Wildlife v. Animal Rights

A Great Blue Heron at California's Salton Sea. Birds that forage here are completely dependent on nonnative fish and invertebrates here for sustenance. If only exotic species were always so beneficial.

The Great Ornithologist Felonious Jive asks us to contemplate more serious fare this week. Please go to see his post at 10,000 Birds and deposit your vegan joke there.

"Meh." - Obama and the Endangered Species Act

Good Sunday to you, kind and benevolent people of the interwebs. As you read this, I am on a boat miles off the coast of California, racking up some pelagic delicacies and maybe even getting a life bird if I am lucky enough. Today's bloggage will be a break from the standard bird-hemorrhaging goodness I usually offer, as I feel, every once in a while, we must keep it real.

Let's talk about Obama. That's a pretty divisive name to be throwing around, inducing all kinds of emotions in all kinds of people. I would make the case that between his ethnicity and the likes of the well-oiled Fox News propaganda machine, he is probably the most poorly understood president that we have had in many years. Mention him to either very liberal or very conservative Americans and it is quite possible you may illicit the same reaction.

I did not vote for Obama. In my eyes, the Democratic Party has never done enough for health care, the massive disparity between the country's rich and poor, keeping the country out of needless wars (and completely ignoring events like Rwanda's genocide), and most importantly for me, the environment. They may not be as blatantly beholden to corporate interests and Big Oil as the Republican Party, but to think that those connections are not there is laughable...at best.

Still, I was pretty happy when he got elected. He was left-leaning, he was a hell of a lot better than than the McCain/Palin alternative, and he wasn't an old white man! Compared to the dark ages of the Bush Regime, the possibilities his leadership could offer seemed endless for everyone, from gay rights proponents to the environmental movement.

We tree-huggers followed Obama closely. Early on he repealed some last minute Bush regulations that were made to weaken the Endangered Species Act, and government scientists could finally get down to business and cease pretending that climate change was not happening. A whole suite of Hawaiian plants and animals were added to the Endangered Species List. But since this strong start, he has done very little to win the hearts and minds of environmentalists.

His administration's more recent scorecard is unimpressive. Despite the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill, he claims to be open to oil drilling and development. Gray Wolves were allowed to be removed from the Endangered Species List by an act of the Republican Congress, which sets a frightening and awful precedent. Earlier this month he delayed improving smog regulations, overruling the Environmental Protection Agency. Although he has passed important legislation regarding funding green technology and improving emissions standards, he has utterly failed at producing a binding agreement that specifically targets the looming spectre that is climate change, both domestically and with other nations.

One of the most important pieces of legislation to environmentalists and birders alike (the two are often not the same) is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If not in place, dozens of species would currently be facing an inevitable slide toward extinction at the moment, rather than making the slow crawl back to a self-sustaining population. Have you seen a Bald Eagle? Yes? Thank the ESA.

Of course, saving a species requires a lot of time, money, and effort, and the ESA has always been under fire from Republicans since setting aside land for wildlife is not good for business. The major loophole that has been used to address this (i.e., to avoid adding new species that require strict protection) is the Endangered Species Candidate List. This is a list of plants and animals that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, who oversees management of listed species) acknowledges may warrant protection by the ESA, but for whatever reason (lack of resources, political pressure) has not really dealt with at all. Included are species like Band-rumped Storm-Petrel, Sprague's Pipit, Kittlitz's and Xantus' Murrelets, and Lesser Prairie-Chicken. This list has grown longer and longer over the years, now numbering 252 plant and animal species and populations. Essentially, these species simply sit in legal limbo, receiving little protection while populations continue to dwindle towards nothing.

After legal action by several environmental groups, the administration is finally moving forward and FWS is doing formal reviews on multiple species (this is what must happen for a species to be listed), for both species on the candidate list and off (i.e. Golden-winged Warbler). The San Francisco Chronicle has some good information on the subject, as does Fish and Wildlife, which you can read about here and here. If we are lucky, and Obama doesn't cow to Republicans (which he is annoyingly prone to doing, it seems....moderation my ass), a slough of species may be getting the protection they deserve by election time.

FWS has already begun the listing process for Red Knots (just in time...their Atlantic population crashed by a third last year) and recently listed Loggerhead Turtle as well. All positive signs for some of our most imperiled wildlife. Lets hope the administration grows a pair and gives some more species the protection they need!

Sorry for the relatively dry post people...it's not all rainbows and unicorns and cupcakes and candy canes in the world...in fact, it's a pretty shitty scene for a lot of critters. Please remember to vote in as many local and national elections as possible...this is the easiest and most direct way most of us have to affect change, and as far as the environment is concerned, inaction is not acceptable any longer.

Our Corporate Corruption Is Quite Simply The Best

Whoa.  Check out this new background.  It makes me want get all Professor Frinky.  And you know what?  I hate math.  Cant stand it.  Not interested, no thanks.  But it makes for good graphics I reckon, and statistics are damn important in science.

Anyways.  As you know, BB&B is very pro-bird.  Love the birds.  Love 'em.  We firmly believe that in order for birds to continue to persist in the United States, certain legislation must be passed or defeated for them to continue to do so.  While climate change may possibly soon become the biggest issue many species of wildlife will be confronting, right now habitat loss is the big problem.  Land taken up for natural resource extraction (or as Hunter S. Thompson referred to it, "land rape"), agriculture, housing and businesses is far and away the biggest cause in declines of wildlife in the United States.  Damming of rivers, pollution and invasive species are also big threats.  Hunting is now well-regulated, and with the exception of the occasional shithead who shoots a condor, we don't have to be too fearful of anything going the way of the Passenger Pigeon....at least for now.

Wind turbines generate increasing amounts of energy in Pennsylvania. Cons: kill birds and bats, results in habitat loss, aesthetically bum people out. Pros: no Exxon Valdezes or Deepwater Horizons.

All of these problems are hastened and worsened by environmental laws.  And who makes these laws?  Why, your elected officials of course.  What does this mean?  YOU, voter friend, can make a difference.

I would like to make something clear: if you think nature is important, don't vote Republican.  There, I said it. And you know what?  I think a lot of Republicans would agree with that sentiment.  The environment is now almost solely the realm of heretical liberals and their ilk....or at least thats how its portrayed by conservative politicians, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.  I certainly wouldn't say that Republicans hate nature as a rule (my bird-loving grandmother is amongst them), but the people they elect rarely do anything good for the environment.

Are there exceptions?  Yes, of course.  The Governator has done really positive things for reducing California's emissions.  Laura Bush is an avid birdwatcher, has Golden-cheeked Warbler critical habitat on the Bush's Crawford Ranch, and no doubt pressured Dubya into creating the massive Papahanaumokuakea National Monument (which includes Midway Atoll and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). And guess who signed the Endangered Species Act into law? None other than the scummiest person to occupy the White House, Richard Milhous Nixon.  On a more citizen-based level, there is Republicans for Environmental Protection, who successfully fought against drilling in ANWR.

American Bitterns (who have the epic colloquial name "Thunderpumpers") are one of many species that have suffered population declines in California from wetland losses. This bird was digiscoped near Grey Lodge Wildlife Management Area in the Central Valley.

Because the Republican platform, when looked at broadly, is based on the premise of making the rich richer, they will almost always support legislation that backs big industries, no matter what the environmental cost (i.e. drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drilling offshore a la BP's Deepwater Horizon platform, constantly attempting to weaken the Endangered Species Act, defeating almost all meaningful climate-change legislation).  Their reasoning here is usually simple: they received campaign contributions that dictate how they will vote (don't get me wrong, Democrats get swayed this way too), or they want to appear to be pro-business to their electorate.  Somehow they have managed to warp the public's perception of our collective responsibility to be environmental stewards, making it look like the realm of the evil liberals.  At the same time many Americans have come to believe that the economy, business, and the time-honored pursuit of making $$$ is more American than apple pie, and that putting environmental issues or anything else in the path of "progress" is sacrilege.  This is not a good recipe for our nation's wildlands and their denizens.

Don't even get me started on what I think of the GOP's positions on foreign policy (i.e. war), the war on drugs, health care, immigration, teaching creationism, homosexuality, abortion, fun, etc.  And for God's sake, stay the hell away from anything the fucking Tea Party supports.  Yuck.

Burney Falls, in Northeastern California, is one of the best places in the world to see Black Swifts, whom actually nest behind the falls themselves.  Sadly, Republicans have recently introduced legislation to ban waterfalls and anything else that make people happy. 

Also!!!!!  For you Californians, the BB&B political machine encourages you to vote YES on Prop 19 (legalization of marijuana use), Prop 21 (free access to our terribly underfunded state parks for an $18 fee paid with vehicle registration) and Prop E (being able to register to vote all the way up to election day).  And please, vote NO on Prop 23, which suspends regulations on greenhouse gases in California.  And don't be afraid to vote Green!!!!

For folks living it up in Portland (PDX, not Maine), please check out what my enchanting and influential colleague Mary Coolidge is up to by going here.  Check out her beguiling video in particular. Bird strikes on high-rise buildings account for millions of preventable deaths by all kinds of migratory birds every year across the nation, and I urge you to support any measures to combat this problem (Coolidge tells me San Francisco is the only kosher city on this issue on the West Coast, way to go city!).

Ok.  Thanks for listening.  Have a great weekend, and good luck on Tuesday!