Bodies of four male sea otters, a federally protected animal whose killing can be punishable with jail time, washed up on beaches over course of eight days
Federal and state officials are investigating the shooting deaths of California sea otters, after the bodies of four male otters were found washed up on beaches near Santa Cruz.
On Monday, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced a $10,000 reward for information that will lead to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for fatally shooting three sea otters that were found between 12-19 August.
Continue reading...-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
i. A minimum population of 5,000
ii. At least 75 percent of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits;
iii. A density of population of at least 400 persons per sq. km.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Cat Wars calls for a massive assault on all free-ranging cats
“From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (Cat Wars, pp. 152-153)
In the process of writing about an on-going war on wolves (please see, for example, “Defenders of Wildlife Supports Killing Wolves: Livestock Win,” “Defenders of Wildlife = Defenders of Livestock? Why Do They Support Killing Wolves in Washington?”, and links therein), I received a new book by bird advocate Dr. Peter Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, and writer Chris Santella, called Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer.
Along with numerous other people, I've been wondering when killing “in the name of conservation” is going to stop. Some people think it's simply business as usual, and there aren't any workable non-lethal humane alternatives. Killing members of one species to save others of their species, or killing individuals of one species to save individuals of another species, is all well and good and that's the way it is. Some people say they don't like the killing but don't do much to stop it. Our human-dominated world presents numerous frustrating and complicated challenges. We're living in an epoch called the Anthropocene, the “age of humanity.” We're all over the place ― here, there, and everywhere ― and we're the cause for the unprecedented loss of other animals, their homes, and destructive climate change. Actually, we're living in the “rage of inhumanity” because there are far too many of us and we think we're the only show in town.
The move from wolves to cats was dishearteningly seamless. Simply put, the authors of Cat Wars are confirmed bird advocates and activists and foes of all free-ranging cats. To wit, their book calls for a no holds barred, one-sided war on cats, in which the authors conclude, “From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (pp. 152-153; please click here for information on the phrase “by any means necessary”). The authors use the phrase “free-ranging” to refer to feral, outdoor, and community cats.
Many of the topics they consider need to be discussed under the general umbrella centering on the ethics of pet keeping, a topic considered in detail by Psychology Today writer Dr. Jessica Pierce in her book called Run, Spot, Run: The Ethics of Keeping Pets (for an interview with Dr. Pierce please see “Are You Ready to Give Another Animal the Best Life Possible?).
Clearly, the authors are not advocating removing free-ranging cats softly, nor are they advocating any form of euthanasia or mercy killing. Rather, they are advocating outright and unregulated removal “by any means necessary.” When I asked some people what this meant to them, answers ranged from trapping, snaring, poisoning, bludgeoning, and shooting. A number of people feared we would see violence “in the name of science.”
Lest anyone say that these are hysterical responses, one only has to read the very words that Marra and Santella wrote. It's not asking too much from people to write what they mean, and although the authors surely read through their manuscript many times as did reviewers and editors, the phrase “by any means necessary” remains. Cats are vilified and no attention is paid to the emotional lives of these sentient beings.
Even those who endorsed this book can't agree on what it's actually all about. The comments on the back cover range all over the place. For example, Jonathan Franzen calls the book a “compassionate handling of a highly fraught issue,” Ted Williams sees it as a “dispassionate examination of America's free-ranging cat debacle,” whereas Scott Weidensaul claims the authors offer “commonsense solutions to one of the most polarizing issues in avian conservation.” It seems as if they didn't read the same book. In my opinion, this book is thoroughly dispassionate, and I shudder when I think that the call for an all out war on free-ranging cats “by any means necessary” could refer to anything that could possibly be called “compassionate handling” or “commonsense solutions.”
Collateral damage: In addition, the authors don't seem to care much about what's called “collateral damage,” the harming and killing of non-target species. Some of the methods of removing they sanction are incredibly non-selective and it will not only be free-ranging cats who are harmed and killed. I'm sure dogs and as well as other animals, including cats who escape the confines of their home, will be among the slaughtered.
What Cat Wars is all about
The phrase “by any means necessary” is among the most reprehensible statements I've ever seen, and of course, in addition to it being morally repugnant, it is not based on science and it won't work. And, think about the horrific lesson it offers to youngsters. The authors totally ignore the cognitive and emotional lives of cats, and view them as mere disposable objects. I'm glad I'm not their dog, and I'm surely glad I'm not their cat. The suggestion to wage war on free-ranging cats essentially lays out what this sensationalist, fear-mongering, and one-sided book is all about. I suppose one might congratulate the authors for being so transparent about their dismissive attitude.
The description for Cat Wars, published by a prestigious university press, reads:
In 1894, a lighthouse keeper named David Lyall arrived on Stephens Island off New Zealand with a cat named Tibbles. In just over a year, the Stephens Island Wren, a rare bird endemic to the island, was rendered extinct. Mounting scientific evidence confirms what many conservationists have suspected for some time―that in the United States alone, free-ranging cats are killing birds and other animals by the billions. Equally alarming are the little-known but potentially devastating public health consequences of rabies and parasitic Toxoplasma passing from cats to humans at rising rates. Cat Wars tells the story of the threats free-ranging cats pose to biodiversity and public health throughout the world, and sheds new light on the controversies surrounding the management of the explosion of these cat populations.
This compelling book traces the historical and cultural ties between humans and cats from early domestication to the current boom in pet ownership, along the way accessibly explaining the science of extinction, population modeling, and feline diseases. It charts the developments that have led to our present impasse―from Stan Temple's breakthrough studies on cat predation in Wisconsin to cat-eradication programs underway in Australia today. It describes how a small but vocal minority of cat advocates has campaigned successfully for no action in much the same way that special interest groups have stymied attempts to curtail smoking and climate change.
Cat Wars paints a revealing picture of a complex global problem―and proposes solutions that foresee a time when wildlife and humans are no longer vulnerable to the impacts of free-ranging cats.
It's difficult for me to figure out why Princeton University Press would publish this book, not because it calls for a repulsive and outright war on cats, but rather because it lacks the scientific rigor that characterizes numerous other books they've published.
“Cat people” versus “bird people”: A false dichotomy
Early in Cat Wars there is a rather insidious attack on pro-cat people as not caring about the environment and wildlife, which is most likely completely untrue. On page 28 we read, “More and more people are valuing birds and swelling the ranks of bird-watchers. Likewise, there are more cat owners in America now than at any time in history. But far fewer people, it seems, can summon affection for both cats and wildlife—and empathy for those they perceive to be on the ‘other side.' As each side has swelled in numbers, the stage has been set for ‘bird people and ‘cat people' to square off, forgetting, perhaps, that they are all animal lovers in the first place.”
It's hard to imagine that people who favor removing free-ranging cats “by any means necessary” truly love them. When I hear this I always say, “I'm glad they don't love me.” Yet, in another essay, we're told that Dr. Marra claims to like cats.
Along these lines, the third chapter of this book is called “The Rise of Bird Lovers and Cat Lovers: The Perfect Storm.” This chapter is the authors' interpretation (read: “skewed”) of the history of “bird lovers” and “cat lovers.” It concludes by saying that “Many cat advocates will aggressively contest the damage that free-ranging felines inflict upon bird populations. They will likewise deny the diseases that free-ranging cats spread to other mammals and even humans. But their hearsay and denials pale in the light of evidence of cat impacts on islands and the emerging hard science on their impacts on mainlands.” Again, the myth is repeated and developed that cat advocates are misguided, dangerous, and delusional people.
In chapter 4, titled “The Science of Decline,” the authors write, “After forty-five years of bird population decline, it seems obvious that our currently available legal instruments are failing.” (p. 55) It recognizes that human activities are “largely responsible for the declines of bird species” (p. 56) and it is “difficult to identify with any precision the relative impact of a mortality factor, such as the free-ranging cat, to all birds that make these journeys over such large spatial areas and wide expanses of time—and most bird species (>75 percent) in North America migrate!” (my emphasis; p. 57) This comment hardly supports the authors' thesis that cats are responsible for a significant number of bird deaths.
The authors then go on to write about cats as dangerous vectors for disease (Chapter 5 is called “The Zombie Maker: Cats as Agents of Disease”), and they conclude, “Free-ranging cats clearly pose a significant threat to a number of wild animals … [the] solution is to remove them—once and for all—from the landscape.” (p. 94)
They also completely discount the use of Trap-Neuter Return (TNR) programs in their chapter 6 called “Trap-Neuter-Return: A Palatable Solution That Is No Solution At All.” For more on TNR programs please see “Key Scientific Studies on Trap-Neuter-Return” and “Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population” in which it is concluded, “A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas.”
Is the public really “blissfully unaware?”
In chapter 8 titled “A Landscape with Fewer Free-Ranging Cats: Better for Cats, Better for Birds, Better for People” we read, “From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (p. 152-153) Any means possible, of course, opens the door for killing cats using incredibly brutal methods. In addition, the public is blamed for being “blissfully unaware” of the significance of the problems at hand (p. 153).
In this chapter we also read, “Perhaps the greatest obstacle to convincing humans to take greater responsibility for their pets and act more responsibly on behalf of their environment and the health of the greater society is the growing ignorance and indifference about the natural world.” (p. 166) This is a most insulting charge for which these authors offer absolutely no scientific support at all. It's just more blaming a public that is supposedly “blissfully unaware.”
Here are a few more snippets:
“It is abundantly clear that free-ranging cats are not the primary threat to the future of birds and other wildlife. Habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution all come to bear on the well-being of wildlife populations; if we as a society hope to maintain these species for future generations, we need to act on all fronts to stem the tide. In the same light, we must act on many different fronts to reduce the populations of free-ranging cats and reduce their impact on native animal populations, both as predators and as vectors of disease. No one solution will prove a silver bullet; only a multipronged strategy will begin to reduce the number of free-ranging cats in the wild. A landscape with no (or at least fewer) free-ranging cats is the only hope for mitigating the toll these animals take on native wildlife and diminishing the spread of disease from cats to human populations.” (p. 145-146)
“Perhaps the owners did not view the birds and mammals that fall prey to domestic cats as sentient beings but instead as playthings for their beloved companions.” (p. 149)
“There is little question that free-ranging cats—both the unowned and the owned pets allowed to roam freely outside—pose a pending ecological and public-health disaster.” (p. 170)
Note that the authors recognize the victims of cat attacks as sentient beings, but feel it's totally fine to kill other sentient beings such as the cats and other nonhumans who will fall prey to efforts to kill all free-ranging cats.
There will be blood: A conservation problem from hell
In a previous essay called “Thousands of Cormorants to be Killed: There Will be Blood” I wrote about an excellent piece by science writer Warren Cornwall called “There Will Be Blood,” and noted it is a must read for anyone interested in keeping up with current discussions and debates about the supposed need to kill animals of one species to save those of another species. At the beginning of his essay Mr. Cornwall writes, “The pressure to reach for a gun to help save one animal from another is stronger than ever. And it has triggered a conservation problem from hell.” He's right. Mr. Cornwall also notes that the history of conservation is “tinged with blood.” For example, noted conservationists John Audubon and Aldo Leopold were quite comfortable killing members of one species to save members of another species, and so too are many conservationists nowadays.
If some people, even very few, choose to follow Marra and Santella's advice to wage war on all free-ranging cats, there will indeed be blood, and an incredible amount of pain, suffering, and death.
What should the future of conservation look like? When will the killing stop?
Should we kill for conservation? Open discussions and debates about the vexing and daunting question that centers on asking if we should kill for conservation are much-needed as we head into a future where more and more species will become imperiled and endangered because of what we are doing to them and to their dwindling habitats. We choose to destroy their homes and then we choose to destroy them. There is something very wrong, disheartening, and disingenuous about this course of action and the ways in which we decide who lives and who dies.
We're going to have to make difficult choices in the future, and choosing not to kill in the name of conservation is a viable option that is now on the table. Do we really want to continue the bloody history of conservation strategies? Time will tell, but times truly are changing. However, you wouldn't know this from Cat Wars. I suppose teachers could use this book as an example of “conservation gone bad” and how not to solve the problems at hand.
Important lessons from compassionate conservation
While the authors briefly mention the rapidly growing international field of compassionate conservation that can reshape conservation ethics in the Anthropocene, they totally ignore its basic tenets, namely, “First do not harm” and the life of every individual animal matters (please also see “Compassionate Conservation Meets Cecil the Slain Lion,” “Compassionate Conservation: More than “Welfarism Gone Wild”,” and “Compassionate Conservation: A Discussion from the Frontlines With Dr. Marc Bekoff”). By paying careful attention to the ways in which other conflicts have been solved without harming and killing the animals, humane and non-lethal solutions will emerge to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. An excellent place to begin to look for such examples is on the homepage for The Centre for Compassionate Conservation.
Harness anger into positive action: The killing of all free-ranging cats truly is a murderous experiment, is ethically indefensible, and likely won't work. Even if it did work, it's morally repugnant and shouldn't be pursued. All in all, I don't see how Cat Wars will change anyone's mind about cats, because it is so sensationalist, one-sided, and so utterly anti-cat. My brief discussion here is only the tip of the iceberg of what is covered in this misleading and sensationalist book. If you disagree, please harness your anger into positive action.
Killing cats “in the name of science”: Readers and cats beware
On the one hand, really I didn't want to write this essay and surely didn't want to call attention to this unveiled diatribe against cats. On the other hand, I'm sure that with the title it has it will attract a good deal of attention. I hope people who choose to read Cat Wars will do so very carefully. It's sickening and disheartening in far too many places, but that's the price of admission. If you're looking for a fair and balanced account of the situation of hand, this is not the book to read. Even if you don't especially like cats, this book surely isn't “the cat's meow.” Indeed, if taken seriously, this book will lead to the loss of the wide range of vocalizations for which cats are well known as well of the lives of many other hapless and innocent individuals who are caught in the crossfire.
Returning to the authors' stance on all free-ranging cats, please keep in mind that the authors advocate removing cats “by any means necessary” ostensibly “in the name of science.” This is a thoroughly heartless conclusion that will undoubtedly lead to horrific pain, suffering, and death not only for cats, but also for other animals, because some people surely will appeal to science and say something like, “Scientists said it's ok to do this.” It is not.
Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). The Animals' Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) will be published in early 2017.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Smileytcs posted a photo:
Smileytcs posted a photo:
Read more: Vote, Women, Energy, Environment, 2016 Election, House, Senate, Women Voters, League of Conservation Voters, Politics News
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
My Planet Experience posted a photo:
The smallest of all wild cats, Sand Cats - Felis margarita - are true desert dwellers, with numerous adaptations to an arid life and colouring that blends in with their environment. They are the only felid to occur exclusively in desert habitat and are found in the deserts of northern Africa and central Asia.
As with most of the small felids, their numbers in the wild are unknown.
Sand cats are threatened by habitat loss, hunting and collection for pet trade. Disease transmission by pets also precipitate its decline.
Fortunately, Sand Cats are mainly nocturnal and sleep during the hours when people are active.
© www.myplanetexperience.com
My Planet Experience posted a photo:
The handsome black-and-white ruffed lemur is, along with the red ruffed lemur, the largest member of the Lemuridae family. This species inhabits lowland to mid-altitude rain forests in eastern Madagascar.
Listed as Critically Endangered as the species is suspected to have undergone a population decline of ≥80% over a period of 21 years (three generations), primarily due to observed and inferred continuing decline in area, extent and quality of habitat from slash-and-burn agriculture, logging and mining, in addition to exploitation through unsustainable hunting pressure.
These causes have not ceased, and will to a large extent not be easily reversible.
© www.myplanetexperience.com
My Planet Experience posted a photo:
With as few as 45 adults remaining in the wild, the Amur leopard is probably the rarest and most critically endangered big cat in the world. Habitat destruction, degradation and poaching of Amur leopards and their prey are persistent threats. Hunted largely for its beautiful, spotted fur, the loss of each Amur leopard puts the species at greater risk of extinction.
The Amur leopard is classified as Critically Endangered since 1996 by IUCN. Data published by the World Wildlife Fund indicates that there are roughly 50 adult Amur leopards in the wild today.
The Amur leopard is a leopard subspecies native to the Primorye region of southeastern Russia and the Jilin Province of northeast China. They live for 10-15 years, and in captivity up to 20 years. The Amur leopard is also known as the Far East leopard, the Manchurian leopard or the Korean leopard.
© www.myplanetexperience.com
My Planet Experience posted a photo:
Irina (female), Igor and Ivan (males) are the Kamchatka brown bears of La Flèche Zoo Park, La Flèche, France
Kamchatka peninsula is home to the highest recorded density of brown bears on Earth. Population estimates for the peninsula range from 10,000 to 14,000 bears.
However, increasing human access through road development to expand mining and mineral exploration is fragmenting the bears' habitat. Kamchatka brown bears are now becoming rare in some regions close to human settlements.
As many as 2,000 bears are killed every year by poachers who come for the bear's gallbladder that sells for hundreds of dollars in the Asian market to use for folk remedies. Also placing the bears in danger are fishing industries seeking profit in the salmon, and decreasing the bears' richest source of food.
The Kamchatka brown bear is considered to be endangered.
© www.myplanetexperience.com
My Planet Experience posted a photo:
The Eurasian lynx, one of Europe's largest predators, has bounced back from the brink of extinction in Europe but it is still critically endangered in some areas.
The Eurasian Lynx is the largest lynx species, and has one of the widest ranges of any wild cat.
The increasing urbanization of western Europe, and the resulting loss of habitat and diminished prey base, have led to a severe reduction of the Eurasian Lynx population there.
Escalating deforestation, persecution as stock killers, and illegal poaching remain major threats to their future. They are heavily trapped for the fur trade across their range, and legally hunted in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia and Latvia.
Reintroduction programs have taken place in Switzerland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Italy and France. Studies have shown that Eurasian Lynx are quick to rebound if hunting pressures are lessened, and protected areas with good prey bases are set aside.
© www.myplanetexperience.com
syphrix photography posted a photo:
A pair of sun parakeets interacting with one another.
Taken at the Singapore Jurong Bird Park
[Follow me on Facebook | Instagram]
Read more: College Athletics, Women in Leadership, Women Athletes, Women in Sports, Leading Change, Community Involvement, Public-Private Partnerships, Little League, High School Football, Brighton High School, Environmental Consciousness, Environment, Women's Colleges, Impact News
I didn't realize how pervasive animal exploitation is in our culture.
Veganism is certainly about animals, but it doesn't mean we disrespect our own species along the way.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The endangered Hawaiian monk seal is one of the 7,000 species that gained a measure of protection.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CC BY
President Obama's environmental record just went big. On August 26, he quadrupled the size of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the center of the Pacific Ocean, northwest of Hawaii. Whatever other conservation actions he takes in his final months in office, Papahānaumokuākea will be hard to top.
The new monument is also outsized in the interrelated issues that it will address - and generate. In Papahānaumokuākea, biology, politics and policy converge and collide in revelatory ways.
For those of us who study the intersection of environmental history, policy and politics on sea and land as I do, it's clear the creation of this gigantic marine monument is a huge step forward for conservation and for helping ecosystems adapt to a changing climate.
But it also poses such significant management, budgetary and political challenges that I fear Papahānaumokuākea will complicate, if not submarine, President Obama's ambitious environmental agenda.
To understand the challenges Papahānaumokuākea will pose, start with the site's remoteness - it is a far remove even from the main Hawaiian Islands, never mind the West Coast. Add, then, its vastness: President Obama added more than 440,000 square miles to boost the already designated monument to a staggering 582,578 square miles. Note: These are square miles, not acres. So gigantic is this national monument that it is larger than all the U.S. national parks and national forests combined; it's not much smaller than Alaska.
The conservation mission of Papahānaumokuākea, which is now the largest blue reserve on this blue planet, is also a tall order. Significantly, it prohibits fishing and other resource exploitation so as to protect such endangered species as the short-tailed albatross and the remaining population of Hawaiian monk seals, as well as the long-living black coral (some of which are estimated to be 4,000 years old). So little of its flora and fauna have been studied that it is highly likely that the 7,000 species known to inhabit the region are but a fraction of those actually there.
Finally, the national monument comes with a social justice commitment: The state's lead indigenous rights agency, the Department of Hawaiian Affairs, will help supervise archaeological and sacred sites, an innovative co-management initiative. By any calculation, Papahānaumokuākea is astonishing.
But it precisely the national monument's massive proportions that make its effective management so daunting.
Consider that the first generation of forest rangers on the U.S. national forests had to control only one million acres in the remote western mountains, and yet understandably they were baffled how they and their horses could steward their new domain. Imagine their modern counterparts trying to survey a waterscape 100 times that extent, even with airplanes and satellites; Papahānaumokuākea dwarfs our faith in management by technology.
Now add budgetary constraints to the vastness of Papahānaumokuākea: The National Park Service's funding has taken a hit recently at the same time that the number of properties it supervises has mushroomed, thanks to President Obama's rapid-fire creation of 26 new national monuments (with even more anticipated).
I understand why the chief executive is moving with dispatch (a mash-up of legacy building and opportunity knocks). But I worry that the speed with which these sites have been designated, and their disparate fiscal demands, has outstripped the executive branch's capacity to underwrite them. My worry is magnified given the strong opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to the president's ready use of the Antiquities Act.
Papahānaumokuākea will be a major test of the federal government's stewardship, then, not least because in the run-up to its expansion the National Park Service held a series of raucous public meetings in which the industrial and longline fishing industry, along with native organizations, opposed the designation.
Preservation of marine life, they argued, is in direct competition with their long history of harvesting food from these very waters. How the National Park Service manages these fraught human dynamics will be every bit as critical as its stewardship of the marinescape's threatened biodiversity.
At the same time, I am buoyed by the national monument's oddly bipartisan political history: It owes existence to two very different presidents, one whose administration downplayed emerging climate change science, the other who has been at the forefront of world leaders responding to the threats climate change poses.
In 2006, after a White House screening of Jacques-Michel Cousteau's documentary "Voyage to Kure," which details human damage to the islands' ecosystems, President George W. Bush was moved to action. Using the 1906 Antiquities Act, he set aside Papahānaumokuākea - the first of four oceanic parks he would create in the Pacific. Time magazine dubbed this collection of sites Bush's last acts of "greenness," while a legion of environmental critics suggested they were his first and last; no president had used the Antiquities Act less than Bush did.
Moreover, given how far away these sites were from the continental U.S., their very isolation dampened any controversy. Still, as Time magazine noted, these "marine monuments will mean that President Bush - perhaps the least environmental president in U.S. history - will have protected more of the ocean than anyone else in the world."
President Obama has blown that claim out of the water. But he did so in a more calculated, less cathartic manner. As part of his 2009 commitment to address climate change, his administration has sought projects that would enhance landscape resilience to the effects of climate change.
In 2014, Obama added roughly 300,000 square miles to the Bush-inaugurated Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (now totaling 490,343 square miles), a stretch of remote Pacific islands south and west of Hawaii. When he did so, he justified its expansion as a way to strengthen Pacific ecosystems. The same rationale was deployed in support of Papahānaumokuākea National Monument.
These two mega monuments, when combined with the 126 other (and smaller) U.S. marine sanctuaries, now account for about 26 percent of the nation's waters, meaning that collectively they are giving oceanic species a fighting chance to survive as the climate-charged seas warm and rise. They also make the president's latest action in the Pacific more than a grand gesture. It just might be a planetary life preserver.
Char Miller, W. M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pomona College
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
“They're the pinnacle, they're what everyone wants to row out here,” Trevor tells me as he loads up his first dory. We're on the Salmon River in central Idaho, packing up for a six-day float through the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. I cut my teeth guiding on this river, and I couldn't wait to come back, this time with a camera.
For those that don't know, a dory is a large flat-bottomed row boat, made from various materials including wood, fiberglass, or aluminum. In my eyes (and for most boatman I've encountered), there is no better way to experience a river. In a dory, you can feel “every wave, ripple, and current” that passes beneath the boat. At the hands of a skilled guide, dories are the most maneuverable and responsive boats through a rapid. However, with this speed comes great responsibility. It is awfully easy to put a hole in one of these boats, so only the most skilled guides get to row them.
Trevor grew up around whitewater. His father was one of the early dory guides in Idaho. Trevor's got years of guiding experience under his belt now, but today he's been granted his first dory, the Great Thumb (each boat is named for a threatened or lost place).
As he packs up he tells me about the spots he's most nervous about. He's done this stretch of river dozens of times, but sitting behind the oars of a dory, everything will look different. A shallow rock in a raft means a slight bump, in a dory it can be catastrophic. Gun Barrel rapid on day one will test him, and Black Creek on day two.
“Black Creek,” I ask. Never heard of it. Its been almost 10 years since I last paddled this river, but I was pretty sure I hadn't paddled any Black Creek rapid.
Due to the truly wild and undammed nature of this river, it is always changing. A few years ago Black Creek flash-flooded and filled the river channel with boulders, creating a brand new rapid in its place (and coincidentally took away the iconic Salmon Falls rapid just up stream).
The Salmon River continues to carve a new path, a unique quality for a river today. Trevor and the other guides know that sharing these amazing places with people will be the best way to protect them for future generations. And what better way to go down river than in the Cadillac of boats, the dory.
The Water Is for Fighting project documents the challenges facing our nations freshwater resources. Corey Robinson is a filmmaker and Young Explorer Grantee collecting these stories through film, still pictures and words. Check out the other videos here.
Follow along with @coreyrobinson #w4f2015
“Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting.”
Mathias Appel posted a photo:
Bush katydid nymph (Scudderia curvicauda) collected in Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia, Canada, and photographed at the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics (sample ID: BIOUG19497-D02; specimen record: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_RecordView?processid=SSKJC3622-15; BIN: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_BarcodeCluster?clusteruri=BOLD:ACW0241)
At best, just 2,500 Indochinese leopards survive today across Southeast Asia. They have been eradicated from 93% of their historic habitat by snares, poachers, deforestation and declines in prey. Can conservationists stop the bleeding before its too late?
Conservationists have long known that it's hard and in some cases nearly impossible to survive as a tiger in Southeast Asia. Burning forests, high human populations and unflagging demand for tiger blood, tiger skin and crushed tiger bone means the big cats have to tread a daily gauntlet of snares, guns and desperate poachers. Now, conservationists are discovering, belatedly, that the same is largely true for leopards.
A sobering new study in Biological Conservation has found that the Indochinese leopard a distinct subspecies may be down to less than 1,000 individuals. And in the best-case scenario only 2,500 animals survive less than the population of Farmsfield village in Nottinghamshire.
The black coat of melanistic leopards may have made them ‘perfect stalkers' in the dimly-lit rainforests
Related: Tiger country? Scientists uncover wild surprises in tribal Bangladesh
Continue reading...-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Read more: Climate Change, Environment, Drought, Extreme Weather, Global Warming, Sustainability, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Nature, Science, Technology, Technologie, Green Technology, Technology News, Climate Change Denial, Climate, Climate Science, Climate-Change, Obama, Green Energy, Clean Energy, Renewable Energy, Natural Gas, Wind Power, Solar Power, Fossil Fuels, Heat Waves, Congress, Voting, Weather, Business, Business News, Corporations, Economy, Climate Change Solutions, Greenhouse Gases, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Carbon Emissions, Food, Water, Coal, Fracking, Oil, Agriculture, Crops, Rising Sea Levels, Insurance, Pollution, Wildlife, Transportation, Transports, Transport, Cities, Deforestation, Jobs, Natural Disasters, Population, Population Growth, Overpopulation, Oceans, President Obama, Barack Obama, Epa, Nasa, Noaa, Department of Energy, Republicans, Gop, Democrats, Animals, Cute Animals, Fish, Birds, Activism, Political Activism, Humor, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington, United Nations, United Kingdom, England, Australia, Britain, Canada, China, Europe, European Union, France, India, Asia, Africa, Scotland, Gabon, Nigeria, Children, Babies, Children'S Health, Kids, Human Health, Health, Education, Air Pollution, Seafood, John Oliver, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Soil, Art, Cartoons, Zika Virus, Tpp, Green News
American alligators and South African crocodiles populate waterways a third of the globe apart, and yet both have detectable levels of long-lived industrial and household compounds for nonstick coatings in their blood, according to two studies from researchers at the Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina, and its affiliated institutions, which include the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The two studies are first-of-their-kind examinations of PFAA levels in “sentinel” reptile species, especially useful for investigating the impacts of long-lived chemicals in the environment, NIST says in a news statement about the research. PFAAs (perfluorinated alkyl acids) have been used in products that include water-repellent clothes, stain repellents, waxes, nonstick pans and fire-suppressing foams.
Compounds Associated With Liver Toxicity, Reduced Fertility
“Production of some compounds in this family of environmentally persistent chemicalsassociated with liver toxicity, reduced fertility and a variety of other health problems in studies of people and animalshas been phased out in the United States and many other nations. Yet all blood plasma samples drawn from 125 American alligators across 12 sites in Florida and South Carolina contained at least six of the 15 PFAAs that were tracked in the alligator study,” the NIST release says.
Excerpted from the news statement:
In alligators, plasma levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) ranged from 1,360 to 452,000 parts per trillion. In May 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a drinking-water health advisory for PFOS and another PFAA, recommending a maximum exposure level of 70 parts per trillion for one of the PFAAs or the sum of the two. High PFOS levels reported for alligators at several sites may suggest the need to test drinking water for contamination at those locations, according to the researchers.
In a separate study, researchers report that all samples drawn from 45 crocodiles at five sites in and around South Africa's Kruger National Park contained detectable levels of four PFAAs, often in different combinations with other of the 15 fluorinated organic compounds tracked. Present in all plasma samples, PFOS levels ranged from 776 to 118,000 parts per trillion.
“Alligators and crocodiles play a dominant role in their ecosystems,” said Jacqueline Bangma, of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. “Similar to humans, they are long-lived top predators. They stay in a select territorywaterways where runoff from human activities accumulates and their PFAA burden increases through the consumption of fish.”
To date, field studies of PFAA levels and health effects in reptiles have been few, focusing mostly on sea turtles. Across studies of animalsfrom rats to frogs to marine mammalsplasma levels, time required to eliminate PFAAs from the body, and health effects vary greatly, making it difficult to extrapolate from one species to another.
The landmark studies were initiated by the Hollings Marine Laboratory, a partnership including NIST, NOAA's National Ocean Service, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the College of Charleston, and the Medical University of South Carolina. Plans are to continue PFAA monitoring on both continents, according to NIST research chemist Jessica Reiner.
Hot Spots Identified
Both studies identified “hot spots,” where PFAA levels were significantly higher than in animals tested at other sites, an indication that the contaminants were emitted by a nearby source. In the U.S. study, median plasma levels of certain PFAAs were highest in alligators on Kiawah Island, an Atlantic Ocean barrier island southwest of Charleston, South Carolina, and on Merritt Island in Florida.
Past use of PFAA-containing foams, such as those employed in firefighting training, may account for the higher levels, the researchers suggest. High environmental concentrations have been reported at fire-training sites and at manufacturing plants.
In contrast, alligators at two sites in the Florida Everglades exhibited some of the lowest levels of the two “highest burden” PFAAs reported across all adult alligators sampled in the U.S. study. The result was somewhat unexpected, Reiner said, because Everglade's alligators have been reported to have some of the highest levels of mercury, a toxic heavy metal, among Florida alligators.
Among the South African crocodiles tested, PFAA levels were highest for animals tested from Flag Boshielo Dam, a reservoir on the Oliphants River, just upstream from Kruger National Park.
Among the American alligators studied, some PFAA levels tended to be higher among males, regardless of locations. Levels also tended to increase with age, as determined by snout length. Age- and sex-related associations with PFAA levels were not found in the crocodiles sampled.
Articles:
I. Christie, J.L. Reiner, J.A. Bowden, H. Botha, T.M. Cantu, D. Govender, M.P. Guillettee, R.H. Lowers, W.J. Luus-Powell, D. Pienaar, W.J. Smit and L.J. Guillette Jr. Perfluorinated alkyl acids in the plasma of South African crocodiles (Crocodylus niloticus). Chemosphere. Published: July 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.03.072.
J.T. Bangma, J.A. Bowden, A.M. Brunell, I. Christie, B. Finnell, M.P. Guillette, M. Jones, R.H. Lowers, T.R. Rainwater, J.L. Reiner, P.M. Wilkinson and L.J. Guillette, Jr. Perfluorinated alkyl acids in plasma of American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) from Florida and South Carolina. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Accepted manuscript online: August 20, 2016. doi:10.1002/etc.3600
David Braun is director of outreach with the digital and social media team illuminating the National Geographic Society's explorer, science, and education programs.
He edits National Geographic Voices, hosting a global discussion on issues resonating with the Society's mission and major initiatives. Contributors include grantees and Society partners, as well as universities, foundations, interest groups, and individuals dedicated to a sustainable world. More than 50,000 readers have participated in 10,000 conversations.
Braun also directs the Society side of the Fulbright-National Geographic Digital Storytelling Fellowship.