Tucson is the environmental litigation factory capitol of America. Tucson is home to the Center for Biological Diversity which has been spewing out lawsuits over alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act. And the CBD has been raking in millions in legal fees for these lawsuits under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Nationally the CBD has become the poster child of a litigious environmental group...prompting Congress to actually try and reform the Equal Access to Justice Act and cut off the pipeline of taxpayer money to the CBD and other similar environmental litigation factories such as Western Watershed Project and WildEarth Guardians.
CBD engages in what some call the "EAJA racket".
Read full article at InsideTucsonBusiness.com
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
EnviroSpin
Copyright © 2011 C. R. Edmunds
www.onestillfree.com June 24, 2011
Spin is a term used to describe a process of twisting strands of fiber together to form thread, yarn, rope and such. It is also used to describe twisting information in a way so as to create a new description of reality, a new thread of thought so to speak. At its darkest, spin is a way of manipulating the thought of others as a means to an end that the others might not agree with if they were told the same story with all the facts unspun.
Let me give you a couple examples of this thing I call envirospin, taken from a pair of news releases put out just today by Wild Earth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. Both of them basically are some quick spinning of facts to “prove” that environmentalists aren’t to blame for the massive catastrophic wildfires now occurring around the US.
WEG’s envirospin is in the form of a kind of sleight of hand in their news release, “Lack of Logging Isn’t To Blame in Massive Forest Fires”. Here we have the statement that there have been “few lawsuits challenging sensible fuel reduction on the national forests in the last decade”. On the surface that’s of course true – but only because a) all the suing was done before the last decade, b) the definition of “sensible” fuel reduction is defined by the environmental groups themselves, and c) this decade’s “few lawsuits” doesn’t include all the habitat litigation that has the same effect, since endangered species lawsuits stop work in the forest just as effectively as logging lawsuits do.
Few lawsuits maybe, but to make sure everyone toes the line, the various environmental groups send a representative to every planning meeting to make sure that all understand the threat. It’s kind of like the mob sending a hit man to your restaurant for lunch to remind you how risky it would be to not pay your protection. So yes, not so many lawsuits about logging these days if you believe the envirospin – but that doesn’t mean that the lack of logging isn’t to blame.
DoW ‘s email news release this morning, “Wildlife Alert”, is another envirospin magic trick. DoW says that humanity is the root problem, because people cause climate change (note that environmentalists don’t use “global warming” any more - too many freezing people are dubious of that concept). DoW snuck wildfires into the news release, hoping that no one would notice their clumping of “forest health” with all the other natural-type stuff like droughts, storms and floods. This unbelievable spin would have the reader believe that human management of forests, particularly environmentalist dictated management practices, is not a factor of catastrophic wildfire. Oh yeah, humans are the cause – envirospin tells us that humans are the source of everything bad – but environmentalist humans are not the problem in any way.
Envirospin is interesting in how similar it is to other serial criminal activity. The perpetrators get more and more confident and less and less circumspect. They figure no one can catch them out. They begin to believe they’re invulnerable.
Oh, I don’t think so.
www.onestillfree.com June 24, 2011
Spin is a term used to describe a process of twisting strands of fiber together to form thread, yarn, rope and such. It is also used to describe twisting information in a way so as to create a new description of reality, a new thread of thought so to speak. At its darkest, spin is a way of manipulating the thought of others as a means to an end that the others might not agree with if they were told the same story with all the facts unspun.
Let me give you a couple examples of this thing I call envirospin, taken from a pair of news releases put out just today by Wild Earth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. Both of them basically are some quick spinning of facts to “prove” that environmentalists aren’t to blame for the massive catastrophic wildfires now occurring around the US.
WEG’s envirospin is in the form of a kind of sleight of hand in their news release, “Lack of Logging Isn’t To Blame in Massive Forest Fires”. Here we have the statement that there have been “few lawsuits challenging sensible fuel reduction on the national forests in the last decade”. On the surface that’s of course true – but only because a) all the suing was done before the last decade, b) the definition of “sensible” fuel reduction is defined by the environmental groups themselves, and c) this decade’s “few lawsuits” doesn’t include all the habitat litigation that has the same effect, since endangered species lawsuits stop work in the forest just as effectively as logging lawsuits do.
Few lawsuits maybe, but to make sure everyone toes the line, the various environmental groups send a representative to every planning meeting to make sure that all understand the threat. It’s kind of like the mob sending a hit man to your restaurant for lunch to remind you how risky it would be to not pay your protection. So yes, not so many lawsuits about logging these days if you believe the envirospin – but that doesn’t mean that the lack of logging isn’t to blame.
DoW ‘s email news release this morning, “Wildlife Alert”, is another envirospin magic trick. DoW says that humanity is the root problem, because people cause climate change (note that environmentalists don’t use “global warming” any more - too many freezing people are dubious of that concept). DoW snuck wildfires into the news release, hoping that no one would notice their clumping of “forest health” with all the other natural-type stuff like droughts, storms and floods. This unbelievable spin would have the reader believe that human management of forests, particularly environmentalist dictated management practices, is not a factor of catastrophic wildfire. Oh yeah, humans are the cause – envirospin tells us that humans are the source of everything bad – but environmentalist humans are not the problem in any way.
Envirospin is interesting in how similar it is to other serial criminal activity. The perpetrators get more and more confident and less and less circumspect. They figure no one can catch them out. They begin to believe they’re invulnerable.
Oh, I don’t think so.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The New Environmentalism
Environmental groups have learned a new tactic: Now they accept bribes get paid off work with potential defendants to not block projects via lawsuits. Brilliant. $22 million dollars buys a project two new environmental groups - more money for "environmentalism" and the project still goes through.
Does this look a little fishy to anyone else? Is there any environmental group left that actually does environmental improvement?
"Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association agreed not to challenge the El Paso pipeline project in exchange for establishing two new nonprofit funds… The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund, established with Western Watersheds, got $15 million from El Paso. A fund set up with the Oregon Natural Desert Association got $7 million. The money will go for conservation easements and land purchases and to voluntarily retire grazing permits."
Read about it: www.idahostatesman.com/
Does this look a little fishy to anyone else? Is there any environmental group left that actually does environmental improvement?
"Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association agreed not to challenge the El Paso pipeline project in exchange for establishing two new nonprofit funds… The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund, established with Western Watersheds, got $15 million from El Paso. A fund set up with the Oregon Natural Desert Association got $7 million. The money will go for conservation easements and land purchases and to voluntarily retire grazing permits."
Read about it: www.idahostatesman.com/
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation Turns Up Heat on Pro-Wolf Groups
Pro-wolf groups were admittedly “surprised and disappointed” when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation publicly challenged their mischaracterizations of the real impacts of wolves in the northern Rockies and are feeling even more heat today. Their recent call for a truce has been met with a scathing letter from RMEF President and CEO David Allen, who says Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others are party to what may become “one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century.”
Allen said, “These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose.” One can find the text of both letters here:
Letter from Defenders of Wildlife to RMEF
Letter from RMEF to Defenders of Wildlife
Factual examples cited in Allen’s recent letter:
“Pro-wolf groups like to cite statewide elk numbers because it glosses over the ongoing annihilation of local elk herds,” said Allen. “They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed. Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We’re long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming.”
“Managing wildlife in the courts, as opposed to science and the proven expertise of state conservation agencies, is a recipe for continued disaster,” stated Allen “These groups do not want states to manage the wolves as they manage other wildlife including predators. Why? It is curious that Defenders of Wildlife and others now boast about the statewide elk management numbers, which are managed by the states; but they do not trust those same states to manage wolves. Again, one should ask why?”
In late February, Allen sent letters to legislators and newspapers across the West calling out Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for misleading the public through disingenuous use of current data on wolves and elk. In late March, group representatives accused RMEF of polarizing sportsmen on the wolf issue, and, ironically, to ask for collaboration rather than conflict.
In his letter Allen challenged Defenders of Wildlife and the others to meet face to face. “ I invite you to come to my office and let’s personally resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let’s resolve this now,” Allen said in his letter.
“We will collaborate with those who believe in sound wildlife management, not promoting one species over others for what we believe are hidden agendas. There is no one proposing annihilation of the wolves, yet Defenders and others like to act as if such a threat exists. It helps their fundraising efforts but does little to solve the issue. Constantly moving the goal line and ignoring the future consequences are just two reasons we do not collaborate with such groups,” Allen added.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is located at 5705 Grant Creek Rd, Missoula, MT 59808.
Allen said, “These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose.” One can find the text of both letters here:
Letter from Defenders of Wildlife to RMEF
Letter from RMEF to Defenders of Wildlife
Factual examples cited in Allen’s recent letter:
- The Northern Yellowstone elk herd trend count has dropped from some 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time the wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase.
- Yellowstone’s Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has fallen from 700 to 108.
- The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky, Mont., has declined from 1,048 to 338.
- Wolf numbers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have far exceeded the original goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves. Population estimates now exceed 1,700 wolves. And yet and others want to push the total up to 2,000 to 5,000 wolves.
- Studies show that wolves kill up to 23 elk per wolf from November through April alone or up to 40,000 elk in just six months. A smaller but still significant number are killed from May through October; with total annual elk kills by wolves just for food potentially greater than 50,000 at the present level of wolf population. This accounts for only the elk needed for food, not surplus killing, which are elk killed by wolves and not eaten, which also occurs. The majority of all these kills are not elk that are sick or old.
- Elk calf survival rates where wolves (and bears) are present are extremely low in specific herds, resulting in a survival rate of 10 percent or less—too low to sustain the herd over the long-term. RMEF points out this is a major issue as elk numbers going into the future, where wolves are concentrated, will suffer even greater losses and replacement becomes out of balance.
“Pro-wolf groups like to cite statewide elk numbers because it glosses over the ongoing annihilation of local elk herds,” said Allen. “They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed. Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We’re long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming.”
“Managing wildlife in the courts, as opposed to science and the proven expertise of state conservation agencies, is a recipe for continued disaster,” stated Allen “These groups do not want states to manage the wolves as they manage other wildlife including predators. Why? It is curious that Defenders of Wildlife and others now boast about the statewide elk management numbers, which are managed by the states; but they do not trust those same states to manage wolves. Again, one should ask why?”
In late February, Allen sent letters to legislators and newspapers across the West calling out Defenders of Wildlife, Western Wildlife Conservancy and others for misleading the public through disingenuous use of current data on wolves and elk. In late March, group representatives accused RMEF of polarizing sportsmen on the wolf issue, and, ironically, to ask for collaboration rather than conflict.
In his letter Allen challenged Defenders of Wildlife and the others to meet face to face. “ I invite you to come to my office and let’s personally resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let’s resolve this now,” Allen said in his letter.
“We will collaborate with those who believe in sound wildlife management, not promoting one species over others for what we believe are hidden agendas. There is no one proposing annihilation of the wolves, yet Defenders and others like to act as if such a threat exists. It helps their fundraising efforts but does little to solve the issue. Constantly moving the goal line and ignoring the future consequences are just two reasons we do not collaborate with such groups,” Allen added.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is located at 5705 Grant Creek Rd, Missoula, MT 59808.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Global Warming or Global Hoax?
Professor Phil Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" global warming.
Jones told the BBC that the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850, that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented. He also said that the cooling trend since 2002 is also not statistically significant.
Given his core position in what global warming alarmists are now forced to refer to as "climage change" (it's hard to argue for global warming when everyone is freezing), you have to wonder when the whole scam will just fall apart. Maybe it's time for those environmental litigation groups to get sued themselves, for using false science to push their agendas. That would be after we all get done shoveling ourselves out of the snow.
Jones told the BBC that the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850, that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented. He also said that the cooling trend since 2002 is also not statistically significant.
Given his core position in what global warming alarmists are now forced to refer to as "climage change" (it's hard to argue for global warming when everyone is freezing), you have to wonder when the whole scam will just fall apart. Maybe it's time for those environmental litigation groups to get sued themselves, for using false science to push their agendas. That would be after we all get done shoveling ourselves out of the snow.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Climate Change - deja vu
Gee whiz - society has such short memory. You'd think that nothing happened in the world except what's in living memory. Check out this article for a reality check on "global warming". We've seen it before, gang - and not that long ago.
Global Warming Deja Vu
Global Warming Deja Vu
Saturday, October 3, 2009
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
AMERICANS FOR PRESERVATION OF WESTERN ENVIRONMENT, INC.
PO BOX 612
RESERVE NM 87830
Ed Wehrheim, Chair
Contact: Ed Wehrheim FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone 575.533.6687
Email: info@amprowest.org
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
Group Asks Is Mexican Wolf Really Worth The Cost
RESERVE, N.M. On August 11, 2009, the Tucson-based environmental litigation group, Center For Biological Diversity (CBD), filed a petition with Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
“The petition calls for taking the Mexican wolf off of its current experimental, non-essential” status and putting it on fully endangered status,” said Ed Wehrheim, Chair of Americans for Preservation of Western Environment (APWE), a citizen-based New Mexico non-profit corporation. APWE was formed in 2008 in response to the outrage of New Mexico and Arizona residents and business owners over the callous disregard for the welfare and safety of human beings by the Mexican Wolf Program.
“CBD also wants a critical habitat designation for the wolves,” Wehrheim said. “This means expansion of the existing designated Mexican wolf area, closure of our trails and roads, denying human access, and hunting and grazing restrictions. In other words, our public lands will be closed to the public. ”
The 22 page petition (with additional 10 pages of citations) claims that the Mexican wolf’s historic range is not precisely known, and that wolves can live anywhere that hosts an adequate prey base of ungulates, yet also claims that these wolves occur in an unusual and unique ecological setting.
“The only unusual and unique setting for the Mexican wolves is that this is a low human population area, so CBD figures that the people don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “Americans for Preservation of Western Environment intends to set CBD straight on that issue.”
APWE’s first annual meeting is being held in Reserve, NM on Saturday, October 10, 2009, at 10 a.m. at the Reserve Community Center. APWE’s board will present an accounting of its work on behalf of the people who live in the Mexican wolf recovery area over the past year, and talk about plans for future actions. Everyone is welcome to attend.
“It’s not as if humans weren’t here, as if humans don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “We’re citizens, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like anyone else. We don’t intend to be run over by environmental litigation groups like CBD.”
"After ten years, more than $400,000 per wolf and untold damage to our communities, they’re trying to blame their own failure with the Mexican wolf program on us, the people who live here in the program area," Wehrheim said.
# # #
PO BOX 612
RESERVE NM 87830
Ed Wehrheim, Chair
Contact: Ed Wehrheim FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone 575.533.6687
Email: info@amprowest.org
APWE CHALLENGES MEXICAN WOLF PETITION
Group Asks Is Mexican Wolf Really Worth The Cost
RESERVE, N.M. On August 11, 2009, the Tucson-based environmental litigation group, Center For Biological Diversity (CBD), filed a petition with Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
“The petition calls for taking the Mexican wolf off of its current experimental, non-essential” status and putting it on fully endangered status,” said Ed Wehrheim, Chair of Americans for Preservation of Western Environment (APWE), a citizen-based New Mexico non-profit corporation. APWE was formed in 2008 in response to the outrage of New Mexico and Arizona residents and business owners over the callous disregard for the welfare and safety of human beings by the Mexican Wolf Program.
“CBD also wants a critical habitat designation for the wolves,” Wehrheim said. “This means expansion of the existing designated Mexican wolf area, closure of our trails and roads, denying human access, and hunting and grazing restrictions. In other words, our public lands will be closed to the public. ”
The 22 page petition (with additional 10 pages of citations) claims that the Mexican wolf’s historic range is not precisely known, and that wolves can live anywhere that hosts an adequate prey base of ungulates, yet also claims that these wolves occur in an unusual and unique ecological setting.
“The only unusual and unique setting for the Mexican wolves is that this is a low human population area, so CBD figures that the people don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “Americans for Preservation of Western Environment intends to set CBD straight on that issue.”
APWE’s first annual meeting is being held in Reserve, NM on Saturday, October 10, 2009, at 10 a.m. at the Reserve Community Center. APWE’s board will present an accounting of its work on behalf of the people who live in the Mexican wolf recovery area over the past year, and talk about plans for future actions. Everyone is welcome to attend.
“It’s not as if humans weren’t here, as if humans don’t matter,” Wehrheim said. “We’re citizens, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like anyone else. We don’t intend to be run over by environmental litigation groups like CBD.”
"After ten years, more than $400,000 per wolf and untold damage to our communities, they’re trying to blame their own failure with the Mexican wolf program on us, the people who live here in the program area," Wehrheim said.
# # #
Monday, August 31, 2009
Who’s The Terrorist?
copyright (c) 2009 CR Edmunds
www.onestillfree.com
Also published in Glenwood Gazette Sept. 2009 (Gale Moore, pub., Silver City NM)
The other day I got thinking about terrorism. So much of our lives these days are dictated by the fight against terrorism. We’ve all come to accept the invasive tactics of the US Government everywhere around us in the name of security. We even have a branch of government, Homeland Security, that has in a short time secreted its tentacles into everything in order to keep us safe from terrorists. We have to accept wands and pat-downs and X-rays of our person and our belongings in airports and public buildings, we have travel restrictions and passports to visit neighboring friendly ally countries, phone taps, email taps, credit checks, security cameras on street corners, photo-traffic citations on and on, all in the name of public safety.
Of course, doesn’t this all assume terrorism is something external to the US, that it comes from bad guys from other countries who want to render the US helpless?
I got thinking about how a bunch of bad guys that were really organized and very well financed could most effectively pull the US or any country down. (I want to point out to Homeland Security that I read a lot of fiction and much of what I’m writing here is already in print don’t come busting my doors down while telling me free speech doesn’t count because of the Patriot Act). Anyway, it has become clear to me that, logically, terrorism really would be just a first step. A kind of softening up a country for the real blows that will bring it down. The KO, if you will.
What would weaken a country more than flying planes into landmark buildings? Homeland Security and/or the media would have us believe that it would be nuking a big city. But really, would that take down the US? Were a resilient bunch of citizens I think that wiping out LA (for instance) would just make us all really, really mad once we got over being really, really sad (think of how sad and mad - wed be at losing our Famous Faces in such an attack).
No, I think what would really work to weaken a country would be to literally weaken its people. And it seems to me that the traditional ways of weakening a people would be just as effective now as they have been throughout history: Starvation and disease and isolation.
Here’s the thing: People who eat well are healthy and they don’t get sick as easily. So, if you think about it, wouldn’t the smartest thing be, if you were terrorists and wanted to take down the US, to destroy the food supply, thereby make people dependent on bad food so they’ll get sick more easily?
My thinking goes like this: The US agricultural base is being destroyed by factory farming and by more and more restrictions on small farming (NAIS, anyone?). Our forests, the biomass from the thinning of which could probably replace the use of petroleum for transportation fuel in 10 years, are being burned up because of more and more restrictions on hazardous fuels reduction projects and a push to expand wilderness and create roadless areas on public lands.
Where are our environmental groups in this picture? Are they supporting local production of healthy foods, which is so much less destructive to Mother Earth than factory farming? No, they work hard to destroy small farmers and ranchers. Are they supporting forest restoration that would result in reduced carbon pollution of our atmosphere by reduction of forest fires? No, they work hard to suppress the cutting of any trees at all. Are they supporting use of biomass to create an alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels? No, they fight efforts to develop sustainable, renewable energy.
What do environmental groups do to make our planet a healthier place, where humans and all species can thrive?
Well, actually, when you add up what they are doing, the answer to that question is: Nothing. In fact, when you look at the big picture of environmental efforts by the Big Name Environmental Groups (whose board members are mostly attorneys, not scientists), what that picture really looks like is a series of well-coordinated actions that are aimed to weaken the citizens of this country through starvation, disease and isolation.
Its so plausible: Destroy the family farms and ranches in the name of endangered species. Further destroy local production of healthy foods in the name of pure water. Destroy the possibility of alternative energy sources by attacking wind farms and use of biomass from forests. Destroy the forests themselves by not allowing restoration work, thereby encouraging massive wildfires only one of which can in a few days or weeks dump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as one big city does in a year. (Ironically, the supposedly endangered species' habitats are destroyed as well by wildfire). And when things go down the tubes on our planet because of the success of the above actions, blame it on small farmers and ranchers and you and me, average Joe and Jane US citizen, and file even more lawsuits in the name of environmentalism, because, don’t you know, they’ve got to save the planet.
And then… TKO?
www.onestillfree.com
Also published in Glenwood Gazette Sept. 2009 (Gale Moore, pub., Silver City NM)
The other day I got thinking about terrorism. So much of our lives these days are dictated by the fight against terrorism. We’ve all come to accept the invasive tactics of the US Government everywhere around us in the name of security. We even have a branch of government, Homeland Security, that has in a short time secreted its tentacles into everything in order to keep us safe from terrorists. We have to accept wands and pat-downs and X-rays of our person and our belongings in airports and public buildings, we have travel restrictions and passports to visit neighboring friendly ally countries, phone taps, email taps, credit checks, security cameras on street corners, photo-traffic citations on and on, all in the name of public safety.
Of course, doesn’t this all assume terrorism is something external to the US, that it comes from bad guys from other countries who want to render the US helpless?
I got thinking about how a bunch of bad guys that were really organized and very well financed could most effectively pull the US or any country down. (I want to point out to Homeland Security that I read a lot of fiction and much of what I’m writing here is already in print don’t come busting my doors down while telling me free speech doesn’t count because of the Patriot Act). Anyway, it has become clear to me that, logically, terrorism really would be just a first step. A kind of softening up a country for the real blows that will bring it down. The KO, if you will.
What would weaken a country more than flying planes into landmark buildings? Homeland Security and/or the media would have us believe that it would be nuking a big city. But really, would that take down the US? Were a resilient bunch of citizens I think that wiping out LA (for instance) would just make us all really, really mad once we got over being really, really sad (think of how sad and mad - wed be at losing our Famous Faces in such an attack).
No, I think what would really work to weaken a country would be to literally weaken its people. And it seems to me that the traditional ways of weakening a people would be just as effective now as they have been throughout history: Starvation and disease and isolation.
Here’s the thing: People who eat well are healthy and they don’t get sick as easily. So, if you think about it, wouldn’t the smartest thing be, if you were terrorists and wanted to take down the US, to destroy the food supply, thereby make people dependent on bad food so they’ll get sick more easily?
My thinking goes like this: The US agricultural base is being destroyed by factory farming and by more and more restrictions on small farming (NAIS, anyone?). Our forests, the biomass from the thinning of which could probably replace the use of petroleum for transportation fuel in 10 years, are being burned up because of more and more restrictions on hazardous fuels reduction projects and a push to expand wilderness and create roadless areas on public lands.
Where are our environmental groups in this picture? Are they supporting local production of healthy foods, which is so much less destructive to Mother Earth than factory farming? No, they work hard to destroy small farmers and ranchers. Are they supporting forest restoration that would result in reduced carbon pollution of our atmosphere by reduction of forest fires? No, they work hard to suppress the cutting of any trees at all. Are they supporting use of biomass to create an alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels? No, they fight efforts to develop sustainable, renewable energy.
What do environmental groups do to make our planet a healthier place, where humans and all species can thrive?
Well, actually, when you add up what they are doing, the answer to that question is: Nothing. In fact, when you look at the big picture of environmental efforts by the Big Name Environmental Groups (whose board members are mostly attorneys, not scientists), what that picture really looks like is a series of well-coordinated actions that are aimed to weaken the citizens of this country through starvation, disease and isolation.
Its so plausible: Destroy the family farms and ranches in the name of endangered species. Further destroy local production of healthy foods in the name of pure water. Destroy the possibility of alternative energy sources by attacking wind farms and use of biomass from forests. Destroy the forests themselves by not allowing restoration work, thereby encouraging massive wildfires only one of which can in a few days or weeks dump as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as one big city does in a year. (Ironically, the supposedly endangered species' habitats are destroyed as well by wildfire). And when things go down the tubes on our planet because of the success of the above actions, blame it on small farmers and ranchers and you and me, average Joe and Jane US citizen, and file even more lawsuits in the name of environmentalism, because, don’t you know, they’ve got to save the planet.
And then… TKO?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Bias, propaganda and censorship
Using them says more about the user than about what is being said
Copyright © CR Edmunds
www.onestillfree.com
I received a copy of a post to the Gila Sustainable Community News, Calendar and Forum about the Mexican wolf. Because I wanted to rebut some of the statements by the author, Ms Nancy Kaminski, I properly joined the forum. After being accepted as a member, my rebuttal post was rejected.
Bias, propaganda and censorship are tools for those who cannot stand the light of truth. Those who resort to such do so because they have no truth to convey. Ms Kaminski’s forum post is chock full of inaccuracies and downright misinformation – is that all that pro-Mexican wolf people have in their arsenals?
What bias, propaganda and censorship say is that the message is suspect. What Ms Kaminski’s post and the Gila Forum are saying about themselves is the truth be damned - they want what they want and they’ll stoop to whatever it takes to get it. But heck – that’s what we have blogs for – I can say what I want to say anyway, right here.
So, here’s the reply I tried to submit:
In the interests of truth and accuracy, I would like to provide corrections and comments regarding Ms. Kaminski’s article about Mexican wolves.
“We brought these beautiful wolves to the very brink of extinction.”
I have asked many people – including those with the Mexican wolf program - to tell me how many Mexican wolves are in Mexico. No one has answered. I wonder if anyone knows? Without knowing, can anyone say truthfully that Mexican wolves were brought to the brink of extinction?
“There may have been thousands of them when we first drove cattle across the plains and into what would become New Mexico and Arizona.”
There may have been, but that is unlikely, given that the local wolves were Mogollon wolves. The Mexican wolf program will tell you, if directly asked, that the Mexican wolf recovery area is actually the extreme limit of the possible hunting (not denning) range of Mexican wolves (there is no definitive scientific evidence of Mexican wolf presence in the area). It is hard to imagine Mogollon wolves not protecting their territory. It’s more likely that there were occasional Mexican wolves here, and you bet they were being very, very careful about it.
“A trapper named McBride was sent to Mexico to find wolves there [in Mexico]. After several months he found only six, one pregnant female and five males”.
I have always thought how awful this history is for the Mexican wolf. Trapped and kidnapped from the place where they were born and lived wild, transported and kept in captivity in a non-native area, some dying, others bred and rebred in captivity (from one female!) so that their gene pool is extremely limited - how frightening for the original wolves. How miserable they must have been in captivity. What a horrible experience for those wolves and a shameful beginning for the Mexican wolf program.
“With these and others in zoos and wildlife centers across the US, which were genetically tested to be sure they were pure Mexican wolves, the captive breeding project began.”
Actually, from the information available on the Mexican wolf site and it would seem from Ms. Kaminski’s assertions just above, the original Mexican wolves captured in Mexico were the only Mexican wolves. There were none at that time in zoos and wildlife centers. Therefore, all Mexican wolves in captive breeding programs around the US are descended from the original prisoners. If I am incorrect about this, I would appreciate a link to documentation for such.
“Currently fifty-two of these roam freely in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area which is nearly 7000 square miles of public lands in Arizona and New Mexico. Every Mexican wolf alive today is in a stud book.”
Actually 52 collared wolves roam the area, and an unknown number of uncollared wolves are out there, too. The 7000 square miles of land includes private land as well, a fact that is conveniently overlooked so much of the time. Further, most of the uncollared wolves, if not all, are not in any stud book.
But heck, don’t believe me. Do the research yourself – just go to the source, don’t believe those Mexican wolf program supporters, who can’t be bothered with the truth.
Copyright © CR Edmunds
www.onestillfree.com
I received a copy of a post to the Gila Sustainable Community News, Calendar and Forum about the Mexican wolf. Because I wanted to rebut some of the statements by the author, Ms Nancy Kaminski, I properly joined the forum. After being accepted as a member, my rebuttal post was rejected.
Bias, propaganda and censorship are tools for those who cannot stand the light of truth. Those who resort to such do so because they have no truth to convey. Ms Kaminski’s forum post is chock full of inaccuracies and downright misinformation – is that all that pro-Mexican wolf people have in their arsenals?
What bias, propaganda and censorship say is that the message is suspect. What Ms Kaminski’s post and the Gila Forum are saying about themselves is the truth be damned - they want what they want and they’ll stoop to whatever it takes to get it. But heck – that’s what we have blogs for – I can say what I want to say anyway, right here.
So, here’s the reply I tried to submit:
In the interests of truth and accuracy, I would like to provide corrections and comments regarding Ms. Kaminski’s article about Mexican wolves.
“We brought these beautiful wolves to the very brink of extinction.”
I have asked many people – including those with the Mexican wolf program - to tell me how many Mexican wolves are in Mexico. No one has answered. I wonder if anyone knows? Without knowing, can anyone say truthfully that Mexican wolves were brought to the brink of extinction?
“There may have been thousands of them when we first drove cattle across the plains and into what would become New Mexico and Arizona.”
There may have been, but that is unlikely, given that the local wolves were Mogollon wolves. The Mexican wolf program will tell you, if directly asked, that the Mexican wolf recovery area is actually the extreme limit of the possible hunting (not denning) range of Mexican wolves (there is no definitive scientific evidence of Mexican wolf presence in the area). It is hard to imagine Mogollon wolves not protecting their territory. It’s more likely that there were occasional Mexican wolves here, and you bet they were being very, very careful about it.
“A trapper named McBride was sent to Mexico to find wolves there [in Mexico]. After several months he found only six, one pregnant female and five males”.
I have always thought how awful this history is for the Mexican wolf. Trapped and kidnapped from the place where they were born and lived wild, transported and kept in captivity in a non-native area, some dying, others bred and rebred in captivity (from one female!) so that their gene pool is extremely limited - how frightening for the original wolves. How miserable they must have been in captivity. What a horrible experience for those wolves and a shameful beginning for the Mexican wolf program.
“With these and others in zoos and wildlife centers across the US, which were genetically tested to be sure they were pure Mexican wolves, the captive breeding project began.”
Actually, from the information available on the Mexican wolf site and it would seem from Ms. Kaminski’s assertions just above, the original Mexican wolves captured in Mexico were the only Mexican wolves. There were none at that time in zoos and wildlife centers. Therefore, all Mexican wolves in captive breeding programs around the US are descended from the original prisoners. If I am incorrect about this, I would appreciate a link to documentation for such.
“Currently fifty-two of these roam freely in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area which is nearly 7000 square miles of public lands in Arizona and New Mexico. Every Mexican wolf alive today is in a stud book.”
Actually 52 collared wolves roam the area, and an unknown number of uncollared wolves are out there, too. The 7000 square miles of land includes private land as well, a fact that is conveniently overlooked so much of the time. Further, most of the uncollared wolves, if not all, are not in any stud book.
But heck, don’t believe me. Do the research yourself – just go to the source, don’t believe those Mexican wolf program supporters, who can’t be bothered with the truth.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
No end to spin
Copyright © 2009 C R Edmunds
www.onestillfree.blogspot.com
Oh, it hurts to have to admit that for once I agree with the words of Enviros. Fortunately that pain is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even when they try to get it right, the Enviros get it wrong - no doubt on purpose methinks - and so while I agree with the words, I don’t agree with the premises.
“Conservation groups” (they used to be “environmental groups” but that name is getting a deservedly bad flavor) have written to the US Fish & Wildlife Service to stop the agency’s using the image of a Mexican wolf that died in captivity. The female wolf was one of the original 11 released into the wild as part of the Mexican wolf recovery program back in 1998 (she was a captive-bred wolf, not a wild wolf).
“Conservation Groups” (the usual suspects, headed this time by the Center for Biological Diversity, a group known for twisting the facts, see Chilton v Center for Biological Diversity, Inc.) claim it’s important for people to know the “truth” (and isn’t that a joke, coming from them) about the poster wolf: they are upset that it died of stress and overheating after being captured by US FWS in 2005.
These “Conservation Groups” are using the death of an aged wolf more than three years ago to complain about the management of the “wolf predator control program” - a term they have dreamed up that apparently refers to the capture or killing of wolves after three confirmed livestock kills in a year. The Enviros would have us believe the problem is with the pesky ranchers, who keep whining about all the cows that wolves eat (not to mention the horses, dogs, cats, etc.) instead of the elk and deer that the wolves are supposed to be dining on. The Enviros want to stop this silly policy of removing (and relocating) problem wolves.
You know what? (I’m getting shivers just writing these words). I agree. A major flaw with the Mexican wolf program is this business of capturing wolves.
But then, here’s where I disagree (my relief is huge). What Enviros really want is for ranchers and everyone else to just suck it up and let wolves eat what they will, so that the bad, cow-eating wolves will not have to be captured or killed for all that repeated destruction. The implication is that it’s because of this wanton protection of ranchers and resulting removal of wolves that the wolf program isn’t successful.
Not so!
The program isn’t successful because the wolves aren’t wild to begin with. Pay attention here, children - this is a very important point! Real wild wolves wouldn’t be eating dogs, cats, horses and cows because real wild wolves are afraid of humans and don’t come near humans unless they’re desperate. The Mexican wolf program's “tame” wolves (habituated wolves) are so fearless of humans that they’ll hang out near houses, getting their meals from pets and domestic livestock because it’s much easier than chasing all over the forest after elk and deer.
Female Mexican wolf 511, the poster wolf, was born in captivity, where she was routinely handled for veterinary exams and vaccinations. After release “into the wild” (actually near or in the middle of ranching areas), like other wolves in the program 511 was recaptured to replace batteries in her collar, to be revaccinated and be brought to captive facilities for breeding purposes; she additionally was captured and “translocated” (moved to another area where supposedly she’d forget all about being habituated and having a taste for cows) because she was a problem wolf. Wolf 511 was eight years old when she died. Eight is quite old for a wild wolf, and therefore like any old animal, she would have been vulnerable to the effects of stress. I’m guessing she would not have lived that long if she had really been a wild wolf, without all that extra health care from the Mexican wolf program.
And now we have come to my rambling point of disagreement with the Enviros. “Conservation Groups” want the poster wolf to show some other wolf than poster wolf 511, because she died in captivity. The Enviros want the poster wolf to show the “”truth”. Well, wouldn’t it be more the truth to show a wolf with a collar on (to show that it’s been captured, vaccinated, examined and fed by humans), and to also show the wolf’s veterinary charts, pedigrees, the human names given to them like any domestic animal (511’s name was Brunhilda, her parents were Parkeyes and Rio). Wouldn’t it be more the truth to show the wolf snacking on puppies and calves - or lurking near school playgrounds as habituated wolves tend to do? Isn’t it a travesty of the truth to imply that 511 or any Mexican wolf poster wolves are really wild at all?
Fact is, no wild wolf has ever been released by the Mexican wolf program. Every wolf released has been the result of a captive breeding program, and most released wolves have been captured and released over and over again. Where is a wild wolf supposed to come from that can pose for a photo?
Ah, but what’s truth got to do with anything when you’re busy spinning away…
www.onestillfree.blogspot.com
Oh, it hurts to have to admit that for once I agree with the words of Enviros. Fortunately that pain is somewhat mitigated by the fact that even when they try to get it right, the Enviros get it wrong - no doubt on purpose methinks - and so while I agree with the words, I don’t agree with the premises.
“Conservation groups” (they used to be “environmental groups” but that name is getting a deservedly bad flavor) have written to the US Fish & Wildlife Service to stop the agency’s using the image of a Mexican wolf that died in captivity. The female wolf was one of the original 11 released into the wild as part of the Mexican wolf recovery program back in 1998 (she was a captive-bred wolf, not a wild wolf).
“Conservation Groups” (the usual suspects, headed this time by the Center for Biological Diversity, a group known for twisting the facts, see Chilton v Center for Biological Diversity, Inc.) claim it’s important for people to know the “truth” (and isn’t that a joke, coming from them) about the poster wolf: they are upset that it died of stress and overheating after being captured by US FWS in 2005.
These “Conservation Groups” are using the death of an aged wolf more than three years ago to complain about the management of the “wolf predator control program” - a term they have dreamed up that apparently refers to the capture or killing of wolves after three confirmed livestock kills in a year. The Enviros would have us believe the problem is with the pesky ranchers, who keep whining about all the cows that wolves eat (not to mention the horses, dogs, cats, etc.) instead of the elk and deer that the wolves are supposed to be dining on. The Enviros want to stop this silly policy of removing (and relocating) problem wolves.
You know what? (I’m getting shivers just writing these words). I agree. A major flaw with the Mexican wolf program is this business of capturing wolves.
But then, here’s where I disagree (my relief is huge). What Enviros really want is for ranchers and everyone else to just suck it up and let wolves eat what they will, so that the bad, cow-eating wolves will not have to be captured or killed for all that repeated destruction. The implication is that it’s because of this wanton protection of ranchers and resulting removal of wolves that the wolf program isn’t successful.
Not so!
The program isn’t successful because the wolves aren’t wild to begin with. Pay attention here, children - this is a very important point! Real wild wolves wouldn’t be eating dogs, cats, horses and cows because real wild wolves are afraid of humans and don’t come near humans unless they’re desperate. The Mexican wolf program's “tame” wolves (habituated wolves) are so fearless of humans that they’ll hang out near houses, getting their meals from pets and domestic livestock because it’s much easier than chasing all over the forest after elk and deer.
Female Mexican wolf 511, the poster wolf, was born in captivity, where she was routinely handled for veterinary exams and vaccinations. After release “into the wild” (actually near or in the middle of ranching areas), like other wolves in the program 511 was recaptured to replace batteries in her collar, to be revaccinated and be brought to captive facilities for breeding purposes; she additionally was captured and “translocated” (moved to another area where supposedly she’d forget all about being habituated and having a taste for cows) because she was a problem wolf. Wolf 511 was eight years old when she died. Eight is quite old for a wild wolf, and therefore like any old animal, she would have been vulnerable to the effects of stress. I’m guessing she would not have lived that long if she had really been a wild wolf, without all that extra health care from the Mexican wolf program.
And now we have come to my rambling point of disagreement with the Enviros. “Conservation Groups” want the poster wolf to show some other wolf than poster wolf 511, because she died in captivity. The Enviros want the poster wolf to show the “”truth”. Well, wouldn’t it be more the truth to show a wolf with a collar on (to show that it’s been captured, vaccinated, examined and fed by humans), and to also show the wolf’s veterinary charts, pedigrees, the human names given to them like any domestic animal (511’s name was Brunhilda, her parents were Parkeyes and Rio). Wouldn’t it be more the truth to show the wolf snacking on puppies and calves - or lurking near school playgrounds as habituated wolves tend to do? Isn’t it a travesty of the truth to imply that 511 or any Mexican wolf poster wolves are really wild at all?
Fact is, no wild wolf has ever been released by the Mexican wolf program. Every wolf released has been the result of a captive breeding program, and most released wolves have been captured and released over and over again. Where is a wild wolf supposed to come from that can pose for a photo?
Ah, but what’s truth got to do with anything when you’re busy spinning away…
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Whining - the New National Pastime
I have a confession to make. I’m not a Greenie. Nowadays that makes me the bad guy, because Green has become the new banner and badge of being part of the politically correct crowd.
I’ve been giving some thought lately to the fact that we have a society run by youngsters (this is because as I age, I find so many in office to be younger than I am), yet we have a population the median age of which is growing older and older.
Used to be that people respected age - being an “elder” meant having wisdom that younger people valued. Over the years that has changed; our older folks have not been considered founts of wisdom or valued parts of family and society for a long time. Rather, older folks are stuffed into retirement homes and assisted living facilities soon as they have no money left to support the younger generations that can’t (or won’t) get jobs to support themselves.
Aha, you say - the reason no one pays attention to elder wisdom is because older folks’ minds wander off the topic - but not so! Bear with me a bit longer.
The reason older folks are founts of wisdom, even though some of us are dumber than doorposts, is that we have experienced more. This is so simple concept as to be profound. No matter how smart you are, how educated you are, how technologically facile you are, if you’re young, you cannot have experienced as much as someone who has lived longer. It’s a matter of sheer numbers, quantity of time. You can never really know what can be known at 50, 60 or 70 or older until you’ve lived 50, 60 or 70 or more years. You can never apply the experience of time until you’ve experienced the time. And you cannot possibly begin to comprehend what we old folks know as we view life from the perspective of just having lived longer.
“Bail me out, save me!” is what I’m seeing everywhere nowadays. I see lots of this whining going on, and see few solutions offered that encompass the big picture. I see this as a result of inexperience (i.e., young folks’ reaction) because we’re all here on the same planet and ultimately there is no one to bail us out or save us other than ourselves. That’s something it just takes time to learn.
Let me pick on the Greens as an example. Go to any petition website these days and it’ll be Green. What is a petition? It’s a bunch of names of people who’d rather whine about a problem than roll up their sleeves and do something directly. That’s whining, in my opinion, I don’t care how noble the label.
Or look at proposed (and, more scary, passed) legislation that “fixes” things by imposing more rules and regulations in our lives, legislation which takes away personal responsibility and substitutes government responsibility. Being bailed out ends up with giving up our rights and making us dependant - like children.
Whining happens because the people who are doing it don’t have any real answers. They feel the pressure, the pain of the situation, but they don’t know how to effectively make it go away. Like children, they don’t know how to fix things properly because they just don’t have the tools, the experience and perspective to see the whole picture. In other words, they don’t go to their founts of wisdom for answers: to the old folks, their elders.
We older folks pretty much don’t qualify as real Greenies because we’re not young enough to have tunnel vision any more, we can’t see things as black and white so easily. Life has taught us painful lesson by painful lesson how unrealistic that is. We older folks - at least those of us who have moved beyond the flower power years - have been around long enough to know first hand that everything is connected to everything, and that disenfranchising anyone or disallowing anything isn’t going to solve any problems. Tunnel vision isn’t wrong, it’s just so very limited as to throw everything out of kilter when acted on.
The innocent ignorance of tunnel vision is not going to go away, so it’s up to us old folks to fix things - if only we ourselves would pay attention to our own elders. Answers for today’s problems won’t be Green, won’t even necessarily be in what we know ourselves here at this time today. The big answers for the questions facing humanity and for the planet are going to be found in the wisdom of the ages, of our own elders. I don’t think they will be Green.
I’ve been giving some thought lately to the fact that we have a society run by youngsters (this is because as I age, I find so many in office to be younger than I am), yet we have a population the median age of which is growing older and older.
Used to be that people respected age - being an “elder” meant having wisdom that younger people valued. Over the years that has changed; our older folks have not been considered founts of wisdom or valued parts of family and society for a long time. Rather, older folks are stuffed into retirement homes and assisted living facilities soon as they have no money left to support the younger generations that can’t (or won’t) get jobs to support themselves.
Aha, you say - the reason no one pays attention to elder wisdom is because older folks’ minds wander off the topic - but not so! Bear with me a bit longer.
The reason older folks are founts of wisdom, even though some of us are dumber than doorposts, is that we have experienced more. This is so simple concept as to be profound. No matter how smart you are, how educated you are, how technologically facile you are, if you’re young, you cannot have experienced as much as someone who has lived longer. It’s a matter of sheer numbers, quantity of time. You can never really know what can be known at 50, 60 or 70 or older until you’ve lived 50, 60 or 70 or more years. You can never apply the experience of time until you’ve experienced the time. And you cannot possibly begin to comprehend what we old folks know as we view life from the perspective of just having lived longer.
“Bail me out, save me!” is what I’m seeing everywhere nowadays. I see lots of this whining going on, and see few solutions offered that encompass the big picture. I see this as a result of inexperience (i.e., young folks’ reaction) because we’re all here on the same planet and ultimately there is no one to bail us out or save us other than ourselves. That’s something it just takes time to learn.
Let me pick on the Greens as an example. Go to any petition website these days and it’ll be Green. What is a petition? It’s a bunch of names of people who’d rather whine about a problem than roll up their sleeves and do something directly. That’s whining, in my opinion, I don’t care how noble the label.
Or look at proposed (and, more scary, passed) legislation that “fixes” things by imposing more rules and regulations in our lives, legislation which takes away personal responsibility and substitutes government responsibility. Being bailed out ends up with giving up our rights and making us dependant - like children.
Whining happens because the people who are doing it don’t have any real answers. They feel the pressure, the pain of the situation, but they don’t know how to effectively make it go away. Like children, they don’t know how to fix things properly because they just don’t have the tools, the experience and perspective to see the whole picture. In other words, they don’t go to their founts of wisdom for answers: to the old folks, their elders.
We older folks pretty much don’t qualify as real Greenies because we’re not young enough to have tunnel vision any more, we can’t see things as black and white so easily. Life has taught us painful lesson by painful lesson how unrealistic that is. We older folks - at least those of us who have moved beyond the flower power years - have been around long enough to know first hand that everything is connected to everything, and that disenfranchising anyone or disallowing anything isn’t going to solve any problems. Tunnel vision isn’t wrong, it’s just so very limited as to throw everything out of kilter when acted on.
The innocent ignorance of tunnel vision is not going to go away, so it’s up to us old folks to fix things - if only we ourselves would pay attention to our own elders. Answers for today’s problems won’t be Green, won’t even necessarily be in what we know ourselves here at this time today. The big answers for the questions facing humanity and for the planet are going to be found in the wisdom of the ages, of our own elders. I don’t think they will be Green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
