Monday, April 21, 2008
Gearing up for Earth Day
Posted by Eric @ 1:11 PM
I'm not all that big on promoting veganism with environmental arguments, though I did originally go vegan in part due to environmental concerns I had related to consuming animal products, and those concerns continue to be very real and pressing. Even the media--which goes into overdrive in the week leading up to Earth Day--has seized on a recent reports by
CIWF, the
FAO and
others, and has been
expending considerable column space to eating lower down the "food chain". Of course, these articles only recommend reductions in flesh consumption, particularly "red meat", and even then, far less dramatic than the reports themselves recommend for anything resembling sustainability.
Now, as people are becoming more aware, one of the greatest environmental moves we can make is to consume less, period. And because vegan diets generally require one fourth the energy as meat-based diets, that is similar to switching from an SUV to a Prius. So, added to lots of other facts you'll find in the above-linked reports and articles, I don't complain when activists suggest that veganism is mandatory for "true" environmentalists. There's simply little evidence suggesting that everyone needs to become vegan for the planet to sustain our current population.
However, if everyone was vegetarian, apparently we'd be able to accommodate 8 billion people on planet earth. Not sure what that world would look like but, then, 8 billion vegetarians don't seem likely any time soon. Perhaps this is why you hear some people arguing the need to go vegan for the environment. Vegans more fully offset meat-eaters, or so the thinking might go. Certainly I don't fault those of us with the luxury of controlling their diets for adopting veganism out of environmental and social justice reasons (though I can count on one hand the people I've met who've considered this their sole purpose for being vegan).
After all, nearly a billion people on this planet lack food security, and riots in Egypt, Haiti and elsewhere are bringing the problem into sharp relief. Meanwhile, China and India are rapidly increasing their intake of animal products, with China recently surpassing total U.S. consumption, which has been relatively more stable in recent years, if absurdly high. The neediest on our planet are becoming even more directly harmed by the consumption habits of the wealthiest, as 760 million tons of grain is fed to animals instead of directly to humans, not to mention the 100 million tons of grain being diverted for biofuels this year.
There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals [from the food production process]. About 2,000 pounds of concentrates [grains] must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.) eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is first fed to livestock and then is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products... -- M. E. Ensminger, Ph.D., former Department of Animal Science Chairman at Washington State University
So, hey, it's understandable if you want to go vegan for environmental and social justice reasons. According to
Plan B 3.0, a vegan diet
is more sustainable than even a Mediterranean diet. It's just that I don't see many true eco-vegans. Veganism isn't a costume you step into when you feel like being trendy. What's to keep a self-described environmentalist from eating a steak carved from the body of an organic, free range, locally raised sentient being as part of a special occasion? After all, there's no harm in doing so once in a while, right?
Well, maybe not environmentally. That is, if we listen to Michael Pollan, George Monbiot and the others clamoring for us to rush down the "food chain" (only not too far). But
of course there is harm in eating animals, and that's where we get into animal ethics and the whole point of this site. It is good that growing environmental awareness is prompting so many people to examine the consequences of their choices, particularly with respect to the growing appreciation for the impact of their food choices. But, if we want people to go vegan--and to stay vegan--ultimately it's got to be about the animals.
That's ultimately the message I will be delivering tonight at Emerson College's Veggie Food Fest, where I've been invited to speak. Wish me luck. The earth is trendy again these days, and that's cool, but those following this trend would still rather have their animal welfare and eat it, too, even if that means eating less of it at higher prices. Animal rights continues to be ever so much more controversial, but hopefully I can play a small part in getting considerate humans past that stage and on to taking seriously the meaningful protection of animal interests with a rights-based approach.
Labels: animal rights, environment, veganism
Monday, December 10, 2007
Anderson Cooper and the mountain gorillas
Posted by Eric @ 10:15 PM
No, it's not some kind of wacky new band:
60 Minutes: Gorillas: Kings Of Congo (includes video)
As CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, it's gotten so bad for many of the remaining gorillas that conservationists genuinely fear the entire species might become extinct. They live in east Africa, in a forest that straddles Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a family of gorillas was massacred last summer.
So last month 60 Minutes went to Congo, a desperately poor country, to see why those gorillas were slaughtered, why the surviving gorillas are in jeopardy, and what can be done to save them.
No time for commentary. I'm deeply sorry. I know it's been about a week without a peep, but things are rather busy behind the scenes here at HQ. December will likely be spotty, with a likely resurgence in January. Hang in there!
Labels: endangered species, environment, habitat encroachment, primates, wildlife
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Some rare good news for wildlife
Posted by Eric @ 12:24 PM
After some recent
lousy news, it's nice to report something positive. According to the
Associated Press (by way of
MSNBC.com), a nature reserve larger than the state of Massachusetts
has been created for bonobos in the Central African country of Congo. Long-term funding is still a question, but it's a start.
Also, the United States' Environmental Protection Agency is
considering a ban on two animal poisons, sodium cyanide and sodium fluoroacetate, which are placed on or near human-exploited animals to kill wild animals, despite the negligible loss of property caused by predation.
"In 2005, predator-caused losses from all species, including dogs, amounted to only 0.18% of total cattle production over the year."The poisons are distributed by the
Wildlife Services agency, a misleadingly named division of the USDA that each year kills tens of thousands of predators like coyotes, wolves and bobcats in order to protect commodified animals (which, by the way, are invasive species). Some service to wildlife, right? As part of the Ag Department, they are better described as the Rancher Services agency. Exterminators, really.
Regrettably, this is not a change in policy, merely a course correction to reduce indiscriminate killing and poisoning of water supplies by a couple of nasty biohazards. According to the USDA's website, Wildlife Services:
Provides Federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts and create a balance that allows people and wildlife to coexist peacefully.
Peacefully? Wildlife Services (I can't even
write that with a straight face) will continue to kill native animals that threaten the meat industry's profits. Wildlife Services spent 108 million taxpayer dollars in 2006 to kill more than 1.6 million “nuisance” animals, over 200,000 of which were mammals (i.e., beavers, rabbits and raccoons, among others). The balance of animals killed were birds, including blackbirds, owls, hawks, ducks and geese, as well as over a
million starlings.
You can add to the public comments on the agency's proposal to end the use of these poisons.
Click here and search for Docket ID "EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944"). You will see a comment icon. Click on that, and you will be taken to a comment form. The comment period ends on January 15, 2008.
For the sake of reference, here's the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility's
petition for the ban. There's some interesting reading in there on the importance of carnivores in the eco-system, the "sledge hammer" approach to wildlife management, the bio-terrorist threat posed by the ready availability of these substances and so on.
Labels: animal agriculture, environment, habitat encroachment, livestock predation, primates, USDA, wildlife, Wildlife Services
Monday, November 12, 2007
Oil consumption v. the animals, animals lose
Posted by Eric @ 3:58 PM
These unmitigated disasters offer further incentive (as if it was needed) to get off the fossil fuel habit,
from MSNBC:Russia:Oil from Russian spill kills 30,000 birds"The damage is so huge it can hardly be evaluated. It can be compared to an ecological catastrophe," Interfax news agency quoted Alexander Tkachyov, governor of Russia's Black Sea region of Krasnodar, as saying.
"Thirty thousand birds have died, and it's just impossible to count the loss of fish," he told regional officials.
California:Criminal Probe in California Oil Spill BeginsCalif. declares emergency over Bay Area oil spillEarlier Calif. stories: Crew in Bay Area oil spill could be charged Crew Faces Criminal Probe In SF Bay Oil SpillSlideshow(I'll spare you the photos of dying birds here, but be forewarned that they accompany two of the stories I've linked)
Labels: environment, wildlife
Thursday, October 04, 2007
On fish, ProAnimal ranchers and saved owls
Posted by Eric @ 1:44 PM
Tribune-Chronicle: ProAnimal CoalitionGET THIS: The ProAnimal Coalition is a group of people "dedicated to getting out the truth about the excellent care farmers give their animals and the misinformation from the various animal rights activists." Time for a double-take.
Nowhere in the article is it explained how you can be pro-animal and still breed, kill and eat them. Nor does the author attempt to point out the inherent deceit in calling a group ProAnimal Coalition when your goal is to ensure that you can continue to breed, kill and eat animals.
It's difficult from the way the article was written to discern which passages are the author's editorial comments, and which are the author paraphrasing speakers from the ProAnimal Coalition meeting, but somebody in this article adds more of the emotional fuel to the fire that animal rights activists (ARAs) are accused of stoking by resorting to language such as "our way of life in this country at stake" and "[groups like HSUS and PETA] keep nibbling at our rights as consumers."
Of course, nowhere does the author explain what ARAs are doing to threaten our way of life, or what exactly our way of life is. If the American way of life is to kill other beings for fun, profit and taste, then perhaps we are threatening it. Good for us. Certainly the American way of life should be about compassion and freedom for all beings, not just humans.
As for nibbling away at consumer rights, this is a common right-wing tactic that means nothing in reality. Consumers aren't permitted to buy certain things for very intelligent reasons. Would we consider the prohibition on trafficking in human body parts an infringement upon consumer rights? Again, the author is merely trying to stoke up basic fears in a demographic that is particularly sensitive to having their freedoms "taken away." Talk about emotionalism.
In stating "Truth means nothing to [animal rights groups]," the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation's Joe Cornely tells his own bald-faced lie. If ARAs (and, by the way, here we have more conflating of animal rights groups with animal welfare groups) were lying, they would be brought to court, they would lose, and they would no longer be able to function. It's a straightforward insult and, correct me if I'm wrong, libel to suggest that truth means nothing to animal rights groups. The whole point of animal rights activism is to expose the truth behind animal exploitation so that people can make up their
own minds about whether or not to reject their use. We may not agree on whether animals are ours to use or not, but that does not entitle either side to accuse the other of lying, unless that side is deliberately deceiving people. But nowhere does Mr. Cornely or the article's author back up their inflammatory claims.
Now, this article appears in a smallpaper in a small town I've never heard of. But it may well have been read by more people than read this blog, and it represents a certain backlash I've been noticing in the farmed animal sector, which we are already starting to see ripple in the public with the co-option of animal welfare language like "humane-raised" meat, labels like "United Egg Producers Certified," and articles extolling the virtues of "happy veal."
As much as they're fighting animal rights, the animal exploiters are looking more and more to become the final word on what animal welfare means, which only makes the need for promoting animal rights that much more urgent. The welfare of animals will never be entirely secure so long as they are used as a means to human ends.
IN HAPPIER NEWS, The U.S. Forest Service agreed to withdraw plans for logging 190 acres of spotted owl habitat in the Central Oregon Cascade Range that was burned last year in the Black Crater fire:
The lawsuit said the timber sale violated federal law by distorting science that shows spotted owls still use forests after they burn and by keeping the public out of the decision making.
The lawsuit also said the project would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by logging in an old growth forest reserve primarily to make money from the trees, and not to improve the forest.
SOURCE:
MSNBC ALSO AT
MSNBC.COM:
Mothers again urged to eat fish. After going on paragraph after paragraph about the benefits of fish,
finally an alternate source of omega-3s is mentioned: Flax seed and oil. It would be nice if they included other sources, but at least alternatives are being mentioned. I'm gravely concerned about this new push to increase fish consumption, particularly when so many species are being pushed to the brink of collapse.
Labels: animal agriculture, animal rights, animal welfare, endangered species, environment, fish, habitat encroachment, health, humane meat, omega-3
Thursday, May 03, 2007
More good news...
Posted by Eric @ 1:34 PM
Environmental News Network: Embattled Interior Official Julie MacDonald Resigns In Wake of Inspector General ReportOne of the more despicable instruments of the Bush Administration has finally been dislodged:
According to the Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, a high-level Bush administration appointee has resigned in the aftermath of a devastating Inspector General investigation, just days before a House congressional oversight committee will hold a public hearing on her violations of the Endangered Species Act, censorship of science, and brutalizing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.
Julie MacDonald tendered her resignation on April 30, 2007. She was the Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that oversees the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program. As revealed in numerous media exposés and a recent Department of Interior Inspector General investigation, MacDonald used her position to aggressively squelch protection of endangered species. She rewrote scientific reports, browbeat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and colluded with industry lawyers to generate lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service.
MacDonald's specialty was blocking agency efforts to place imperiled species on the endangered species list, stripping tens of millions of acres from agency proposals to designated "critical habitat" areas and working with industry groups to remove species from the endangered list and thus from federal protection.
It's not all good news, though:
MacDonald's recently hired counterpart, Todd Willens, is equally dedicated to undermining endangered species conservation. Willens spearheaded Richard Pombo's (R-CA) anti-endangered species agenda as lead staffer of the House Resources Committee, then was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks on October 19, 2006. He has since been directly involved in developing sweeping anti-endangered species regulations and efforts to remove the Florida manatee and West Virginia northern flying squirrel from the endangered species list.
No word on whether Willens will also get the boot. Perhaps the May 9th "congressional oversight hearing into the Bush administration's rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act and censorship of endangered species science" will result in further house cleaning.
Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Monbiot on the plundering of our oceans
Posted by Eric @ 2:45 PM
Monbiot.com: Feeding FrenzyComing from George Monbiot, this is first and foremost an environmental commentary. But ultimately, without coming straight out and telling his readers that they should stop eating sea animals, his critique does speak to our eating habits. People that eat fishes* are, in effect, responsible for the clear-cutting of our world's oceans, destroying important eco-systems as they are ruthlessly and greedily plundered for every last animal that can be commodified. Take sharks:
In terms of its impact on both ecology and animal welfare, shark fishing could be the planet’s most brutal industry. While some sharks are taken whole, around 70 million are caught every year for their fins. In many cases the fins are cut off and the shark is dumped, alive, back into the sea. It can take several weeks to die.
Monbiot goes on to observe the devastating chain reaction this has on the eco-system.
He notes that
If these animals lived on land there would be a global outcry. But the great beasts roaming the savannahs of the open seas summon no such support. Big sharks, giant tuna, marlin and swordfish should have the conservation status of the giant panda or the snow leopard. Yet still we believe it is acceptable for fishmongers to sell them and celebrity chefs to teach us how to cook them.
It is clearly symptomatic of humankind's moral schizophrenia and socially ingrained speciesism. This isn't to say that at one point in time, fishing wasn't more environmentally sustainable, much less necessary.
But these days there is no need to eat sea animals, despite the common recommendation to eat fishes for Omega-3s. These nutrients are available where the fishes get them, from algae, and in convenient pill form if you prefer. We can grow our own algae without disturbing the ocean. Other sources include delicious flaxseed meal, hempseed (I bought my first carton of hemp milk the other day, and it is the best non-dairy milk I've ever had), and other products that are also becoming more widely available.
So,
Why do we find it so hard to stand up to fishermen? This tiny industrial lobby seems to have governments in the palm of its hand. Every year, the European Union sets catch limits for all species way above the levels its scientists recommend. Governments know that they are allowing the fishing industry to destroy itself and to destroy the ecosystem on which it depends. But nothing is sacred, as long as it is underwater. In November the United Nations failed even to produce a resolution urging a halt to trawling on the sea mounts at the bottom of the ocean. These ecosystems, which are only just beginning to be explored, harbour great forests of deepwater corals and sponges, in which thousands of unearthly species hide. But we can’t summon the will to stop the handful of boats that are ripping them to shreds.
Only if fishing is banned entirely do these ecosystems stand a chance to recover. But governments will support industries until they are no longer sustainable, which leaves this task up to consumers. If everyone banned sea animals from their diets, the oceans would eventually recover, but this has to happen soon, or the destruction will be permanent:
A study in this week’s edition of Science reveals the disastrous collapse of the ocean’s megafauna. The great sharks are now wobbling on the edge of extinction. Since 1972 the number of blacktip sharks has fallen by 93%, tiger sharks by 97% and bull sharks, dusky sharks and smooth hammerheads by 99%. Just about every population of major predators is now in freefall. Another paper, published in Nature four years ago, shows that over 90% of large predatory fishes throughout the global oceans have gone.
In the western Atlantic, notes Monbiot, the decimation of predatory animals has allowed the rays there to multiply tenfold, wiping out "all the main commercial species of shellfish". As
we have also seen, at our present rate of consumption, the world's "fisheries" will be depleted in about 40 years, and our oceans will be unrecognizable.
Off the coast of Namibia, where the fishery has crashed as a result of over-harvesting, we have a glimpse of the future. A paper in Current Biology reports that the ecosystem is approaching a “trophic dead-end”. As the fish have been mopped up they have been replaced by jellyfish, which now outweigh them by three to one. The jellyfish eat the eggs and larvae of the fish, so the switch is probably irreversible. We have entered, the paper tells us, the “era of jellyfish ascendancy”.
It’s a good symbol. The jellyfish represents the collapse of the ecosystem and the spinelessness of the people charged with protecting it.
*An Animal-Friendly Life uses the rarer pluralizations for animals in order to emphasize their individuality.
Labels: environment, fish, overfishing, wildlife
Monday, April 02, 2007
PB&J to the rescue!
Posted by Eric @ 1:13 PM
What with global warming on top of everyone's minds these days, why haven't the peanut butter and jelly companies jumped on this trend with some savvy marketing? After all, eating lower on the food chain is better for the environment. Maybe this
new website will inspire them to go head-to-head with the flesh peddlers (though, with so many multinationals owning both purveyors of flesh and PB&J brands, don't hold your breath waiting for such a campaign). One notable fact from The PB&J Campaign I found relevant to my readers is that for every 16 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a person eats,
a chicken's life is spared.
The site takes a fairly conservative (and welfarist) approach but, frankly, it recommends eating PB&J instead of sammitches made out of animals, so send this link to everyone you know. It's an easy way to raise awareness of the impact a simple lunch-time meal can make, and perhaps some of your friends and family will start including (quality) PB&J into their diets instead of eating animal flesh at nearly every lunch.
This is a fun example of creatively using the web to spread a fresh angle on environmental and animal issues to the mainstream. To quote the campaign, "Who knew it was so easy to change the world?"
Labels: environment, vegan food
Monday, March 19, 2007
Endangered species day at MSNBC
Posted by Eric @ 9:06 PM
Buffalo, nearing extinction, moved to safetySixteen buffalo, relocated from the National Bison Range in northwestern Montana, were released Saturday morning in an enclosed 1,400-acre section of the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal, near where nerve gas and other chemical weapons were once manufactured.
This site is barely 10 miles from downtown Denver, and already there has been an incident with one buffalo, though it's unclear from this paragraph what relation the event had to the relocation:
Later in the day, residents of Lakewood, a suburb west of Denver, literally had that opportunity. A pet buffalo escaped. Police had it corralled for awhile but it escaped and it had to be put down, said Lakewood police animal control officer Michael Brogran. He said the young animal had done minor damage to a couple of cars but no one was hurt.
Yeah, but an animal was killed.
Bush administration reinterprets species lawU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, contacted in Washington, D.C., said the new policy would allow them to focus on protecting species in areas where they are in trouble, rather than having to list a species over its entire range.
One activist's response:
Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said the new policy was a sophisticated effort by the Bush administration to gut the Endangered species Act by ignoring the loss of species from their historical range, making it easier to deny endangered species listings.
If upheld by the courts, Suckling estimated the new policy would remove 80 percent of the roughly 1,300 species from threatened and endangered lists — because most species have at least one stronghold where they are doing well.
"It's just so clearly illogical and anti-wildlife that I can't wait to get this before a federal judge," Suckling said. "They are rewarding industry for driving populations extinct. Because as soon as you drive a population extinct (in a certain area) it is no longer on the table. It no longer counts toward whether a species is endangered."
Battle to save Tasmanian devil from extinctionThe Tasmanian Devil, a rare carnivorous marsupial found only on Australia's southern island state of Tasmania, faces extinction in 10 to 20 years without a cure for the facial cancer now decimating the population.
With half the population of this fierce, black furry animal now wiped out, leaving less than 75,000 devils, Professor Hamish McCallum at the University of Tasmania is battling to establish offshore colonies of healthy devils.
Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Orangutans face 'emergency,' U.N. reports
Posted by Eric @ 12:21 PM
I've covered the plight of Indonesia's orangutans
before, but
an article at MSNBC.com yesterday indicates the situation is even worse than previously thought.
Without urgent action, 98 percent of remaining forests on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo could be gone by 2022, with serious consequences for local people and wildlife including rhinos, tigers and elephants, the U.N. report said
U.N. Environment Program experts, convening on the fringes of a major environmental meeting in Kenya, called the situation a conservation emergency, blaming a "shadowy network of multinational firms for increasingly targeting Indonesian national parks as one of the few remaining sources of commercial timber supplies."
This comes back to supply and demand (and greed). China, the U.S., and the EU are the three largest markets for Indonesian timber. In order to end this devastation, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia's environment minister, has appealed "to the conscience of the whole world: do not buy uncertified wood."
He said illegal logging was ravaging 37 of his country's 41 national parks, and now accounted for more than 73 percent of all logging in Indonesia.
"It is not being done by individual impoverished people, but by well-organized elusive commercial networks," said Achim Steiner, head of the UNEP.
These networks hire well-armed mercenary thugs against which under-funded and under-equipped response ranger teams are no match.
While the U.S. has already agreed to a pact ensuring Indonesian imports are all legally acquired, the EU is only just getting started in negotiations, and China has yet to come to the table. But time is of the essence:
The U.N. report, which was compiled using new satellite images and Indonesian government data, said orangutan habitat was being lost 30 percent quicker than was previously feared.
It was estimated in 2002 that there were about 60,000 of the shaggy ginger primates left in the jungles of Borneo and Sumatra. Some ecologists say the number has now been halved and others say the species could be extinct in 20 years.
Please, do not buy uncertified wood or palm oil products unsustainably produced in Indonesia. These things are not necessary to us, but that habitat is important to the orangutans and other species, including the local people.
Labels: environment, orangutans, primates, wildlife
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
For Wolves, a Recovery May Not Be the Blessing It Seems
Posted by Eric @ 2:35 AM

It's been widely-feared among animal lovers that if northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves were
removed from the endangered species list, they would be hunted back down to the verge of extinction once again. This
The New York Times piece drives the concern home:
In Idaho, the governor is ready to have hunters reduce the wolf population in the state from 650 to 100, the minimum that will keep the animal off the endangered species list. “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself,” Gov. C. L. Otter said, according to The Associated Press.
Such an attractive sentiment from the governor of one of the last remaining "unspoiled" states. Sadly, the state is not as unspoiled as one imagines, due to federally-subsidized grazing on lands that ought to left untouched for wild species. Attacks on livestock fuel the passion for killing wolves in these rural areas.
But if we did not permit ranchers to encroach on wildlands with their cattle, we wouldn't see this problem occur in the first place. In other words, this conflict is man-made. As is too often the case, financial interests are being put above the lives of animals. Perhaps the governor of Idaho should pay attention to one economist's projection that wolves in Yellowstone are responsible for $35 million in annual revenues.
That 650 wolves can be seen as an acceptable population for any animal species is, to me, mind-boggling. Consider, for instance, Idaho's population of 1.3 million people (to say nothing of their companion animals and livestock).
Is this what we've come to? Turning our wilderness areas into tightly-"managed" gene pools, just shy of extinction? Doesn't that more or less turn the natural world into some kind of pathetic outdoor zoo?
One can, of course, reduce one's impact on the wolves by avoiding the consumption of these ranchers' products. This is one of the easiest solutions, considering that a reduction in the demand for animal products would likely ease the introduction of these domesticated animals into areas where they come into contact with predators. No other solution presents so direct an opportunity to help.
But obviously not everyone is going to stop eating these products overnight. So, in addition to voting with one's fork, what can one do?
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, comments from the public are encouraged on the proposal to delist these wolves. You can send your comments via
Email or via post to:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wolf Delisting
585 Shepard Way
Helena, MT 59601
All comments must be received within 60 days of the proposed rule's publication date in the Federal Register (I believe that was 01/29/2007).
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service maintains
a web page on gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, including news, information, recovery status and reports.
Photo credit: Jim and Jamie Dutcher/National Geographic — Getty ImagesLabels: endangered species, environment, wildlife, wolves
Monday, February 05, 2007
Accidental whale kills prompt concern
Posted by Eric @ 5:48 PM
news @ nature.comNot that intentional whale kills aren't a problem, but this story refers to the incidental deaths of extremely vulnerable western grey whales caught in the nets of Japanese fishermen:
In January, fishermen found the dead body of a juvenile female in fixed fishing nets in Yoshihama Bay, northeastern Japan. It was the fourth such whale to be found trapped, entangled and drowned off the Pacific coast since 2005; all of them have been female.

Can I just point out that this is one more good reason not to eat fish? In addition to plundering our oceans beyond their capacity to reproduce fish for the human population to consume, the process of commercial fishing affects countless other species as well.
Unfortunately, this critically endangered species doesn't have a lot of help, as of yet. While fishermen are not compensated for their damaged nets from these accidental captures, it is not yet illegal, and there are no methods in place to avoid trapping whales (other than not fishing with nets anymore, of course).
Toshio Kasuya, a retired researcher in Tokyo who specialized in marine mammals, says the government should take more initiative. They should call for a greater effort to get whales out of traps alive, he says, and develop technologies to prevent whales from getting trapped in the first place. Kasuya says nets that produce warning beeps may be one way of doing this.
"So far, we don't have technologies that could work effectively," Kasuya says. "And the government's efforts are far from enough."
Special thanks to my wife for making sure I saw this story!
Photo by Dave WellerLabels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Coal mine project threatens trout and grizzlies
Posted by Eric @ 11:29 PM
NRDC: Grizzly Bears in PerilNRDC urges us to write the British Columbia government to reject the Cline open-pit coal mine proposal and protect the wildlands of the Rocky Mountains' Flathead River Valley:
If constructed, the mine would destroy this unspoiled wilderness by degrading water quality, killing migratory trout species and jeopardizing threatened grizzly bear populations.
The Flathead Valley is a key migratory corridor for Rocky Mountain wildlife. This region supports the highest density of grizzly bears in the Rockies and is therefore crucial to ensuring the long-term recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. The Flathead also lies at a geographic crossroads, creating a rich diversity of plant species from the Canadian Arctic and boreal region, the prairies, the Pacific and the U.S. Rockies.
Click through the link above in order to quickly send a letter.
Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Seventh Generation continues greenwashing of Heifer International
Posted by Eric @ 1:58 PM
The Inspired Protagonist: Why I Support Heifer…Recently,
Seventh Generation's blog,
The Inspired Protagonist, invited me to comment on
a message from Heifer International's publicist they posted in response to
my blog entry taking Seventh Generation to task for promoting the commodification of nonhuman beings as a holiday giving idea.
However, what was termed a "thoughtful rebuke" was more or less treated as something to be countered, not something to think about. I wasn't even invited to post as a guest, but was relegated to the comments, which many visitors to the blog may never see. In fact, ever since I wrote my original post, The Inspired Protagonist seems to have been finding ways to give Heifer International a positive spin at their blog via guest posts.

It appears that Seventh Generation has some sort of arrangement with Heifer International, such that they are going out of their way to greenwash the company and justify their support of it. Obviously they wouldn't want to officially sanction a criticism of HI's exploitation of animals by offering me a guest post, nor would they allow anything other than the rosiest picture of HI to be portrayed, as their
newest post demonstrates.
I do not want to sanction the exploitation of animals, so therefore I suppose I must no longer purchase Seventh Generation's products, and I let them know as much in my comment following the most recent apologia for Heifer International:
While I welcomed the opportunity to respond to the Heifer International publicist's comments at this blog, it is disappointingly clear that Seventh Generation is committed to their ongoing partnership with Heifer International (note the link under "Inspiring Actions" in the sidebar), and that any official Inspired Protagonist posts will continue to promote and support that organization rather than carefully examining how a socially and environmentally responsible corporation can help people and the environment without using animals as a means to an end.
It is also clear that I will need to stop buying Seventh Generation products until such time as I can be reassured that the company is no longer actively supporting and promoting the slave-like treatment of animals as commodities instead of the sentient beings that they are.
I hesitated before using the word slave, since I doubt anyone will support the notion that the animals are being whipped and beaten, and I have no firsthand evidence of this, but the term slave-like is meant to imply the impunity with which people bought and sold other beings. In that case it was fellow humans, in this case it is nonhuman beings that have as much of a right to freedom as any human.
As one can easily infer from my original post, I realize that many cultures around the world live in climates where animals can graze on available land that does not provide ready food for humans, while providing milk and eventually flesh for people to eat. It may well be impractical for people in those areas, particularly nomadic cultures, to try to become self-sustaining on an entirely plant-based diet, at least at first. But should we really be supporting the continued use and further degradation of lands inhospitable to humans, or should we be supporting efforts to transform those lands into fertile areas capable of bearing fruit?
Fortunately there are other companies out there providing environmentally-friendly household products that don't appear to be actively promoting the commodification of animals, and I encourage you to purchase from them.
Labels: animal agriculture, animal ethics, environment, hunger relief
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Link between animal rights and the environment
Posted by Eric @ 3:36 AM
"We are bulldozing the Garden of Eden, and the first large animal has fallen." -- Robert L. Pitman, NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem Studies ProgramMost people look at the environmental movement as a whole separate ball of wax from the animal rights movement. You often see major environmental organizations working to rescue and preserve entire species of animals for various reasons typically having little to do with the notion that animals rightly
deserve to have their natural habitats left unspoilt for their own use. Often we hear about the role of predators in the ecosystem and those sorts of rationales. But all animals would appear to have as much of a stake in their own environment as we do, perhaps more so, owing to their inability to adapt their environments as radically as we have.
Animals born in the wild depend on their environments being somewhat preserved to what
they are adapted to inhabit. To protect these ecosystems, we can create
protected areas, we can
"manage" populations, and we can try to regulate individual cases, treating some species as endangered or threatened, for instance. Or, we can examine what gives us the impunity to toxify their rivers, raze their forests, build back yards in their hunting grounds, and encroach on their lives in so many other unspeakable ways.
If we recognized the inherent right of animals to live free from the artificial interference of humanity, and enforced that right, we might well have averted our present environmental disaster. Now we're just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You know it's late in the game when the environmentally-backward Bush administration
finally proposes listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
It is horrifying to me that we can allow hundreds of species to wind up in such a precarious position in the first place, and that--in some cases--this is considered a good thing. I mean, why is it okay to "manage" the numbers of some species into the low hundreds, as in the case of North American wolves? Well, the answer to that is: Because our expansion into the wilderness brought with it conflicts between our economic interests and the survival instincts of indigenous wildlife, as if that somehow justifies destroying our environment.
We permit ourselves to expand our species as much as we want, projected to grow beyond 9 billion in the next 30 years or so, but some of the most recognizable species in the world are limping along with our "protection." There is nothing remotely sustainable about this. If we can't figure out a way to live without decimating our fellow inhabitants, then we are bad planetary stewards indeed.
This rant was inspired by the above-linked polar bear article, mountain lion action alert (thanks, Deb), and
word from The New York Times that rampant economic development has rendered species like the baiji dolphin "functionally extinct":
Locally, the Yangtze River is in serious trouble; the canary in the coal mine is dead. In addition to baiji, the Yangtze paddlefish is (was) probably the largest freshwater fish in the world (at least 21 feet), and it hasn’t been seen since 2003; the huge Yangtze sturgeon breeds only in tanks now because it has no natural habitat (a very large dam stands between it and its breeding grounds). The whole river ecosystem is going down the tubes in the name of rampant economic development. There is a huge environmental debt accruing on the Yangtze, and baiji was perhaps just the first installment.
...Nobody eats baiji and no tourists pay to see it — there were no reasons to take it deliberately, but there was no economic reason to save it, either. It is gone because too many people got too efficient at catching fish in the river and it was incidental bycatch. And it is perhaps a view of the future for much of the rest of the world and an indication that the predicted mass extinction is arriving on schedule.
For the Chinese, I think that losing a half-blind river dolphin and a couple of oversize fish was a fair trade for all the money that is being made there now. China is an economic model envied by most of the rest of the world, and I think that many other (especially third world) countries will be confronted with similar decisions of economic development versus conservation of habitats and animals, and the response will be the same. From now on we will have to choose which animals will be allowed to live on the planet with us, and baiji got cut in the first round. It is a sad day. I know it is their country, but the planet belongs to all of us.
Labels: endangered species, environment, wildlife
Thursday, December 21, 2006
My response to Heifer International
Posted by Eric @ 7:00 PM
Note: I tried posting this in the comments at Inspired Protagonist, but was experiencing grave technical errors that prevented me from doing so. I have modified my opening for this post to reflect that it is being posted at AAFL instead.
I'd like to thank Geoff for inviting me over to
The Inspired Protagonist to chime in on Mr. White's response to my
original entry. I'd also like to thank readers who have taken the time to share their thoughts there in the comments section.
I am, frankly, a little concerned that my post may not have been well-read, but was rather reacted to as a generic critique of Heifer International. I infer this because a number of my points are either avoided or simply missed by Mr. White in formulating his response.
Anyone that takes the time to read my post can see quite plainly that a) I'm male (Hi, my name is Eric), b) I do propose alternatives, and c) I provide a link to support the contention that Heifer International is doing more to pave the way for an animal-based agriculture in the developing world than merely providing "livestock" and skills to people in need.
The reason Mr. White and I may not find common ground, despite Geoff's request that we try to do so, is that Heifer International at its very core considers animals to be livestock, meant for our use, whereas animal rights philosophy, in finding that animals exist for their own purposes, considers the common view of animals inherently unjust.
I mentioned that this philosophy can be somewhat more problematic when advocating in developing countries, as often people square off animal rights against human rights in a false dichotomy. But Mr. White seems to have misunderstood my meaning. I never called people who believe animals are less important than humans "fanatic." Such a view is, of course, the dominant paradigm of our time.
I merely lamented that, when attempting to espouse animal rights when humans are suffering, people who still see nonhuman animals as things instead of individuals generally argue that humans are more important than nonhumans, rather than seeing that one need not pit the two against one another. One can help humans
without harming animals. My point in identifying the common (often knee-jerk) response against animal rights in this arena was to point out that, so far, this sort of third-way thinking has been sadly absent.
Unfortunately, the same mindset that pits animals against humans highlights the very same deep-seated beliefs that Heifer International espouses, namely that animals are ours do with as we please.
But the power and strength to subdue animals and bend them to our will does not make it right to do so. We are a powerful and intelligent species, it's true. And that is why it is ever more incumbent upon us to find ways not to exploit animals, and to implement compassionate alternatives.
Beyond the philosophical reasons, there are still numerous concrete objections to the use of animals in agriculture, even at this small scale. Mr. White seems to have missed my observation that helping out at this level provides a foundation for the growth of livestock industries in these areas in the future (he's being disingenuous if he suggests that profit-challenged industries aren't salivating over the potential to exploit developing economies as Europe and the U.S. become less desirable places to raise and slaughter animals). In other words, contributing to Heifer International now lays the foundation for a society that views animal flesh as a commodity and, as that society grows, so will its flesh consumption, along with all the negative environmental, health, and animal issues attendant to modern "animal agriculture."
Again, because Mr. White seems to have missed it, I also originally suggested a number of alternatives, including giving to
Food for Life or
VegFam and reclaiming the deserts. In fact, a number of projects have already done this quite successfully, and you can see links to just a small handful of these in my
original post as well (
Here's an additional permaculture website).
Remember that, despite the fact that we may not eat exactly the same food, nonhumans drink the same water as humans, and contribute to desertification. Even in our own country the aquifers are being drained at an alarming rate, with a substantial portion of that water going to "domesticated" nonhumans and the food they eat. Why put all those resources into animals, when they are not an energy efficient source of nutrition for humans? It's rather well known these days that the lower you eat on the "food chain," the more efficient and sustainable your diet is.
Bearing all this in mind, I'd suggest that Heifer International promotes reliance on livestock, rather than self-reliance. That is a dangerous position to place people whom you're trying to help become self-sufficient and to grow into a prosperous society in the long-term.
If anything, developing countries offer people that want to help an opportunity to take the lessons we've learned in our own cultures to help others grow in ways that are truly sustainable, from the ground up. That means not hooking them on the animal-based agriculture that--with its contributions to global warming emissions, deforestation, and competition for resources--threatens the very survival of the planet we all share.
Labels: animal agriculture, animal rights, environment, hunger relief
Thursday, November 30, 2006
FAO Report Creates a Stink Over Farm Animals
Posted by Eric @ 11:56 AM
Planet ArkIf you no longer eat animals, then you're probably already aware of the devastating environmental impact caused by animal production, but you may still be surprised and alarmed by the findings of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation:
- Gases from manure and flatulence, deforestation to make grazing land and the energy used in farming meant livestock produced 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that trapped heat in the atmosphere
- Livestock produced 9 percent of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Livestock produced 35-40 percent of methane emissions
- Livestock produced 65 percent of nitrous oxide, which has almost 300 times the global warming potential of CO2
- About 70 percent of Amazonian forests have been turned into grazing land
The FAO projected global meat production to double to 465 million tons in 2050 and milk output to experience a similar increase. The only way any one of us can individually stop this increase, to even have a chance of helping to flatten consumption (much less reverse it) is to eat an entirely plant-based diet, and to urge others to do so. The FAO, sadly, does not make such a recommendation, saying instead that
agriculture needed to develop ways of reducing its emissions, including recycling manure into "biogas" fuel, adapting animals' diets and improving land use policies.
While these measures might ameliorate the problem as consumption grows in developing countries like China, they are minor in the overall scheme of things and wouldn't do nearly enough to sufficiently address the environmental impact of animal agriculture on our planet.
When is a major governmental body going to finally recognize that humans should be eating plant-based diets? I know. I won't hold my breath. I don't expect the FAO or the like to come right out and recommend that everyone go vegan, for obvious reasons (though they should). But they should see the writing on the wall, at least, and recommend plant-based diets as a sane way to preserve the future of our planet, much less our own personal health.
In the process, we might avert the disastrous prospect of seeing billions more animals suffer and die every year for the sake of our pleasure.
Labels: environment, factory farming
Monday, November 13, 2006
El Nino May Spell Trouble for Indonesian Orangutans
Posted by Eric @ 10:09 PM
Planet ArkAlready suffering from the loss of approximately
one thousand lives in forest fires this year, Indonesia's beleaguered orangutans are apparently facing the threat of worse El Nino conditions in the region next year, according to ecologists:
Willie Smits, founder of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation, said if intentional burning of forest was not prevented, Indonesia would face a terrible haze season next year.
"If we are looking at an El Nino which has a cooling in the Indian Ocean and a warming up in the Pacific Ocean, these are exactly the conditions that occurred in 1982-83 and 1997-98. Those were the two worst El Nino disasters. Next year we could look at a new world record," he said.
"Having a rainy season is not going to solve it. We could look at new problems as early as April next year," he said. "If these orangutans are to survive, we better deal with the fire situation in the coming years."
The annual fires are often deliberately lit by timber and palm oil plantation firms or farmers in Borneo and Indonesia's Sumatra island to clear land for cultivation, many of them in the same forests where the orangutans live.
Smits called the orangutan popultions "extremely threatened," saying that "The forest has to be intact in one big piece for a population as a total to survive."
Labels: emergency rescue, environment, orangutans, wildlife
Monday, November 06, 2006
1,000 orangutans feared dead in fires
Posted by Eric @ 7:59 PM
MSNBC.com | World EnvironmentI'm exhausted right now, so don't expect anything terribly insightful from me, but here are some quotes from the article that struck me deeply:
In 2002, it was estimated there were 56,000 orangutans in the wild but the population has dwindled at a rate of 6,000 a year, conservationists say. Ed Wray / APA rescued orangutan peers out of a temporary holding cage Monday in Mantangai, Indonesia.
Nearly 90 percent of their habitat has been destroyed by illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming practices. If the rate of deforestation continues, orangutans will disappear from the wild in around a decade, experts say.
A decade. Unless more is done to stop this, there's no way these orangutans will survive.
The next quote lets people know what they can do:
Most of the annual dry season fires are deliberately lit by farmers or at the behest of timber and oil palm plantation companies.
In other words, end the global demand for timber and palm oil, and you may save the orangutans. Doesn't sound too hopeful, does it?

Jennifer Miller is covering the disaster at the
IFAW blog:
Labels: emergency rescue, endangered species, environment, orangutans, wildlife
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
TerraPass: Not so environmentally-friendly
Posted by Eric @ 4:24 AM
I just fired this letter off to
TerraPass. It should be fairly self-explanatory. Feel free to pipe up in the comments section if you have any questions, concerns, or other thoughts. I loves me some feedback.
To whom it may concern:
I was just about to buy an airline ticket at Expedia to fly from Los Angeles to Portland, and was excited that I could add a TerraPass option to help offset the carbon impact of my travel. I was sold on buying my ticket through Expedia because of this one defining feature, as I consider myself strongly pro-environment.
However, upon looking at what companies would be supported by this purchase, I was crestfallen. I had to forgo the TerraPass because I'm vegan (in large part for environmental reasons), and so are the 16 other people I'm meeting up in Portland for the weekend. To clarify, as a person who abstains from supporting the use of all animal products, I can't possibly support a dairy farm with my purchase.
Thoughtful people who care deeply about our environment generally stop consuming products that are a big part of the problem when there are superior alternatives available. Though there may not be realistic alternatives to air travel in this day and age, no one needs cow's milk, which is meant for calves, not people.
I implore you to find more humane alternatives for reducing the carbon footprint of compassionate travelers, and to read this recent E! Magazine story to see why capturing methane from dairy cows doesn't begin to solve a fundamental environmental problem -- http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/40639/.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Eric Prescott
UPDATE: Be sure to read the comments below for responses to the company, and my responses to them. Here's hoping the conversation continues, but I'm already encouraged by the future possibility of directing where my TerraPass dollars would be spent.
Labels: dairy, environment, methane, travel
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Court bars Wisconsin from killing gray wolves
Posted by Eric @ 2:41 AM
Chicago Sun-TimesIt's just a preliminary injunction, but (by definition) it's a start:
A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction barring Wisconsin from killing gray wolves, siding with animal welfare and environmental groups that argue the killing violates the Endangered Species Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the killing of up to 43 gray wolves. The state argued the permit was necessary to maintain social tolerance for the wolves, which are listed as endangered.
But in a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly mocked that rationale.
''Simply put,'' she wrote in her decision, ''the recovery of the gray wolf is not supported by killing 43 gray wolves.''
Special thanks to
Jeff Bryant for bringing this news to our attention while I'm busy traveling.
Labels: endangered species, environment, hunting, livestock predation, wildlife, wolves
Monday, August 07, 2006
Extinction: Bye Bye, Birdie ...
Posted by Eric @ 11:36 AM
Leaving town for a couple of weeks tomorrow, so blogging may or may not be scarce. As always, subscribing through RSS or e-mail (see sidebar), is the easiest way to know if there are new posts available.
In the meantime,
AlterNet has an article on mass extinction. According to prominent biologists, we're on currently par with the five previous mass extinctions in life's history on earth.
The end of the piece suggests that much of the species projected to go extinct could survive, if we create protected areas and alter our own activities, but it does not go into detail about which activities would be most beneficial to alter, like our diet and modes of transportation. Missed opportunity, though it certainly has sparked conversation in comments on the story.
Labels: endangered species, environment, global warming, wildlife
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Environment suffers during Mideast crisis
Posted by Eric @ 1:10 PM
I
previously wrote about one of the side effects the conflict in Israel and Lebanon is having on animals in the area. Now
comes word from MSNBC.com that an oil spill caused by Israeli bombing has created an environmental disaster that cannot be cleaned up until the fighting stops. In the meantime, more innocent bystanders continue to be killed in this fighting, as endangered baby turtles are dying shortly after hatching, and dead fish float to the surface just off the coast.
Experts warn Cyprus, Turkey and even Greece could be affected. Already the oil pollution is spreading to Syria:
“Chances are, our whole marine ecosystem facing the Lebanese shoreline is already dead,” [environment minister, Yaacoub] Sarraf said. “What is at stake today is all marine life in the eastern Mediterranean.”
[snip]
Optimistic assessments suggest it will take at least six months for the shore cleanup and up to 10 years for “the reestablishment of the ecosystem of the eastern Mediterranean as it was two weeks ago,” he said.
The cost of clean-up is expected be anywhere from $30 to $500 million dollars, depending on how long it is put off, and how thorough it is.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Altered Oceans
Posted by Eric @ 12:13 AM
The Los Angeles Times is running a five-part series this week,
Altered Oceans, which unavoidably holds humankind accountable for the absolutely ruinous state of our seas and the animals that are suffering and dying off as a result, in part, of the only partially treated nutrient-dense waste we are dumping by the billions and billions of gallons every day, much of which comes from agriculture, i.e., intensively confined animals. Overfishing is also held responsible for considerable devastation.
Clearly diets that rely heavily on animal protein are responsible for the worst kind of enviromental destruction. And this series doesn't even focus on desertification caused by grazing cattle, Amazon forests clear-cut to provide farmland for soy, 80% of which is fed to animals intended for human consumption, and so on, all of which affect animals in the process, sending countless unknown species into extinction.
It's like an alarm bell is clanging, but no one is hearing it. This news is further behind the curve than global warming.
An Inconvenient Truth focused on global warming, but the environmental crisis is much larger than that, and a key solution that needs to brought fully into the mainstream is a plant-based diet, especially before meat consumption grows astronomically in developing countries.
Each article in the series is on the long side, so you may want to print to PDF and read at your convenience. I strongly recommend doing so. It's probably one of the most important ongoing stories I've ever read in a newspaper. Today I found myself emotionally raw reading about the plight of poisoned sea lions. You'll be moved, more informed, and hopefully you'll be more motivated to help do something about it.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Oil and gas: extraction or extinction?
Posted by Eric @ 2:24 AM
Independent Online Edition | Environment: The whale's tale
It is estimated that there are only about 100 western north Pacific gray whales left alive. According to the article, the death of "just one female a year for the next three years would be enough to send the population into catastrophic decline.":
The whales' feeding ground lies directly above huge reserves of gas and oil, which some of the biggest companies in the world are determined to exploit.
This small stretch of water off Sakhalin island, in the far east of Russia, has become the battleground for a struggle between environmentalists determined to save these whales from extinction and oilmen equally determined to push ahead with what one of them calls "the mother of all projects".
It wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, whales were so plentiful that it was dangerous to send boats through the waters. But,
In the mid-1800s, the Sea of Okhotsk was the region of choice for the whaling fleets of Japan, Korea and the United States. Intensive whaling had its inevitable effect - numbers dropped off steadily towards the end of the century, and by beginning of the First World War, the whale was thought to be extinct.
Russian marine biologists "rediscovered" the whales in the 1980s, at around the same time that the massive oil reserves were found. The projects to exploit these reserves are massive and well-funded by companies such as Shell and Mitsubishi. Billions are at stake, and so are lives.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), along with about 60 local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are working to protect them, their main fear that the noise from drilling, pipe-laying, and construction will distress the whales, driving them away from their feeding grounds. As western grays are seasonal feeders, surviving for the over half of the year on blubber reserves from a feeding period that can last as little as 4 months, an interruption to this cycle threatens their survival:
Scientists have observed apparent behavioural changes in the whales in relation to the operation of seismic survey ships working up to 30km away. They also reported 14 "skinny" whales in 2005, a considerably larger number than in any year since 2001. The cause of their emaciation is unknown, and it cannot be scientifically linked to the oil projects, but the environmentalists are deeply concerned.
And this says nothing of other risks posed to the magnificent creatures, including the threat of ships hitting them, and damaged pipelines releasing oil into their habitat.
Despite all these concerns, the projects are moving forward. Currently 75% complete, the construction will continue once public banks step in to invest $6.9 billion, which looks it could well happen. With that kind of money at stake, the environment takes second position to politics. Environmentally-concerned citizens can only hope that the prospect of transparency inherent in public financing is as realistic as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's director of the environment, Alistair Clark claims:
He refuses to say whether the loan will go ahead, but it is probable, given the EBRD's views on the value of its involvement. "It's a bad thing for the environment and people if public institutions don't have involvement, because we bring transparency to the process," Clark says.
As much power as we have to protect animals in our daily lives, this is one area where I feel the issue is way above my head. Maybe if I was a multi-millionaire investment banker or something... All I can recommend at the moment is for you to reduce your fuel consumption in every way imaginable, certainly removing any financial ties to Shell and the other financiers, as well as supporting the
IFAW, which seems to be the most empowered to hold the involved parties accountable.
Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Extinction near for whales around Anchorage
Posted by Eric @ 1:20 AM
MSNBC.com | EnvironmentIt seems that all the whale news I relay on to my readers here at AAFL is bad. I'm sad to say the trend continues with this story on
beluga whales:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - In the 1970s, there used to be about 1,300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet, delighting locals and tourists alike in the body of water around Anchorage. Last year, the number was estimated at just 278.
Why their numbers are dwindling has scientists puzzled — and scared. The National Marine Fisheries Service is embarking on a status review to determine if the belugas need the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.
[snip]
One cataclysmic event — a large stranding in the inlet’s 20-foot tides, perhaps, or an oil spill or tsunami — could push the remaining whale population over the edge, said [Lloyd Lowry, a professor of marine mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks].
“Having a small population for a long time is very risky,” he said. “If the decline continues we are going to get to very critically low numbers soon.”
In contrast to the isolated belugas whales of Cook Inlet, belugas overall are thriving in Alaska, with at least 35,000 to 40,000 animals in four Arctic stocks.
[Brad Smith, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service] said the status review will be expanded this time. It will include a prediction at what point the inlet whales — considered a genetically distinct population — could go extinct. The last review was done about a decade ago and the data shows the decline.
“It certainly does not look encouraging,” Smith said.
Labels: endangered species, environment, whales, wildlife
Friday, April 29, 2005
Polar Bear, Walrus Under Threat in Greenland - WWF
Posted by Eric @ 11:08 AM
Planet Ark: Polar Bear, Walrus Under Threat in Greenland - WWFExcerpt
OSLO - Polar bears and walrus could be wiped out in Greenland because of excess hunts and a thawing of Arctic habitats spurred by global warming, the WWF conservation group said on Thursday.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Planet Ark : Peru Saves Rare Frogs From Cocktail Blender
Posted by Eric @ 1:43 AM
Planet Ark : Peru Saves Rare Frogs From Cocktail Blender
Well, uh, yay and boo:
LIMA, Peru - Peruvian officials saved some 4,000 endangered frogs from being whizzed into popular drinks after they were found hidden in an abattoir.
'We were checking the fridges when out jumped a frog. It had escaped, they were in big crates,' a spokesman for Lima city hall said on Thursday.
Frog cocktails are popular in the Andes because of their supposed aphrodisiac qualities. Shops in central Lima selling the drinks have tanks where customers can choose their frogs.
He said the Telmatobius frogs -- which had apparently been brought from the southern lakes in the high Andes -- were found on Wednesday stored in the abattoir.
They were taken to a colonial fountain in central Lima to splash around before being returned to their native lakes by ecological police.
'There were about 5,000 of them but 1,000 died because of the conditions and in transit,' the spokesman said.
Ecological police? Cool!
Blended frogs as aphrodisiacs? Way UNcool!
Labels: environment, wildlife
More good news : Asiatic Lion Population in Indian Forest Increases
Posted by Eric @ 1:41 AM
Planet Ark: Asiatic Lion Population in Indian Forest Increases
Excerpt:
AHMEDABAD, India - The number of Asiatic lions in India's Gir forest, the animal's only natural habitat, has risen to 359 from 327 four years ago after a crackdown on poaching, a new government census showed.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Thursday, April 28, 2005
WWF: Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Is Not Extinct
Posted by Eric @ 6:40 PM
World Wildlife Fund: Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Is Not Extinct
Hey, hey! Here's some rare good news in a press release from the WWF:
(Excerpted)
WASHINGTON -- April 28 -- Carter Roberts, president and CEO-elect of World Wildlife Fund, issued the following statement following reports that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been found in Arkansas, 60 years after it was believed to have gone extinct:
"Nature gives very few second chances, but this may be one of them. Just imagine: North America's largest woodpecker -- a bird with a three-foot wingspan -- hiding in the Arkansas woods for 60 years without being seen by people.
"It's no accident that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been reported in Arkansas's Big Woods. The Nature Conservancy, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and local communities have worked tirelessly for years to keep these magnificent landscapes intact. Without this place, the ivory-billed woodpecker would have had nowhere to go.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Norwegian Fleets Kill 25 Whales in Season's Start
Posted by Eric @ 4:04 AM
Planet Ark : Norwegian Fleets Kill 25 Whales in Season's Start Excerpt:
OSLO - Norwegian fishermen harpooned 25 whales in the first week of the country's much condemned whaling season that this year allows the biggest hunting quota for more than 10 years, a whalers' spokesman said on Monday.
Norway is the only nation to permit commercial whaling after breaking with a 1986 International Whaling Commission moratorium in 1993. Environmental groups condemn the increasing quotas and shrinking monitoring of whalers.
"Norway should be condemned for sanctioning the cruelty that whaling represents," said Kitty Block, a spokeswoman for Whalewatch, which says it represents 140 anti-whaling groups in 55 nations.
She added Norway's whalers were under less surveillance this season because many were no longer obliged to have a government inspector aboard. Instead, they have an electronic "blue box" meant to monitor activities on ship.
Critics say the "blue box" is unable to record how long it takes from the moment the harpoon hits to the moment of death, but the Norwegian government maintains almost all whales die instantly when struck by a harpoon tipped with a grenade.
I'm sorry... did you say grenade? WTF?
WOW. That makes it SOOO much better. If you ever had cause to save the whales, now's the time. Contact
Whalewatch to help.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Hunt a rhino, save an ecosystem?
Posted by Eric @ 4:00 AM
Hunt a rhino, save an ecosystem? | csmonitor.comYeep! The dark side of conservation... Of course, if humans had never thrown the whole equilibrium so badly out of whack we wouldn't be reading this article, but at least it discusses the issue in a way that shows the pros and cons of our current conservation methods. I just don't like putting a bounty on an animals head for any reason. This whole affair could be handled better, in my opinion, for all parties involved. Instead we have a shortcut solution.
Excerpt:
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – Once on the verge of extinction, black rhinos in South Africa's national parks have made a spectacular comeback. Under the country's aggressive conservation programs, the mammal's population has grown by more than 50 percent in the past decade. But that success has brought a new challenge: how to control a population in limited conservation space.
Now South Africa is weighing a controversial measure that would allow hunters to kill five old male black rhinos a year, which could raise $200,000 per kill. Allowing hunting, some experts say, has helped resurrect the white rhino population, which now stands at 11,000 worldwide, from a low of 200 at the turn of the 20th century.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Monday, April 25, 2005
Urgent Action Needed for Borneo's Wildlife
Posted by Eric @ 4:03 PM
PRESS RELEASE from the
World Wildlife Fund:
Fast-Disappearing 'Heart of Borneo' is Likely Home to Thousands of Species Still Undiscovered; Urgent Action Needed to Protect Island Where 361 Species Were Recently Discovered
WASHINGTON -- In the past decade, at least 361 new species have been discovered on Borneo, one of the most important centers of biodiversity in the world. And a new report by World Wildlife Fund finds that there are likely to be thousands of plant and animal species left to discover on the world's third-largest island.
Released today, "Borneo's Lost World: Newly Discovered Species on Borneo" shows at least 361 new species have been identified and described on the Asian island between 1994 and 2004: 260 insects, 50 plants, 30 freshwater fish, 7 frogs, 6 lizards, 5 crabs, 2 snakes and a toad.
The report suggests that thousands more have not yet been studied, particularly in the island's 54 million-acre inner region, which is relatively inaccessible and home to some of the most pristine forests left on the island. Borneo is split between the countries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Much of the island's wildlife species -- even the largest mammals -- have yet to be closely studied by scientists. WWF and other scientists just discovered in 2003 that Borneo's pygmy elephants are genetically distinct from other Asian elephants and are likely a new subspecies. And it wasn't until 2000 that scientists found that Borneo's orangutan population is a separate species from other orangutans.
Large areas of Borneo's forest are being rapidly cleared and replaced with tree plantations for rubber, palm oil and timber production. According to the report, the illegal trade in exotic animals is also on the rise, as logging trails and cleared forest open access to more remote areas.
"U.S. and international consumer demand for wood, rubber and palm oil, used in lots of food and cosmetics, fuels much of the destruction of the Borneo jungle," said Tom Dillon, director of species conservation at WWF. "All of these useful products can be sustainably produced, and consumers and companies need to tell companies they don't want products created at the expense of wildlife in some of the last pristine rain forests left on Earth."
An ambitious initiative is under way to conserve the "Heart of Borneo." WWF is working to assist Borneo's three nations to conserve the area known as the "Heart of Borneo" -- a total of 137,000 square miles of equatorial rain forest -- through a network of protected areas and sustainably managed forest and through international cooperation led by the governments of Borneo and supported by a global effort.
"Borneo is undoubtedly one of the most important centers of biodiversity in the world," Dillon said. "Losing the heart of Borneo would be an unacceptable tragedy not only for Borneo and its people, but also for the world. It is really now or never."
Borneo is one of only two places -- the other being Indonesia's Sumatra island -- where endangered orangutans, elephants and rhinos co-exist. Other threatened wildlife in Borneo includes clouded leopards, sun bears and Bornean gibbons, the latter found nowhere else in the world. The island is also home to 10 primate species, more than 350 bird species, 150 reptiles and amphibians and 15,000 plants.
The protection of the heart of Borneo would not only benefit wildlife. It would also help alleviate poverty by increasing water and food security and cultural survival for the people of Borneo. In the long term, it will save the island from the ultimate threat of deforestation and increased impacts from droughts and fires.
Known in the United States as World Wildlife Fund and recognized worldwide by its panda logo, WWF leads international efforts to protect endangered species and their habitats and to conserve the diversity of life on Earth. Now in its fifth decade, WWF, the global conservation organization, works in more than 100 countries around the world. For more information on World Wildlife Fund, visit World Wildlife Fund.
###
Labels: environment, wildlife
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A Couple of Stories that Beat Up the Optimist in Me
Posted by Eric @ 1:09 AM
UN Wildlife Group Lashes India Over Dwindling TigersGENEVA - India's commitment to protecting endangered species such as the tiger appeared to be weakening as organised crime networks poach populations near to extinction, wildlife protection group CITES said on Tuesday.
Japan to Expand Whale Hunt to 2 New SpeciesTOKYO - Japan is set to expand its annual whale hunt to take two new species as well as nearly doubling its planned catch of minke whales, media reports said on Tuesday, a move virtually certain to spark global fury if true.
Under a new plan for what Tokyo calls its research whaling programme, Japan would take humpback whales and fin whales in addition to the four whale species it currently hunts, sources close to the situation were quoted as telling Kyodo news agency.
Japan, where whale meat is regarded as a delicacy, abandoned commercial whaling in 1986 in line with an international ban, but began a programme to hunt whales in what it calls scientific research whaling the following year. The meat ends up on store shelves and on the tables of gourmet restaurants.
Japan maintains that eating whale is an important part of its cultural heritage despite the protests of environmentalists determined to prevent the killing of the marine mammals, some species of which are endangered.
The plan is to be submitted to the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) this summer.
It calls for Japan initially to hunt around 10 humpbacks and 10 fin whales per year, Kyodo said, and to sharply increase the number of minkes it takes each year from the 440 it took in the Antarctic in the past whaling season.
Labels: environment, wildlife
Friday, April 08, 2005
Quarter of Primates Nearly Extinct - Report
Posted by Eric @ 2:40 AM
Quarter of Primates Nearly Extinct - Report I always dread openings like this, because I know exactly what's coming:
ANTANANARIVO - The earth's most successful primates -- humans -- are on the verge of killing off nearly a quarter of the 625 other species of primate on the planet, according to new global report.
This article stems from the "Primates in Peril" report released on Thursday in Madagascar
...with input from 50 of the world's top specialists from the International Primatological Society, Conservation International and other organisations.
Dwindling patches of rainforest and pressure from hunting have brought some species' numbers down to a few dozen, it said.
"If you took all the remaining individuals from the 25 primate species on this list and gave them a seat in a football stadium, they'd all fit," Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, told Reuters.
Pathetic. It's the most appropriate word here, I think. I mean, we can spend millions, if not billions, on what is certainly fascinating and important work, but we can't do something to prevent the near-extinction of our closest mammalian relatives? There's probably more primates in captivity for entertainment and experimentation than in the wild at this point, and it just makes me sick when I think of how much the world spends on thousands of other things that are evidently more important.
One day there will only be animals that have financial value to humans, and the planet will be a barren wasteland of food crops for human and domestic animal consumption, or vast cities, with the occasional manicured national park to pretend we still have a wilderness.
That's the pessimist in me speaking anyway. Hopefully anyone as outraged as me by this will not let this future occur. It doesn't have to happen.
The report urges immediate action to curb the destruction by farmers and loggers of forests in which primates dwell and end the trade in bushmeat and exotic medicines from animal parts.
"If we do nothing ... as many as one-quarter of all today's primates will be dead within 20 years," it says.
Primates are "relentlessly hunted for their meat and fur, bodies broken for dubious medicines, shot for stealing crops in fields which were once their home".
Of the four global regions inhabited by primates, their situation is worst in Madagascar, where loss of habitat to traditional slash-and-burn agriculture has left some lemur species, such as Perrier's sifaka, stranded in tiny areas of forest.
"Amazingly, we've managed to get through the 20th century without any primate species going extinct," Mittermeier said. "I'd like to think this is partly because of better conservation efforts."
Labels: environment, primates, wildlife