Earth Rage

by Stephen Capra 
 
…the faces of the beasts show what truly IS to us -Rainer Marie Rilke

What does it take to awaken a world from the self-inflicted wound of arrogance and greed?

From earthquakes that shake our foundation, to the floods that Noah could only understand. From the new intensity hurricanes that bring ocean to land, land to ocean and displace an ever-growing population. These vicissitudes, are not warnings, they reflect the changes and torment our planet is undergoing presently. Humans, that have been gifted life by this planet, are choosing by their actions, to destroy its very soul, its life force. In so doing, we are damming generations to come with vitriol and without care.

Today, we are witness to a fool’s enterprise of capitalism. Our world today seeks enlightenment through materialism, and thus can never find the joy and understanding that nature reveals. We are mutating into societies that are lead not by leaders, but rather those corrupted by power, and driven by their own material gain. One that reflects an approach of get all you can, rather than one of community.

We live in a world that rewards those who allow oil to remain our energy source, and we fight block by block, to place solar power on equal footing, as the planet cries out in pain. When did we become this arrogant believer in man’s powers or religion to solve all our problems? When did we allow species to perish at the hands of our egocentric view of a world, one which seemingly only reflects only our image, how do we see that to be sustainable?

If we refuse to act, then we will be remembered as collaborators with genocide. When we turn our ears deaf to logic; grant our souls to corporate enterprise, while ignoring the message in our heart, we symbolize the clear disconnect that urban life and the loss of connection to wildness has fostered.

How could that be?

Because we are the children of a great and selfless generation, one that won a great war, and was given dams, clear-cuts, urban sprawl and microwaves, as the reward for saving the world free. Second homes, larger closets, bigger cars, cable TV and endless children, were part of our victory and led to the development of corporations that reached across the globe, to harness resources and find cheap labor, to feed our American dream.

We placed dictators in charge of countries that defied us and we used the atom bomb to keep the world in line. The world watched and took notice; we continued to hear in school and in church about our generosity and caring. We cut more timber to build great cities and we drilled our beautiful West for oil, we drilled our oceans for more and we drilled every part of the globe with less concern for our neighbors and their children, but we continued to believe in our generosity.

We bribed our elected officials at home and abroad, we allowed our rivers to be poisoned, our air fouled. When we began to clean it up, corporations went where that could foul it up, cheaper.

We elected a new generation of Republican leaders that ignored science and reason; they created false prophets that filled our airwaves to make us doubt reality. They supported foods and crops that made us fat and bees endangered. The impact made us less inclined to spend time in nature. The NRA and others helped push for more powerful guns and scopes to kill that which we refuse to see as equal-the bears, wolves and whales that define the sanity and grace in life on this earth.
Now the gospel they preach is to ignore the very signs that beg for our action. That we must acknowledge the reality of climate change and the role that man continues to play in this poisoning of life on earth.

No country has more skin in this than America; no country should act with more resolve than America. We cleared the world of their natural resources, wildlife, air and water to feed our addiction to a better life, to having more and more of everything. We honored and revered wealth, indulgence and glamor. We ignored the cost that such extravagance was having on our planet, and we did so with a blind arrogance.

Today, we have a President that has long ago sold his soul for money. We have an oil industry that fills our minds with commercials about technologies to better our future, while lobbying hard to have access to every acre to drill and frack so they can continue their dead man walking, get rich, approach to life on earth.
Climate change is real; pulling America out of the Paris accord is part of the ablation of our responsibility and reflects a new American ego, one that does not seek to be generous, but rather to take all that remains. Such boorish and misguided behavior will spark the wars of the future and distills the harsh truth about our self-centered view of our world.

The shame should be all consuming, but the void of emotion and brute ego remains palatable.

To restore our leadership in the world does not require investing in our military, it requires investing in clean energy alternatives and sharing any and all technology with the world. Yet, we are conceding such a mantle and the endless job creation that goes with it, to every other nation, rather than admit that climate change is real. So we bury our head in coal and drill our wildest lands, to kill the wildness that remains in our planets heart.

America, much like the issue of Slavery, must come to terms with our polluted past and the role we played across the globe. We must make true reparations to the world for our self-indulgence. We must go far beyond any nation in our efforts to end climate change and we must investment large sums of money and research into this issue-NOW! Our national labs must abandon their nuclear mission and become the backbone of our clean energy revolution. We must give companies ever more incentives and rewards for a clean future.

We must also protect far more lands, wildlife and water, using innovation for energy development, no matter how small the scale. We have no choice but to elect leaders that put the planet first and make decisions based on that principle.
We must return to a fundamental core value, which insured future generations have it better, not worse, than us.

It’s also crucial that we become real partners with wildlife and seeing them as part of our moral responsibility, not as simply expendable game. We must love more than ourselves. That may not solve climate change, but it is part of rediscovering our soul as a people.

Finally, it’s about reconnecting to nature, and pushing aside the lust for consumerism and giving real thought and encouragement to family planning.
All of this requires a maturing of America, as a people, as a society. We have failed the moral test for generations, and yet at times we have surprised and inspired. We do not have time now for failure; we must grow into the responsibility that our actions have warranted. We must fight climate change because it is a true moral and social imperative. The world, you see, is watching.

We must engage the process with humility; with true spirit and enlightenment.
If we do not, the tears of our planet will become the floods that remove man for the sake of a new beginning.

That is the message our planet is showing us. We must begin to listen.

Earth is life. Let’s respect the true life.
Let us fight for the mother, which gives us life.
Mother Earth, you are life.

Copyright © 2017 Bold Visions Conservation, All rights reserved.
Bold Visions Conservation is sending a weekly update on our activities to our kind donors. If you do not want to be included in these mailings, you may opt-out at any time.

Our mailing address is:

Bold Visions Conservation

PO Box 40399

AlbuquerqueNM 87196

Advertisements

Proposed wildlife management plans alarm BC’s naturalists

April 13, 2017

Press release from BC Nature – for immediate release

Nature-lovers across BC are expressing concern over a proposed new method for managing wildlife in the province. Speaking on behalf of BC Nature, the federation of naturalist clubs across BC, president Dr. Alan Burger said “Our members are alarmed by recent statements by government ministers indicating that wildlife management might be handed over to an external agency supported by special interest groups, specifically hunters and guide- outfitters”. This model of wildlife management will undoubtedly work against the interests of the vast majority of British Columbians, added Burger.

Recent statements by Ministers Steve Thomson (Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management) and Bill Bennett (Energy and Mines) suggest that, if the BC Liberals win this election, much wildlife management will be handed over to an independent agency, funded in part by hunting and fishing licences. Both ministers made these statements while flanked by members of the BC Wildlife Federation, the influential hunting and fishing advocacy group. It is well known that BCWF has long been lobbying the government for a greater say in wildlife management, citing the millions of dollars paid in hunting and fishing licences as the reason for greater input.

“This proposal is flawed at several levels” stated Burger. First, the economic argument is false. Hunting and fishing licences are an important source of revenue and BC Nature agrees that there should be a greater share contributed to wildlife management. But, there is much greater input to the BC economy from the non-consumptive users of wildlife – the tourism and wildlife-watching industry, people selling binoculars, camera gear, field guides, outdoor gear etc. and, most importantly, the vast majority of British Columbians that spend money traveling and camping to simply enjoy seeing animals alive in the wild.

BC has not undertaken research recently to investigate the economic benefits of wildlife- watching, but in neighbouring Washington the research shows that wildlife-watching contributes five times the economic benefit ($1.5 billion) that hunting does. A study in 2006 by the US Fish and Wildlife found that over 71 million Americans spent nearly $45 billion on retail sales while observing, feeding or watching wildlife in the US. Canadians are likely to spend even more per capita. Wildlife viewing is a growing business and BC is becoming a world-class destination for this highly sustainable activity.

Second, the proposed method for implementing wildlife management is flawed. There is no doubt that much more money is needed to enhance wildlife and ecosystem management, secure critical habitat and deal with the increasing impacts of industrial and human footprints in our province. Habitat loss, in particular, is a huge issue across many ecosystems in B.C. But this needs to be done by government and not through some external agency, which might be heavily biased towards consumptive users of wildlife. The B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch and related departments within the provincial government have a long and proud history of serving the people of this province. They haven’t always made the right decisions and their hands are often tied by the political goals of the ruling party, but

they are professional, accountable to the electorate, can bring in expertise and resources from other government departments and outside consultants, and remain independent of powerful lobby-groups like the BCWF. “This new proposal verges on privatization of our wildlife management” said Burger.

Proponents of this new wildlife management plan indicate that it will follow the model of the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, which currently manages recreational fishing as well as freshwater hatcheries in B.C. “There is a fundamental difference between recreational fishing and terrestrial wildlife management”, continued Burger, who taught wildlife ecology at UVic for many years, “Wildlife, like mammals and birds, is enjoyed for many more reasons and in a much wider range of habitats and locations, than the fish taken by recreational fishing. One cannot equate the two management scenarios”.

Third, the words of the two ministers and the enthusiastic endorsement of the hunting lobby indicates that there is a very real risk of wildlife management in BC being more narrowly focused on big game. This is a retrograde step, because the BC government has been slowly moving towards a more scientifically sound ecosystem-based approach, giving appropriate value to the 99% of organisms that are not game animals. This proposal pulls out one component of our ecosystems (big game) and plans to manage it separately. Nature is not compartmentalized. We cannot manage one aspect of the system in isolation.

Finally, it appears that only the hunting-fishing lobby was consulted on this proposal. The ministers’ announcements came as a complete surprise to BC Nature. There is also no evidence that the tourism and wildlife-watching industries, First Nations or the general wildlife-enjoying public was consulted.

People who enjoy viewing wildlife and who endorse a broad ecological approach to managing our province will be watching closely to see where this proposal goes. “It will be good to see wildlife management become an election issue” concluded Burger, “It has been a neglected topic by all major political parties for too long. But this new proposal by the current government is clearly not in the interests of the BC public and seems to serve only a narrow interest-group”.

For further information contact:

Alan Burger – president BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists)

China Mega National Park For Siberian Tigers To Dwarf US’ Yellowstone National Park

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/201543/20170314/china-mega-national-park-for-siberian-tigers-to-dwarf-us-yellowstone-national-park.htm

14 March 2017, 1:00 pm EDT By Kalyan Kumar Tech Times
China is setting up a mega national park of international standards to house endangered species including Siberian tigers and Amur leopards. According to reports, it will be 60 percent bigger than the Yellowstone National Park in the United States.   ( Wikipedia )

China is setting up a mega national park that will rival the Yellowstone National Park of the United States with an area more than 60 percent of the latter. The vast national park will serve as a sanctuary to protect two endangered species — the Siberian tiger and Amur leopard.

The national park, modeled on the lines of national parks in the United States, will be located on the border of Russia and North Korea at northeast China’s Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces.

The park will cover an area of 14,600 square kilometers (5,600 square miles) and will be 60 percent bigger than Yellowstone in the United States, which is close to 4,000 square miles in terms of area.

Chinese media reported that the plan for the national park has been approved by the central authorities and the “comprehensive plan and pilot for the national park is expected to be carried out before 2020.”

Threat To Siberian Tigers

Notwithstanding the conservation efforts, the number of wild Siberian tigers just increased from 9 in 1998, to 27 in 2015, indicating that the numbers were not encouraging to make the species thrive.

To tighten conservation, China has clamped a ban on logging with curbs on gun licenses. Compared with China’s concerns on falling numbers of Siberian tigers, some 400 of them are living in Russia.

Amur leopards are another endangered species whose numbers plunged below 30 in 2007 because of hunting and human activities.

According to latest data, in 2015, their numbers showed some increase and conservation groups like the World Wildlife Fund can take credit for that.

In an update, the WWF said the Amur leopard population had a jump since 2008.

China’s Ecological Initiatives

China decided to start national parks in 2013 after seeing that many endangered species including the Siberian tiger, Amur leopard, giant panda, Tibetan antelope, and Asian elephant required safer habitats.

The Chinese government wanted to develop a national park system of international standards and it roped in Paulson Institute, a Chicago-based research center in 2015.

The government also announced a three-year period to start a series of pilot national park projects in nine provinces. The goal was to address the governance and policy shortfalls in environmental protection while extending conservation efforts to other habitats and ecosystems.

President Xi Jinping has committed a series of environmental reforms to usher in an “ecological civilization,” which clubs economic progress with the sustainability of the environment.

Green Activists Hail National Park

Meanwhile, environmentalists like Dale Miquelle of the Wildlife Conservation Society has welcomed the move. He said the sanctuary will be one of the largest tiger reserves in the world.

“China’s commitment represents an extremely important step in recovering both subspecies in northeast Asia,” Miquelle said.

However, the park is also raising concerns of many urban colonies at Hunchun city in the Jilin province, which is very close to the animals’s range.

Hunchun is a key corridor linking tiger habitats of Russia and China. There the residents are uneasy about the animals getting too close.

In 2016, a Forestry Department spokesman mentioned about a plan to relocate some communities and factories from the national park area to avoid conflict between wildlife and human activities.

According to Fan Zhiyong, WWF’s species program director in Beijing, the park will be a boon to the endangered cats and also protect the unique biodiversity of the northern temperate zone.

Attractions Of Yellowstone Park

In the United States, the Yellowstone National Park is spread across the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.

It covers an area of 3,468.4 square miles (8,983 km2) and comprises lakes, canyons, rivers and mountain ranges. The Yellowstone Lake is a high-elevation lake centered around the Yellowstone Caldera, the largest supervolcano in North America.

The National Park is home to thousands of species including mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles, many of which are endangered. The vast forests also house many unique species of plants.

– See more at: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/201543/20170314/china-mega-national-park-for-siberian-tigers-to-dwarf-us-yellowstone-national-park.htm#sthash.T7yaxbLr.dpuf

Trump’s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall

IAN WALDIE VIA GETTY IMAGES
A Chimpanzee jumps at a glass screen as primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall holds a press conference at Taronga Zoo July 14, 2006 in Sydney, Australia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chimpanzee-behavior_us_57ddb84fe4b04a1497b4e512?

Donald Trump’s antics remind famed anthropologist Jane Goodall of the primates she spent decades studying in the wild.

“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Goodall told The Atlantic. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks.”

Goodall added, “the more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

To date, we’ve not seen Trump drag branches or throw rocks, although anything is possible. Instead of physical displays, the Republican presidential nominee has stuck to verbal ones ― bragging about his penis, launching personal attacks and resorting to racist and sexist insults.

BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES

Trump is set to debate his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, on Sept. 26. When it happens, Goodall told The Atlantic she’ll be thinking of “Mike,” a chimpanzee she studied that displayed dominance by kicking kerosene cans, creating a racket that sent would-be challengers fleeing.

Unsurprisingly, Trump has already boasted that he will come out on top, telling The New York Times “I know how to handle Hillary.”

Whether his strategy includes childish tidbits has yet to be seen. Tony Schwartz, co-author of Trump’s book The Art of the Deal, however, bets it will.

“Trump has severe attention problems and simply cannot take in complex information — he will be unable to practice for these debates,” Schwartz told the Times. “Trump will bring nothing but his bluster to the debates. He’ll use sixth-grade language, he will repeat himself many times, he won’t complete sentences, and he won’t say anything of substance.”

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar,

How do Trump and Clinton differ on conservation?

http://www.hcn.org/articles/presidential-campaigns-offer-sneak-peeks-of-conservation-priorities?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email

Presidential campaigns offer a sneak peek into natural resource policies.

While speaking at a media summit last week organized by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Fort Collins, Colorado, Trump Jr., an avid hunter and angler, defended keeping federal lands managed by the government and open to the public. He also reiterated his father’s strong support for U.S. energy development, proposed some corporate sponsorships in national parks, questioned humans’ role in climate change, and criticized Hillary Clinton for “pandering” to hunters with “phoniness.” U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, spoke for Clinton’s campaign at the summit a day later, and provided plenty of contrast between the presidential candidates.

Trump Jr. has served as an adviser to his father on natural-resources issues and has even joked with family that, should his father win, he’d like to be Secretary of the Interior, overseeing national parks and millions of acres of federal public lands. In Fort Collins, he said he’s not “the policy guy,” but repeated his frequent pledge to be a “loud voice” for preserving public lands access for sportsmen. Trump Jr. also mocked some gun-control measures, such as ammunition limits, boasting, “I have a thousand rounds of ammunition in my vehicle almost at all times because it’s called two bricks of .22 … You know, I’ll blow…through that with my kids on a weekend.”

img_8085-jpg
Donald Trump Jr. speaks with Field & Stream editor Mike Toth at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Western Media Summit, June 23, 2016.
Joshua Zaffos

Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, partly distinguished himself among other GOP candidates during primary season—not that that was a problem for the New York real-estate developer—by balking at the transfer of federal public lands to states or counties. While Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others expressed support for public-land transfers, kowtowing to some Western conservatives, Trump rejected the idea. Speaking to Field & Stream in January, Trump said: “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”

Trump Jr. reaffirmed that stance, but also supported more input for states as long as those efforts don’t jeopardize public access.

Trump, however, did attack the Bureau of Land Management and its “draconian rule,” writing in an op-ed in the Reno Gazette-Journal, also in January: “The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada. In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians.”

Rep. Thompson called Trump’s somewhat muddled stance of federal land management a “dangerous position to take,” saying Clinton unequivocally opposes public-land transfers. As far as Clinton’s sporting cred, Thompson said the Democratic candidate doesn’t pretend to be a hook-and-bullet enthusiast, but “she gets it” when it comes to access issues.

In a campaign loud with proclamations yet nearly vacant of substantive policies, the most in-depth view into Trump’s resource agenda came during his May speechat a North Dakota petroleum conference. Trump pledged to “save the coal industry,” approve the Keystone XL gas pipeline, roll back federal controls limiting energy development on some public lands, and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris global climate agreement. A Republican National Committee spokesman recently said more details on Trump’s energy and environmental policies should be coming soon. His son reiterated the campaign’s “very pro-U.S. energy” position, although he did say agencies should have some role in regulating energy development on public lands, referring to the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed fracking rule that was recently rejected by a federal judge.

On climate change, Trump Jr. said U.S. and global policies shouldn’t penalize industries and, while acknowledging the strong scientific consensus on climate change and its causes, he added that humans’ and industries’ roles in global warming have “yet to be shown to me.”

Trump Jr. also offered mild support for the Endangered Species Act, saying it had achieved some successes, but argued the law has served as a “Trojan horse” to entirely prohibit development in some cases. He also suggested national-parks management and budgets could benefit from increased corporate partnerships. Trump’s son declared his own affinity for the backcountry and described national parks as being “a little bit too ‘tourist-ized’ for myself,” but he said, “I think there are ways you can do (corporate sponsorship) in a way that is beneficial” without installing flashing logos on natural features or commercializing the parks.

Clinton has shared several detailed policies on the environment and energy so far, including a white paper on land management and conservation that lays out support for a national park management fund and increased renewable energy development on public lands. Those proposals signal Clinton will “double down” on protecting public lands and preserving access, Thompson said.

Thompson also lauded Clinton for taking “a risky public position” on energy development—referring to her previous statement that she will put lots of coalmines “out of business”—but “she hasn’t backed away from it,” he said. “She understands there are better ways to generate the energy resources that we need.”

Joshua Zaffos is an HCN correspondent in Fort Collins, Colorado. Follow him@jzaffosHomepage image from Flickr user Gage Skidmore

Save New Mexico’s Last Free-flowing River

http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17376

Gila River, New Mexico Originating in America’s first designated wilderness area, New Mexico’s Gila River is an ecological treasure that deserves long-term protection. Its riparian forests are home to one of the highest concentrations of breeding birds in the country, and its waters teem with fish. A dammed and diverted Gila would mean significantly less water in the river — a deadly blow to the area’s outdoor economy and wildlife, and a story we’ve seen written across the Southwest too many times.

After three previous failed attempts to dam and divert the Gila, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and local New Mexico CAP Entity are pushing forward with a Gila River diversion project yet again.

But fortunately at least one major hurdle still lies ahead: The New Mexico CAP Entity and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell must sign off on an agreement by Nov. 23.

Take action below — sign our petition urging Secretary Jewell to save the Gila River by refusing to sign this agreement. The area’s long-term water needs can be met by other proven means — through conservation, groundwater management, water recycling and watershed restoration. 

Dear Interior Secretary Sally Jewell,

We, the undersigned, urge you to protect New Mexico’s last free-flowing river from harmful water diversions. Rather than continuing to rely on wasteful dams and diversion projects of the past, we must develop better strategies that use our precious water resources more efficiently, while preserving the health of the rivers so critical to our state’s quality of life, recreation, economy and wildlife.

As you know the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and the local New Mexico CAP Entity are currently considering a large diversion project authorized by the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) to take Gila River water and pump it over the Continental Divide to farms and urban areas. This is the fourth attempt to dam and divert this iconic southwestern river, and the current plan is fatally flawed, just like its predecessors.

The Gila River is a biological gem and deserves long-term protection. A diversion would harm the Gila’s endangered fish and birds as well as the outdoor recreation opportunities that depend on the river’s health. Moreover, this diversion would be extremely expensive — costing more than $1 billion and forcing taxpayers and water users to finance the more than $900 million that will not be covered by the AWSA federal subsidy. Using tax dollars to destroy a river and then pay for a project that is unaffordable is not in the public interest.

The good news is an expensive Gila River diversion is unnecessary. Southwest New Mexico’s water needs can be met cost effectively by using water more wisely through such measures as municipal and agricultural conservation, sustainable groundwater management, water recycling and watershed restoration.

Please support non-diversion alternatives for meeting southwestern New Mexico’s future water needs, and save the Gila River once and for all.

They’re getting out of control!

From John A. Livingston’s The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation:

“I happen to loath and abominate blood ‘sports.’ I think that killing any sensate being for recreation—for fun—is evil and contemptible. I have said so, for public consumption, many times.

“The most frequent theme in the resulting letters I receive is that I have absolutely no rational argument to present, and that as the result I (sneakily) resort to purelyDSC_0192 emotional appeals. Some of the mail, by the way, has to be opened with my asbestos gloves.

“An acquaintance of mine in the arctic town of Inuvik once said to me, ‘John, we’ve got to do something about all these ravens here in town!’ ‘Why so?’ I asked. ‘For heaven’s sake, man, look around you—there are so many of them they’re getting out of control!’

“Loss of control is the abdication of power. It is tantamount to chaos. The universe is orderly, therefore chaos is unnatural. …

“So, it is seen that the ravens of Inuvik (prospering on our garbage) are thumbing their amiable beaks at universal order and thus at us. …

“Death is the final sting, the ultimate victory of uncontrollable, unmanageable, immoral, chaotic nature—from which experience we are snatched at the final exhalation by the gorgeous rationalization. Spirit over flesh, man over nature.”

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Letter on The Gila River

Rosemary Lowe
Jeff  Sussmann’s comments opposing the Gila River Diversion make sense. This diversion proposal is  an ecological nightmare waiting to happen.
One of the major supporters of this anti-environmental scheme  is the grazing industry lobby, which not only vehemently opposes wolf reintroduction in the Gila bio- region, but also has a long history of demanding the slaughter of wolves, coyotes,  mountain lions and other native wild animals, for  livestock. The livestock associations  want wild & scenic rivers like the Gila excluded  from any further wilderness designation discussions.
Ecologist, author,& grazing activist, George Wuerthner, said: “Livestock production, which includes irrigation of livestock feed crops, accounts for the greatest consumption of water in the West. Such a water intensive industry is poorly suited to the arid West…and is a major cause of species decline throughout the region.”
The Gila River is a desert river, increasingly  under stress due to human-caused climate change, and public lands grazing. The  birds, mammals,  & other native species depend upon the Gila for their continued existence. Are we going to allow tax-payer- subsidized public lands ranchers to decide the fate of this ecosystem? We taxpayers will foot the bill, but the flora and fauna, & the  fragile river system, will pay the ultimate price: A dead river, and species extinctions.

Wolves, lynx and wild boar ‘should be reintroduced to British forests’

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wolves-lynx-and-wild-boar-could-be-reintroduced-to-british-forests-10389469.html

Lynx are to be reintroduced into the wild in Britain after a 1,300-year absence, under an ambitious ‘rewilding’ plan drawn up by a conservation charity

‘These are important keystone species which actually drive ecological processes’

20K
Wild animals including wolves, lynx and wild boar could be reintroduced to British forests as part of a campaign to restore species hunted to extinction.

Plans put together by Rewilding Britain would see the animals roaming Scotland and other parts of the UK in an attempt to allow “native forests to regenerate, while giving the seas a chance to recover from industrial fishing”.

Supporters of the scheme argue that Britain should follow in the footsteps of other European countries, which are already home to large predators. They also maintain that the move would improve biodiversity.

Lynx, which eat deer, rabbits and hares among other animals but are not considered a risk to people, have not been seen in Britain for 1,300 years.

Kielder Forest considered as site for return of wild lynx
Campaigners want the lynx to be reintroduced to Scotland

Spokeswoman Susan Wright told BBC Scotland: “A lot of our important animals were hunted to extinction, species like the wolf, the wild boar, the lynx.

“These are important keystone species which actually drive ecological processes and we should be looking a lot more seriously at bringing these animals back.”

Lynx to be reintroduced into wild in Britain
Missing ‘lynx’ outfoxes police

But the proposals have drawn criticism from farmers’ leaders – who say that the countryside has already experienced problems after the reintroduction of other species, such as beavers and sea eagles.

They say that dams built by beavers have increased erosion and the risk of flooding in neighbouring fields, and that sea eagles, also known as white tailed eagles, kill lambs.

The Scottish government is now trying to decide whether the beavers – which were put in place in Argyll as part of a scientific study – should stay.

NFU Scotland said politicians and Scottish Natural Heritage should “show stronger leadership” on the issue of rewilding.

Vice President Andrew McCornick said: “Our countryside provides food, forestry, tourism, renewables, field sports and environmental goods.

“Recent history has taught us any species introduction, whether legal or illegal, can have an impact on the many benefits that the Scottish countryside currently delivers.”

The Scottish government said they intend to consider the issues carefully – but said there are currently “no plans” to reintroduce top predators such as lynx or wolves.