September, 23 2008, 12:43pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 313-7017
Southwest Forest Proposes End to Baiting of Endangered Mexican Wolves
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona, where
Mexican gray wolves roam, has proposed a new policy requiring proper
disposal of livestock carcasses - the first time livestock owners would
be tasked with a responsibility to prevent conflicts with wolves.
If the remains of cattle (and sometimes horses and sheep) that have
died of non-wolf causes are not made inedible or removed, they can
attract wolves to prey on live cattle that may be nearby the carcass,
and habituate them to domestic animals instead of their natural prey.
SILVER CITY, N.M. -
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in eastern Arizona, where
Mexican gray wolves roam, has proposed a new policy requiring proper
disposal of livestock carcasses - the first time livestock owners would
be tasked with a responsibility to prevent conflicts with wolves.
If the remains of cattle (and sometimes horses and sheep) that have
died of non-wolf causes are not made inedible or removed, they can
attract wolves to prey on live cattle that may be nearby the carcass,
and habituate them to domestic animals instead of their natural prey.
The new policy would effectively ban the practice of baiting wolves
into preying on domestic animals, which can lead to wolves being
trapped or shot by the government in retribution. Such "predator
control" actions are undermining recovery of the Mexican wolf, North
America's most imperiled mammal. The proposed change would help the
beleaguered species recover.
Michael Robinson, a
conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity in
Silver City, N.M., commended the Forest Service for the proposal.
"Ensuring that cattle and horses that die of non-wolf causes don't
entice Mexican wolves into scavenging was recommended by independent
scientists and is just plain common sense," Robinson said.
"If wolves and livestock are to coexist, we must strive to prevent
conflicts rather than blame the wolves once they have already become
used to regarding domestic animals as prey," he said.
The Apache-Sitgreaves is one of several Southwestern national forests
updating their 10-year forest plans, and is the first unit of
government to propose a livestock carcass clean-up policy in the
Southwest. The policy was instituted from the outset of the successful
reintroduction of northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves to Yellowstone
National Park and central Idaho (see background information, below).
Cattle, sheep and horses on public lands die from many causes. During
drought years especially, animals stressed by poor nutrition feed on
poisonous plants. Others forage on steep slopes, from which they fall
to their deaths. Disease, lightning - a surprisingly common cause of death.-
collisions with vehicles, predators, and birth-related deaths also take
a toll. When there is access via roads, the livestock carcasses can be
hauled away or buried. In remote areas, depending on conditions,
carcasses can be made inedible by using corrosive lime, fire or even
dynamite.
The Forest Service's proposal comes in
the form of a line of text in its Draft Desired Conditions for the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' Revised Forest Plan: "Livestock
carcasses are not available for scavenging within the Mexican Wolf
Recovery Zone." (See https://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/plan-revision/documents/ASNF-Draft-DC-2008-08-15.pdf, p. 25.)
The proposal's brevity and informality - there is a Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, but no official recovery "zone" -
belies its significance as a condition to be implemented through new
terms written into livestock grazing permits, once the plan is
finalized.
The Center for Biological Diversity is
requesting that the provision be applied not just in the Apache
National Forest portion of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which
consists of the combined Gila and Apache National Forests, but also on
all lands governed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests' Revised
Forest Plan. The Sitgreaves National Forest is important wolf habitat
in its own right and could serve as a travel corridor for wolves to
enable them to reach the Grand Canyon ecosystem. Including the
Sitgreaves National Forest would also take into account an ongoing U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service rule-change process intended to allow wolves
to roam beyond the current boundaries.
The Forest Plan Revision Team is inviting public comment on the proposed changes through October 15th via e-mail at: Asnf.planning@fs.fed.us
Background
Several instances have come to light involving Mexican gray wolves that
originally preyed on elk and ignored cows beginning to prey on cows and
ignoring elk after scavenging on already-dead cattle. This was a
problem largely averted in reintroducing northern Rocky Mountain gray
wolves to Yellowstone and Idaho just three years before the
Southwestern wolf-reintroduction program was begun.
The rule governing the 1995 reintroduction of wolves to the northern
Rocky Mountains stated: "If livestock carrion or carcasses are not
being used as bait for an authorized control action on Federal lands,
it must be removed or otherwise disposed of so that they do not attract
wolves." The northern Rockies rule further specified that evidence of
artificial or intentional feeding of wolves would preclude labeling a
wolf in the vicinity a "problem wolf," subject to removal.
But the 1998 rule governing the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction
included no such protections. The regulatory disparity is part of the
reason that, while the northern Rockies now support around 1,450
wolves, the Mexican wolves reintroduced to the Southwest in 1998 number
around 50 animals still in the wild.
The June 2001
Three-Year Review (aka Paquet Report) of the Mexican wolf
reintroduction program, written by a panel of independent scientists
contracted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, advised "Requir[ing]
livestock operators on public land to take some responsibility for
carcass management/disposal to reduce the likelihood that wolves become
habituated to feeding on livestock."
The American
Society of Mammalogists in June 2007 urged "protect[ing] wolves from
the consequences of scavenging on livestock carcasses."
Until now, no government agency would accept responsibility for this.
The Forest Service, which manages the land, has pointed at the Fish and
Wildlife Service as the agency that sets wolf policy. And the Fish and
Wildlife Service defers to a group of six government agencies,
including itself and the Forest Service, which opposes making owners of
stock responsible in any way for preventing scavenging and habituation.
This Catch-22 has been deadly for the wolves.
Despite the abundance of livestock, 88 percent of what the Mexican
wolves eat consists of native ungulates, such as elk and deer, and only
4 percent is livestock (including that which they scavenged but did not
kill), according to the only study on the wolves' diet conducted since
their reintroduction in 1998. But the wolf population is so low and the
rules so draconian that the official responses to even the occasional
livestock depredation serve to thwart recovery.
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
US Voter Registrations Surge as Republicans Try to Limit Ballot Access
One group said it has registered over 100,000 new voters since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.
Jul 26, 2024
The group behind a popular get-out-the-vote technology platform said Friday that it's registered more than 100,000 new U.S. voters since President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, a surge that came amid mounting Republican efforts to make it harder to register and vote.
Vote.org said that 84% of voters registered in the new wave are under age 35. Nearly 1 in 5 new registrees is 18 years old. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, said that "since 2020, we have led the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history," with more than 7.8 million people registered.
After dropping out, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former Republican President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election. The new presumptive Democratic candidate has already earned endorsements from many Democrats in Congress and groups advocating on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
Vote.org's success comes as Republicans at the federal level are proposing and passing legislation creating obstacles to the ballot box.
Earlier this month, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas)
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
slammed the bill as a "xenophobic attack" meant to silence "Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, [and] young voices."
Lee said the SAVE Act underscores the need to pass her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."
Earlier this year, U.S. Senate Democrats also reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation its sponsors say will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
Meanwhile, Republican-controlled state legislatures and red-state governors are enacting laws imposing tough restrictions on voter registration, with violations punishable by stiff fines that critics say are meant to dissuade people from registration drives and similar efforts.
Again under the guise of preventing fraud, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year signed legislation limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
"These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea," Cecile Scoon, an attorney and president of the Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters,
toldThe New York Times in an article published Friday.
Three years after Kansas passed a law making "false representation" of an election official a crime, campaigners say it's become extremely difficult to sign up new voters.
"In 2020, even with the pandemic, we had registered nearly 10,000 Kansans to vote. Now, we haven't been able to register anyone," Davis Hammet, president of the youth voter mobilization group Loud Light, told the Times.
In Louisiana, Republican state lawmakers quietly passed legislation making it easier for election officials to toss out absentee ballots with missing details, limiting how people can mail in other voters' ballots, and restricting the ability to assist people with disabilities with their ballots.
"What we've found is that these measures have a disproportionate impact on voters with disabilities, both Black and white," NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior policy counsel Jared Evans
toldNola.com earlier this week.
"It's clear that their goal is to make it harder to vote, harder for specific communities to vote especially," Evans added. "What they don't realize is that these laws hurt white voters, too."
In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen last week
ordered county election offices to stop registering voters with past felony convictions who have not received official pardons. The move came after the state's unicameral Legislature passed a bill granting voting eligibility to felons immediately after they have completed their sentences instead of waiting two years.
"We refuse to accept thousands of Nebraskans having their voting rights stripped away," ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy fellow Jane Seu said in a statement. "We are confident in the constitutionality of these laws, and we are exploring every option to ensure that Nebraskans who have done their time can vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing To Eat': War-Torn Sudan Faces Mass Famine as Military Delays Aid
Both parties in Sudan's civil war are to blame for a looming mass famine, experts say, and the military's blocking of U.N. aid at a border crossing with Chad exacerbates the problem.
Jul 26, 2024
Sudan's military is blocking United Nations aid trucks from entering at a key border crossing, causing severe disruptions in aid in a country that experts fear may be on the brink of one of the worst famines the world has seen in decades, The New York Timesreported Friday.
The border city of Adré in eastern Chad is the main international crossing into the Darfur region of Sudan, but the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the state's official military, which is engaged in a civil war with a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has refused to issue permits for U.N. trucks to enter there, as it's an RSF-controlled area.
U.S. and international officials have issued increasingly alarmed calls for steady aid access to help feed the millions of severely malnourished people in Darfur and other areas of Sudan.
Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the U.N., said that the SAF's obstruction of the border was "completely unacceptable."
Both warring parties in Sudan continue to perpetrate brazen atrocities, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This piece focuses on the SAF's ongoing obstruction of essential aid. The situation is catastrophic. The policy is criminal. https://t.co/FKhqQh3EI9.
— Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) July 26, 2024
The Sudanese who've made it out of the country and into Adré reported dire and unsafe conditions in their home country.
"We had nothing to eat," Bahja Muhakar, a Sudenese mother of three, told the Times after she crossed into Chad, following a harrowing six-day journey from Al-Fashir, a major city in Darfur. She said the family often had to live off of one shared pancake per day.
Another mother, Dahabaya Ibet, said that her 20-month-old boy had to bear witness to his grandfather being shot and killed in front of his eyes when the family home in Darfur was attacked by gunmen late last year.
Now the mothers and their families are refugees in Adré, where 200,000 Sudanese are living in an overcrowded, under-resourced transit camp.
In addition to those that have made it out of the country, there are 11 million people internally displaced within Sudan, most of whom have become displaced since the civil war began in April 2023.
An unnamed senior American official told the Times that the looming famine in Sudan could be as bad as the 2011 famine in Somalia or even the great Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
In April, Reutersreported that people in Sudan were eating soil and leaves to survive, and The Washington Postcalled it a nation in "chaos," reporting that World Food Program trucks had been "blocked, hijacked, attacked, looted, and detained."
In late June, a coalition of U.N. agencies, aid groups, and governments warned that 755,000 people in Sudan faced famine in the coming months.
The U.S. last week announced $203 million in additional aid to Sudan—part of a $2.1 billion pledge that world leaders made in April, which some countries have not yet delivered on.
Some officials including Thomas-Greenfield, who has dubbed the situation in Sudan "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," have called for the U.N. Security Council to allow aid delivery into the country even in the absence of SAF approval; it's believed that Russia would veto such a measure.
Sudan's civil war has seen a great deal of international interference. Amnesty International on Thursday published an investigatory briefing showing that weapons from Russia, China, Serbia, Turkey, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been identified in the country. And The Guardian on Friday reported that the passports of Emirati citizens had been found among wreckage in Sudan, indicating the UAE may have troops or intelligence officers on the ground, though the UAE denied the accusation.
The International Service for Human Rights on Friday warned that both the SAF and RSF were engaged in wrongful killings and arrests, especially targeted at lawyers, doctors, and activists. The group called for an immediate cease-fire.
The SAF and Sudanese government figures have cast doubt on international experts' claims about famine in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular