September, 01 2016, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: (520) 623.5252,Email:,center@biologicaldiversity.org
Study Debunks Theory That Killing Predators Reduces Livestock Losses
Killing predators such as wolves, mountain lions and bears in order to protect livestock may have intuitive appeal, but a rigorous review of multiple studies that was published today shows little or no scientific support that it actually reduces livestock losses. In fact, in some cases it even leads to increases in livestock loss. These conclusions directly counter the reasoning behind the common practice of killing predators in response to livestock depredations -- as carried out by the secretive federal program, Wildlife Services, and many state game agencies.
SILVER CITY, N.M.
Killing predators such as wolves, mountain lions and bears in order to protect livestock may have intuitive appeal, but a rigorous review of multiple studies that was published today shows little or no scientific support that it actually reduces livestock losses. In fact, in some cases it even leads to increases in livestock loss. These conclusions directly counter the reasoning behind the common practice of killing predators in response to livestock depredations -- as carried out by the secretive federal program, Wildlife Services, and many state game agencies.
"This study shows that not only is Wildlife Services' annual killing of tens of thousands of wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, cougars and other animals unconscionable -- it's also ineffective," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Our government should ground the aerial snipers, pull the poisons and remove the steel leghold traps in response to these findings."
The unexpected finding that carnivore killings can increase depredations is likely based on disruption of the predators' social dynamics -- namely, by removing dominant animals that maintain large territories, these killings release sub-adult animals that are less-skilled hunters and thus more likely to target domestic animals.
The new review, "Predator Control Should Not Be a Shot in the Dark" -- published in one of the world's top scientific journals, Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment -- evaluated the methods in 24 previous studies of responses to predation on livestock and catalogued them according to their adherence to the scientific method.
The review found few studies that met accepted standards for scientific evidence. Half of the evaluated studies -- conducted in North America and Europe -- did not follow an experimental design that included control (non-manipulated) herds of livestock and other standard scientific safeguards to exclude the effects of bias in sampling, treatment, measurement or reporting. However, the review found 12 studies that were conducted according to the scientific method. Most of the tests of lethal methods showed no effect or unexpected increases in livestock deaths. Non-lethal methods were found to be safer and more effective.
Two of the studies that used sound methods found that non-lethal measures, specifically guard dogs and fladry (ribbons attached to fences to scare predators away from lambing pastures), were effective at deterring livestock depredations.
The study was conducted by Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin, Miha Krofel of the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, and Jeanine McManus of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
UN Tax Convention Presents Historic 'Opportunity to Create Well-Being for All'
"At the U.N., low- and middle-income countries are in the majority, and they want a fair system where their voices are heard."
Apr 30, 2024
Tax justice advocates this week are expressing hope that delegates at a United Nations summit aimed at drafting an international tax convention will take the "once-in-a-century opportunity," as one campaigner and researcher said, to place the common good at the center of the global tax system instead of individual and corporate greed.
Representatives of U.N. member states are meeting for the Ad Hoc Committee to Draft Terms of Reference for a United Nations Framework on International Tax Cooperation, following decades of campaigning by countries in the Global South.
"It's happening," said Rebecca Riddell, policy lead for Oxfam America. "The start of historic negotiations for a fairer global tax system. We're here because of the leadership of African countries. Because of the 125 states that voted yes. And because of tireless civil society efforts."
The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution last November calling for the meeting, with the committee required to submit "terms of reference to the General Assembly by August and a final vote on a tax convention framework expected by the end of 2025.
At the Tax Justice Network (TJN), Sergio Chaparro-Hernandez wrote last week that the negotiations are taking place with an "unprecedented level of transparency," with civil society groups able to account for the positions adopted by each state.
Another "noteworthy development" as the meeting gets underway, said Chaparro-Hernandez, is that "several of the 48 countries that had voted against Resolution 78/230 last year are now actively participating in the process."
"The European Union, for example, which voted as a bloc against the resolution last year, accepted the path set out by the resolution by stating in its initial statement at the organizational session that, 'the UN framework convention on tax cooperation can and should serve to further promote tax transparency and fair taxation,'" he added.
Along with TJN, other civil society groups including the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), Eurodad, and Greenpeace are participating in the committee meeting and lobbying for a far-reaching convention framework that will "redefine the pillars of the international tax system and to make it fully inclusive, just, and effective."
"At the U.N., low- and middle-income countries are in the majority, and they want a fair system where their voices are heard," said Maria Ron Balsera, a researcher at CESR.
Under current global tax rules, the wealthiest individuals and corporations pocket $480 billion each year through the use of tax havens and other forms of tax evasion, said Greenpeace on Tuesday, "most countries just can't cover people's basic needs, nor meet their climate and biodiversity targets and commitments."
"The U.N. Tax Convention is a historical opportunity to create well-being for all, by moving decision-making power from a few rich [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries to the U.N. where every country has a vote," said the group.
Chenai Mukumba, executive director of Tax Justice Network Africa, spoke to attendees of the committee meeting about prioritizing mechanisms to crack down on tax evasion.
"While we flag the importance of this work to developing countries, we cannot overemphasize that inclusive and effective tax cooperation is important that has benefits for our global community," said Mukumba. "The international community as a whole is better off when we have more countries that have resources and capacity to provide their citizens with essential services."
On Monday, Greenpeace Africa's pan-African political strategist Fred Njehu wrote to Ramy Mohamed Youssef, chair of the U.N. Tax Convention Committee, and addressed him not only as an advocate but as "a dad, a concerned citizen, and a taxpayer."
Changing global tax rules and ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share, said Njehu would unlock "the money for everyone’s basic needs and the recovery of climate and nature."
"We both know that this is mostly because multinational corporations have been exploiting the majority of the world for way too long, and governments in some rich countries have facilitated it," said Njehu. "They're making billions on the destruction of the world and our suffering. And then, they hide their profits in tax havens. A downward spiral where wealth and power have become so concentrated as to threaten democracy, civilization, and the living world we're part of."
"Mr. Youssef, you have a big responsibility and a unique opportunity to turn things around this year," he added. "Civil society, academics, and countries that represent 80% of the world’s population are backing you and your colleagues at the U.N. Tax Convention Committee to change the global tax rules, which are critical for how the global economy works... Now we need equality, transparency and accountability. Polluters must pay and the wealthy must be taxed fairly."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Restores, Expands Bedrock Environmental Law Gutted by Trump
"Today's rule restores strong environmental review of federal actions and will go a long way towards having a meaningful process to assess the health and safety impacts of an array of projects," said one campaigner.
Apr 30, 2024
In a clear demonstration of how U.S. President Joe Biden's priorities differ from those of his GOP predecessor, the Democrat on Tuesday finalized a two-part push to revive and strengthen a landmark environmental law eviscerated by the Trump administration in 2020.
While in office, former Republican President Donald Trump—who has pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he wins back the White House—attacked the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ensures communities can weigh in on projects that are built nearby or otherwise impact them.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality on Tuesday released regulations that "aim to undo Trump's gift to polluters," in the words of Food & Water Watch, one of several groups that applauded the Biden administration's new rules.
"This rule is yet another reminder that we do not have to choose between environmental justice and meeting our energy needs."
"NEPA gives communities the power to participate and advocate for themselves when the federal government greenlights polluting projects like factory farms and fossil fuel power plants," said Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen. "Today's rule restores strong environmental review of federal actions and will go a long way towards having a meaningful process to assess the health and safety impacts of an array of projects."
"Over the past few years, NEPA has been targeted by polluters and their political allies as an impediment to permitting sensible and necessary projects," Heinzen noted. "But this is simply not the case; full, transparent consideration of a project's impacts—including climate and environmental justice impacts—is critical to informed decision making and ultimately transitioning away from fossil fuels."
In addition to reinstating provisions gutted under Trump, Biden's rule introduces new climate and environmental justice requirements.
"These are the most significant improvements in decades to the NEPA process that analyzes gas pipelines, power plants, and other polluting projects," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "These rules undo the damage from both the previous administrations' efforts to weaken NEPA and the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023."
Hartl also highlighted some inconsistency with Biden's record, saying that "these rules come not a moment too soon, as the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies continue to unthinkingly approve climate-killing fossil fuel projects. All federal agencies must now meaningfully adjust their environmental reviews so that fossil fuel companies' profits aren't put above the interests of our most vulnerable communities and our climate."
Friends of the Earth legal director Hallie Templeton similarly praised the progress while stressing that the fight is far from over.
"This marks a victory in our yearslong litigation to reverse the rollbacks and benefits frontline communities who rely on NEPA for a voice in the permitting process and for transparency around our government's activities," said Templeton. "While much more must be done to shore up our nation's environmental and environmental justice laws, this is a certain step in the right direction for safeguarding people and the planet."
Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice's president, emphasized that "smart, transparent blueprinting for the future has never been more important."
"We need to build out the clean energy infrastructure of the future as efficiently and affordably as possible, while forcing a shift in business-as-usual thinking that is driving fossil fuels expansion, entrenching environmental injustice, and accelerating biodiversity loss," she asserted. "This new rule restores NEPA to its original intent while modernizing its implementation to address the scale of the environmental problems we face now."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous pointed out that "this rule is yet another reminder that we do not have to choose between environmental justice and meeting our energy needs."
"Through this commonsense reform, we can unlock the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act and bring abundant clean energy resources online without sacrificing communities or rubber-stamping more fossil fuels," he continued, referencing a package signed by the president in 2022. "We applaud the Biden administration for taking this important step toward ensuring certainty, efficiency, and transparency in the federal environmental review process."
David Watkins, the director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "by restoring and strengthening key provisions of NEPA, the Biden administration has unequivocally declared that polluting industries will not have the only say in how federal investments and projects are evaluated."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICJ Rejects Nicaragua's Request to Block German Arms Sales to Israel
However, the World Court did not grant Germany's request to dismiss the case‚ in which Nicaragua accuses Berlin of enabling Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Apr 30, 2024
The top United Nations court on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Nicaragua's request for an emergency order directing Germany to halt arms sales to Israel as it wages what the tribunal previously called a "plausibly" genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) judges voted 15-1 against the Nicaraguan motion, finding an absence of legal conditions for issuing an order blocking Germany from selling arms to Israel.
"Based on the factual information and legal arguments presented by the parties, the court concludes that, at present, the circumstances are not such as to require the exercise of its power... to indicate provisional measures," ICJ President Nawaf Salam wrote in the ruling.
However, the court did not grant Germany's request for an outright dismissal and will hear arguments on the merits of the Nicaraguan case, a process expected to take months to complete.
Carlos José Argüello Gómez, the head of Nicaragua's legal team and its ambassador to the Netherlands, said after the ruling that the court's decision "doesn't mean that Germany hasn't violated... international law."
"Germany has—from our point of view—violated international law" by providing weapons for Israel, Argüello contended.
Nicaragua’s representative Carlos Jose Arguello Gomez says ICJ ruling doesn't mean that Germany has not violated international law by providing military aid to Israel.
🟠LIVE updates: https://t.co/FqbkLyF2ZA pic.twitter.com/3cnPizIXps
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 30, 2024
Nicaragua asserts that Germany—which provided nearly 30% of Israel's exported arms last year—is complicit in Israeli war crimes and is enabling genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinian and international officials say that more than 123,000 Palestinians have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's relentless 207-day onslaught and siege, which has also displaced around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and driven at least hundreds of thousands of people to the brink of starvation. The majority of those killed have been women and children.
"Germany is failing to honor its own obligation to prevent genocide or to ensure respect of international humanitarian law," Argüello argued during case hearings earlier this month.
According to the Lawyers' Collective—a Berlin-based group that is suing to stop German arms sales to Israel—Germany's government issued €326.5 million ($348.7 million) worth of weapons export licenses for Israel last year, the majority of which were approved after October 7, 2023. That's a tenfold increase from 2022. The group says these transfers violate Germany's obligations under the War Weapons Control Act, which requires arms exports to comply with international humanitarian law.
Germany counters that its weapons sales to Israel have decreased since the October 7 attack and emphasizes what it says are the defensive nature of recent arms transfers. Berlin also says it has robust internal mechanisms and processes to consider the human rights implications of German arms sales.
Top German diplomat Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, who is leading Germany's legal team at the ICJ, said during hearings that Nicaragua's allegations "have no basis in fact or law."
Reacting to the ICJ ruling, the German Foreign Office said that "Germany is not a party to the conflict in the Middle East. On the contrary, we are working day and night for a two-state solution."
"We are the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians," the ministry added. "We are working to ensure that aid reaches the people in Gaza."
The German government has been intensely criticized for its stauch support for Israel and for violently cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests since October. Numerous observers contend that Germany's actions are driven by historical guilt over the Holocaust, with some critics claiming the German government is weaponizing that guilt in order to demonize Palestinians and their defenders.
Israel—which is not a party to the case—vehemently denies genocide charges, arguing it is defending itself in the wake of the Hamas-led attacks that left more than 1,100 people dead and around 240 others taken hostage. Israeli forces are believed to have killed numerous Israelis on October 7 and an unknown number of hostages since then during the bombardment and invasion of Gaza.
In addition to Nicaragua's motion, the ICJ is considering a case brought by South Africa and supported by over 30 nations asserting that Israel's Gaza assault is genocidal because it is "intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group."
On January 26, the tribunal issued a provisional ruling that found Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza and ordered the country to prevent genocidal acts. Critics accuse Israel of ignoring the order by continuing to block humanitarian aid from reaching Gazans as children and other vulnerable people starve to death.
Citing "the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation," the ICJ last month issued another provisional order directing Israel to allow desperately needed aid into the embattled enclave and reiterating its earlier order to prevent genocidal acts.
Also last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council
published a draft report that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular