in court but on Monday of this week the judge ruled it was indeed constitutional. He was not happy in having to make that decision though - Judge Molloy wrote: "The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law." Hunting is going to be allowed in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana as a result of this law (ugh).. But this rant is about Wyoming.
The illegal stripping of the Endangered Species Act by congress (and it's subsequent signing by our president) did NOT include Wyoming due to concerns among federal officials over a law allowing the predators to be shot on sight across most of the state. YET, in spite of those concerns Wyoming and the Department of the Interior, headed by Obama's appointment as the head of the Interior Department Secretary Salazar, opened up season on wolves in that state and included the provisions for aerial shooting of entire packs. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? I have to question what kind of payoffs Obama and his lackeys in the Interior Department are getting? As Americans this should concern all of us - if they are caving into pressure or financial rewards with this issue they are doing the same with many issues.
We have elections coming up soon. Everyone who believes our president is pro-environment needs to remember this decision. Even though he won't physically be in the helicopter taking aim at the wolves, it is because of him and his administration that others will be doing so.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then and have known ever since that there was something new to me in those eyes, something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view." Aldo Leopold, Think Like A Mountain
If the wolves within the Trophy Game Management Area are threatening livestock they will take out entire packs using helicopters. There was outrage when Sarah Palin bragged about doing this in Alaska - well, Obama just put himself in a helicopter in Wyoming doing the same thing - not literally mind you but his allowing of such a policy puts him right there next to the person doing the gunning down. Permits can be applied for to take the same action against wolves in the rest of the state.
Thank goodness the Yellowstone population is still protected but any wolf that wanders outside of the invisible boundaries of the park will do so with a target on its back.
People who lobbied for the open season on wolves claim it is for the sake of the livestock because wolves are evil killers. The facts are that less than 1% of all livestock losses in areas where wolves exist are due to wolf predation. Countrywide losses due to predators are only about 5%. Since many ranchers lease public lands at a very cheap price I for one believe a small loss due to the predators they share that land with is a small price to pay for being allowed to use our public lands for grazing.
Another argument is that fewer wolves mean more elk, and yes this is true. But when the elk herds get too big people complain there are too many, they get sick, they spread disease, they eat hay intended for livestock.... In 2008 ranchers around Yellowstone (the same ones lobbying against the wolves) were lobbying to cull the elk herds around the park due to the fact that elk were spreading brucellosis to cattle! A quote from 2008 - "We've got way too many elk," said John Scully, a rancher living in Montana's Madison Valley. "Clearly with so many elk, the risk rises. We need to reduce their numbers." (quote taken from an Associated Press article 7/6/2008)
Yet these same ranchers want to get rid of a predator that can help do this the natural way! The real problem with the mentality of many of the ranchers is they believe they should control and sterilize any land they are using. They put poison down gopher holes to kill the gophers, they put out carcasses laden with poisons to kill small predators like coyotes (how many birds, including Bald Eagles, die from these same carcasses every year?). Wolves, and predators in general, create a balance between ungulates and the land but ranchers and trophy hunters don't want a balance and they don't want nature to be part of that "balance" - they want to forcibly try to create an environment that favors the cattle or favors giant trophy game - to heck with the natural balance, it's all about me.
Please don't think I am anti-hunting, I'm not. Humans are a part of the food chain and hunting to put food in your freezer is a natural thing. Hunting to watch something die so you can mount it on your wall is nothing more than an ego trip.
What lead to this new wolf plan in Wyoming? In April a provision was attached to a budget bill stripping endangered status from the Northern Rockies gray wolf population. It is the first time in the history of the Endangered Species Act (lobbied for and signed into law by President Nixon in 1973) that Congress forcibly removed protections from a plant or animal. The provision was challenged in court but on Monday of this week the judge ruled it was indeed constitutional. He was not happy in having to make that decision though - Judge Molloy wrote: "The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law." Hunting is going to be allowed in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana as a result of this law (ugh).. But this rant is about Wyoming.
The illegal stripping of the Endangered Species Act by congress (and it's subsequent signing by our president) did NOT include Wyoming due to concerns among federal officials over a law allowing the predators to be shot on sight across most of the state. YET, in spite of those concerns Wyoming and the Department of the Interior, headed by Obama's appointment as the head of the Interior Department Secretary Salazar, opened up season on wolves in that state and included the provisions for aerial shooting of entire packs. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? I have to question what kind of payoffs Obama and his lackeys in the Interior Department are getting? As Americans this should concern all of us - if they are caving into pressure or financial rewards with this issue they are doing the same with many issues.
We have elections coming up soon. Everyone who believes our president is pro-environment needs to remember this decision. Even though he won't physically be in the helicopter taking aim at the wolves, it is because of him and his administration that others will be doing so.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then and have known ever since that there was something new to me in those eyes, something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view." Aldo Leopold, Think Like A Mountain
Posts
2 comments:
No doubt this is a terrible decision Obama made, but let's not cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face by allowing a Republican president to get elected! Obama's record on the environment is a dream compared to Palin's or the others. It would be more productive to vent our anger to those in office now. Please take productive action now.
No question that Bush was a complete zero on the environment..............but the Obama Administration barely has a better record.........I voted for Christie Whitman(Repub) when she was Govenor of NJ...........she put forth a bill preserving 50% of the remaining forest land in the State..........I also voted for Gov Pataki of NY who put aside more land than any NY Govenor save Teddy Roosevelt(Repub as well)....If the Repubs embraced this issue and took it easy on the abortion issue,,,,,,,they with their fiscal prescription would win every election(in my opinion)
Post a Comment