Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Monthly Archives: July 2016

ANOTHER GRIZZLY MOM KILLED; YEARLING CUBS WILL GO TO LIVING DEATH IN ZOO.

Posted on by
7

http://www.othernationsjustice.org/

MONTANA:  “Problem grizzly killed” reads the headline (article here). NO–the bear was not the problem; it was unaccommodating humans and a state that fails to protect bears with laws. For TWO YEARS these bears have been lured beyond the edge of their habitat by attractants: “…chickens, ducks and rabbits…pet and livestock food…” At least this time the word “kill” is used instead of “euthanize”–I’d go even further and say this bear was *executed* for the crimes of humans who refused to act in a way that kept their wild neighbors safe. Hefty fines would force rural homeowners to eliminate bear attractants; electric fencing is proven to save bears. Montana is not adequately protecting bears from human nuisances.

431125_10150547334526188_1114807436_n

imagesGREAT NEWS: Citizens’ initiative I-177 has QUALIFIED to appear on the November ballot! Want to help eliminate cruel and archaic traps on our citizen-owned public lands here in Big Sky country? Visit Montanans for Trap-free Public Lands. Congrats to all who worked relentlessly to collect the thousands of signatures required by the state!

Should the gray wolf keep its endangered species protection?

Posted on by
8

Gray wolves

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/should-the-gray-wolf-keep-its-endangered-species-protection
Dan StahlerGray wolves are currently protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (and are not always gray).

Research by UCLA biologists published today presents strong evidence that the scientific reason advanced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act is incorrect.

A key justification for protection of the gray wolf under the act was that its geographic range included the Great Lakes region and 29 Eastern states, as well as much of North America. The Fish and Wildlife Service published a document in 2014 which asserted that a newly recognized species called the eastern wolf occupied the Great Lakes region and eastern states, not the gray wolf. Therefore, the original listing under the act was invalid, and the service recommended that the species (except for the Mexican gray wolf, which is the most endangered gray wolf in North America) should be removed from protection under the act.

A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act may be made as early as this fall.

In the new study published in the journal Science Advances, biologists analyzed the complete genomes of North American wolves — including the gray wolf, eastern wolf and red wolf — and coyotes. The researchers found that both the red wolf and eastern wolf are not distinct species, but instead are mixes of gray wolf and coyote.

Bridgett vonHoldt and Robert Wayne

Reed Hutchinson/UCLA
Bridgett vonHoldt and Robert Wayne in 2009.

“The recently defined eastern wolf is just a gray wolf and coyote mix, with about 75 percent of its genome assigned to the gray wolf,” said senior author Robert Wayne, a UCLA professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. “We found no evidence for an eastern wolf that has a separate evolutionary legacy. The gray wolf should keep its endangered species status and be preserved because the reason for removing it is incorrect. The gray wolf did live in the Great Lakes area and in the 29 eastern states.”

Once common throughout North America and among the world’s most widespread mammals, the gray wolf is now extinct in much of the United States, Mexico and Western Europe, and lives mostly in wilderness and remote areas. Gray wolves still live in the Great lakes area, but not in the eastern states.

Apparently, the two species first mixed hundreds of years ago in the American South, resulting in a population that has become more coyote-like as gray wolves were slaughtered, Wayne said. The same process occurred more recently in the Great Lakes area, as wolves became rare and coyotes entered the region in the 1920s.

The researchers analyzed the genomes of 12 pure gray wolves (from areas where there are no coyotes), three coyotes (from areas where there are no gray wolves), six eastern wolves (which the researchers call Great Lakes wolves) and three red wolves.

There has been a substantial controversy over whether red wolves and eastern wolves are genetically distinct species. In their study, the researchers did not find a unique ancestry in either that could not be explained by inter-breeding between gray wolves and coyotes.

“If you did this same experiment with humans — human genomes from Eurasia — you would find that one to four percent of the human genome has what looks like strange genomic elements from another species: Neanderthals,” Wayne said. “In red wolves and eastern wolves, we thought it might be at least 10 to 20 percent of the genome that could not be explained by ancestry from gray wolves and coyotes. However, we found just three to four percent, on average — similar to that found in individuals from the same species when compared to our small reference set.”

Red wolf

Dave Mech
Red wolf

Pure eastern wolves were thought to reside in Ontario’s Algonquin Provincial Park. The researchers studied two samples from Algonquin Provincial Park and found they were about 50 percent gray wolf, 50 percent coyote.

Biologists mistakenly classified the offspring of gray wolves and coyotes as red wolves or eastern wolves, but the new genomic data suggest they are hybrids. “These gray wolf-coyote hybrids look distinct and were mistaken as a distinct species,” Wayne said.

Eventually, after the extinction of gray wolves in the American south, the red wolves could mate only with one another and coyotes, and became increasingly coyote-like.

Red wolves turn out to be about 25 percent gray wolf and 75 percent coyote, while the eastern wolf’s ancestry is approximately 75 percent gray wolf and 25 percent coyote, Wayne said. (Wayne’s research team published findings in the journal Nature in 1991 suggesting red wolves were a mixture of gray wolves and coyotes.)

Although the red wolf, listed as an endangered species in 1973, is not a distinct species, Wayne believes it is worth conserving; it is the only repository of the gray wolf genes that existed in the American South, he said.

The researchers analyzed SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) — tiny variations in a genetic sequence, and used sophisticated statistical approaches. In the more than two dozen genomes, they found 5.4 million differences in SNPs, a very large number.

Carla Schaffer/AAAS
Genomic sequencing reveals that red wolves and eastern wolves are hybrids of gray wolves.

Wayne said the Endangered Species Act has been extremely effective. He adds, however, that when it was formulated in the 1970s, biologists thought species tended not to inter-breed with other species, and that if there were hybrids, they were not as fit. The scientific view has changed substantially since then. Inter-breeding in the wild is common and may even be beneficial, he said. The researchers believe the Endangered Species Act should be applied with more flexibility to allow protection of hybrids in some cases (it currently does not), and scientists have made several suggestions about how this might be done without a change in the law, Wayne said.

Co-authors of the study include lead author Bridgett vonHoldt, an assistant professor at Princeton University and former UCLA graduate student and postdoctoral scholar who worked in Wayne’s laboratory; Beth Shapiro, UC Santa Cruz associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology; Jacqueline Robinson, a UCLA graduate student in ecology and evolutionary biology in Wayne’s laboratory; and Zhenxin Fan, an assistant professor at China’s Sichuan University, who was a visiting graduate student in Wayne’s laboratory.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Turner Endangered Species Fund, the Wilburforce Foundation, and the Morris Animal Foundation.

Should animals have ‘human’ rights?

Posted on by
6

http://www.dw.com/en/should-animals-have-human-rights/a-19427091

Animals like gorillas and chimpanzees are closely related to humans. But they have no rights. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics tells DW why great apes should be legally recognized and why animal interests matter.

Gorilla Bantú in Chapultepec Zoo, Mexico City (Photo: picture-alliance/dpa/M. Ugarte).

Gorillas are critically endangered with fewer than 175,000 left in the wild worldwide, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The death of Bantu, the last male western lowland gorilla left in Mexico, brought the debate over animal rights back into the limelight, particularly with regard to those those who spend their lives behind bars.

DW had a chance to speak with Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

You are one of the co-founders of the so called Great Ape Project. What exactly is it all about?

It’s an effort to achieve basic rights for great apes, for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans, in particular. We know that they are like us in many important ways: that they are complex beings with rich emotional lives, that they are capable of reflecting on their situation, of thinking, of problem solving, that they are self-aware, that they can think about the future. We argue, that in these respects they are so like humans, that we should give them some basic rights. Meaning rights to life, liberty and protection from torture. We would like to see them recognized in the law as people, therefore as beings who can bring a case in the courts. Obviously, through a guardian or advocate, as a small child would bring a case in the courts. But not simply (being seen) as items of property.

Philosoph Peter Singer Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at the Princeton University and author of numerous books

Are terms such as “freedom” and “captivity” not merely expressions of our own creation? Isn’t there a difference between humans and animals due to our capacity to think rationally?

That is certainly true. But you can’t explain these concepts to a two year old either, nor to someone with profound intellectual disability. Nonetheless, we do not lock them up and put them on display for others to look at. We don’t perform the kind of medical experiments on them, that have been performed on great apes. Although, fortunately, now medical research on great apes in many countries has been prohibited and that is, I think, partly a result of the work of the Great Ape Project. But given that we think all human beings have some basic rights, irrespective of their capacity to reason or reflect, or think about freedom as an abstraction, then to grant that to all humans beings, but to deny it to chimpanzees and gorillas is simply saying: “Oh well, they are not members of our species, and only our species has rights.” That is simply not defensible. We think it is very similar to racist or sexist ways of limiting the rights of non-european races, or those of women, as it has happened in the past.

Gorilla Bantu playing (Photo: picture-alliance/dpa). Bantu, 24, died of cardiorespiratory arrest while he was sedated by veterinarians and prepared to be transferred

Some argue that zoos serve an educational purpose. An irreplaceable meeting place for man and the animal, without which we would not care about them so much…

I am not aware of any evidence that looking at animals in captivity inclines us to care more about them. I suspect that one major lesson that people absorb through caged zoos is that we have the right to confine animals and use them as, basically, forms of entertainment. I think the educational lesson would be better, if they were kept in much larger enclosures where they can live a more normal life for their species. We would learn much more from that and we would also learn greater respect for them.

You are an advocate of the philosophical current called Preference Utilitarianism. What does this mean with regard to animals?

I am a utilitarian. I think that the right action is the one that has the best consequences. In terms of what those consequences are, utilitarians classically have referred to pleasure and pain. Preference utilitarians refer to the satisfaction of preferences. Whichever form of Utilitarianism we take, it’s clear that animals come in, because they do experience pain and pleasure and animals do have preferences, obviously for avoiding pain and experiencing pleasure, as well as perhaps many other preferences as well. And we are not justified in disregarding or discounting those preferences or those pains and pleasures, just because they are not members of our species. That is why from a utilitarian perspective, animals clearly do have a kind of moral status, that means that we have to consider their interests, and we should not regard those interests as less significant than ours, just because they are not members of our species.

In your book “Animal Liberation” (1975), widely considered to be a pioneer piece of work within the realm of the animal advocacy movement, you discuss the rule of man over animals. Does the apparent growth in interest around topics such as vegetarianism and the defense of animal rights reflect a shift in the greater public consciousness?

A baby bonobo is sleeping on the belly of her mother in a zoo cage (Photo: Christoph Schmidt/dpa). Great apes like these bonobos should be granted basic rights says Singer

Today there’s a greater interest in animal rights, and in part that certainly has something to do with a shift in our diet. Particularly away from factory farmed animal products. Also, I believe there is an increasing recognition that this is environmentally not sustainable, and that it contributes to climate change. So I think that there are a lot of factors that are leading to a significant increase in interest in vegetarian and vegan diets. And I’ve noticed through traveling in many countries that vegan options have become available. Ten years ago you would not have found them.

You have often talked about your positions on assisted dying and suicide, pleading that one should be able to decide freely when to end his or her life. How does this apply to animals?

I think there are differences between different kinds of beings in their capacities to choose their own death, and this would be true with humans as well. You have to be of a certain age, and mentally competent in order to receive physician assistance in dying, in those jurisdictions in which it is legal, for example the Netherlands or Belgium or more recently Canada, and some states of the United States. Non-human animals don’t meet those conditions, and therefore others do have to make that judgement. Sometimes, and I think anybody who has had a cat or a dog might be aware of this, animals become ill and are clearly suffering, and there is little hope of recovery. Then we have to make a decision for them, and that should happen in zoos as well.

People demonstrating at the World Vegan Day in Berlin (Photo: Bernd Settnik/dpa) More and more people are getting concerned about animal rights as seen at a demonstration in Berlin

You travel a lot. Which general differences in the protection and treatment of animals do you encounter?

I have seen significant improvements in Europe over the past couple of decades, particularly with regard to factory farming. Some of the worst forms of confinement have been prohibited, for example the standard battery cages for egg laying hens. Those are advances which, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist in Latin America. So in general you’d have to say that the region needs to catch up with where Europe is on that kind of progressive legislation. Also on matters like the testing of cosmetics on animals. So there are problems, and not only in Latin America, but also in Asia. Very severe problems in China in terms of animal welfare, where there is really a national animal welfare war.

Why do you think is it so difficult to get through claims for better living conditions for animals in zoos, let alone a ban on keeping apes and other animals in them?

It is always hard to produce change against established interests, and zoos have been doing what they’re doing for a long time. Especially when you have urban zoos with rather limited amounts of land, it is very hard for them to change, because they just do not have the space to provide the proper conditions for animals.

An ice bear in a zoo in Munich in front of people watching (Photo: picture-alliance/dpa/M. Müller). Zoos have less space in urban areas

They would have to greatly reduce the number of animals and the variety of different species that they have. For this they worry that people would not come to visit them anymore, so it is a constant struggle. I think we really need to get zoos out of these urban areas where they don’t have enough space, and move them outside cities where they can be more like a sanctuary or wildlife park, and provide dignified conditions for animals.

Interview: Nicolás Mandeau.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at the Princeton University and author of numerous books, including most recently: “The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically”.

http://www.dw.com/en/should-animals-have-human-rights/a-19427091

Hothouse 2090: Category 6 Hurricane A Grey Swansong For Tampa

Posted on by
Reply

robertscribbler's avatarrobertscribbler

Tampa. 2090. Late September.

The stiff wind running off the Gulf of Mexico felt like a blast furnace. Ocean surface temperatures near 100 degrees Fahrenheit; air temperatures of 113 F, high humidity, and a smell like rotten eggs added to the overall insufferability. Unpleasant was a better word from a better time. Mere unpleasantness had long since fallen away before the new deadly edge that Nature had adopted.

Tampa’s streets were packed with vehicles but featured only the rare transient foot and bike traffic. Just 15 minutes’ exposure to the brutal four p.m. heat and humidity could swiftly result in heat stroke as a body’s natural cooling systems were overwhelmed by conditions no human physiology could for long endure. The city had long since grown accustomed to the warnings. Anyone wanting to stay healthy remained indoors, huddling close to the blessed vents blasting machine-cooled, filtered air.

In the heat-scorched streets, elevated many times over…

View original post 3,419 more words

Human Population Growth and extinction

Posted on by
2

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.

The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race — Homo sapiens sapiens — migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and Australia 40,000 years ago, to North America 12,500 years ago, and to the Caribbean 8,000 years ago, waves of extinction soon followed. The colonization-followed-by-extinction pattern can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago, when humans colonized Madagascar and quickly drove elephant birds, hippos, and large lemurs extinct [1].

The first wave of extinctions targeted large vertebrates hunted by hunter-gatherers. The second, larger wave began 10,000 years ago as the discovery of agriculture caused a population boom and a need to plow wildlife habitats, divert streams, and maintain large herds of domestic cattle. The third and largest wave began in 1800 with the harnessing of fossil fuels. With enormous, cheap energy at its disposal, the human population grew rapidly from 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930, 4 billion in 1975, and over 7 billion today. If the current course is not altered, we’ll reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 to 15 billion (likely the former) by 2050.

No population of a large vertebrate animal in the history of the planet has grown that much, that fast, or with such devastating consequences to its fellow earthlings. Humans’ impact has been so profound that scientists have proposed that the Holocene era be declared over and the current epoch (beginning in about 1900) be called the Anthropocene: the age when the “global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development” dominate planetary physical, chemical, and biological conditions [2].

  • Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity,30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh water [3].
  • Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
  • Fifty percent of the planet’s land mass has been transformed for human use [3].
  • More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes combined [3].

The authors of Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems, including the current director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded:

“[A]ll of these seemingly disparate phenomena trace to a single cause: the growing scale of the human enterprise. The rates, scales, kinds, and combinations of changes occurring now are fundamentally different from those at any other time in history. . . . We live on a human-dominated planet and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most
of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase.”

Predicting local extinction rates is complex due to differences in biological diversity, species distribution, climate, vegetation, habitat threats, invasive species, consumption patterns, and enacted conservation measures. One constant, however, is human population pressure. A study of 114 nations found that human population density predicted with 88-percent accuracy the number of endangered birds and mammals as identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature [4]. Current population growth trends indicate that the number of threatened species will increase by 7 percent over the next 20 years and 14 percent by 2050. And that’s without the addition of global warming impacts.

Edward Humes

When the population of a species grows beyond the capacity of its environment to sustain it, it reduces that capacity below the original level, ensuring an eventual population crash.

“The density of people is a key factor in species threats,” said Jeffrey McKee, one of the study’s authors. “If other species follow the same pattern as the mammals and birds… we are facing a serious threat to global biodiversity associated with our growing human population.” [5].

So where does wildlife stand today in relation to 7 billion people? Worldwide, 12 percent of mammals, 12 percent of birds, 31 percent of reptiles, 30 percent of amphibians, and 37 percent of fish are threatened with extinction [6]. Not enough plants and invertebrates have been assessed to determine their global threat level, but it is severe.

Extinction is the most serious, utterly irreversible effect of unsustainable human population. But unfortunately, many analyses of what a sustainable human population level would look like presume that the goal is simply to keep the human race at a level where it has enough food and clean water to survive. Our notion of sustainability and ecological footprint — indeed, our notion of world worth living in — presumes that humans will allow for, and themselves enjoy, enough room and resources for all species to live.

 

REFERENCES CITED

  1. Eldridge, N. 2005. The Sixth Extinction. ActionBioscience.org.
  2. Crutzen, P. J. and E. F. Stoermer. 2000. The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change Newsletter 41:17–18, 2000; Zalasiewicz, J. et al. 2008. Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene?. GSA Today (Geological Society of America) 18 (2): 4–8.
  3. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 277 (5325): 494–499; Pimm, S. L. 2001. The World According to Pimm: a Scientist Audits the Earth. McGraw-Hill, NY; The Guardian. 2005. Earth is All Out of New Farmland. December 7, 2005.
  4. McKee, J. K., P. W. Sciulli, C. D. Fooce, and T. A. Waite. 2004. Forecasting Biodiversity Threats Due to Human Population Growth. Biological Conservation 115(1): 161–164.
  5. Ohio State University. 2003. Anthropologist Predicts Major Threat To Species Within 50 Years. ScienceDaily, June 10, 2003.
  6. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2009. Red List.

Photos of Donald Trump’s adult sons hunting in Africa resurface, spark comparisons with Walter Palmer, killer of Cecil the lion

Posted on by
18

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pics-rump-adult-sons-hunting-game-africa-resurface-article-1.2308107

 

A rifle-touting Donald Trump Jr. grins next to a buffalo he killed on a trip to Zimbabwe in 2011.

A rifle-touting Donald Trump Jr. grins next to a buffalo he killed on a trip to Zimbabwe in 2011.

(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)

Eric Trump is pictured with an animal he killed on a visit to Zimbabwe.

Eric Trump is pictured with an animal he killed on a visit to Zimbabwe.

(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)

Donald Jr. is seen with the tail of an elephant he killed during the 2011 hunting trip.

Donald Jr. is seen with the tail of an elephant he killed during the 2011 hunting trip.

(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)

Brothers Donald Trump, Jr. (l.) and Eric Trump (r.) are pictured with a cheetah that they killed on their 2011 trip to Zimbabwe.

Brothers Donald Trump, Jr. (l.) and Eric Trump (r.) are pictured with a cheetah that they killed on their 2011 trip to Zimbabwe.

(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)

Eric Trump is pictured with a buffalo he killed in Zimbabwe in 2011.

Eric Trump is pictured with a buffalo he killed in Zimbabwe in 2011.

(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)

1 | 5A rifle-touting Donald Trump Jr. grins next to a buffalo he killed on a trip to Zimbabwe in 2011.(HuntingLegends.com/Hunting Legends)
Their dad likes shooting from the lip, but the Trump kids prefer shooting wild animals with guns.

Pictures of Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the two adult sons of bombastic 2016 candidate Donald Trump, shooting wild animals in Africa have resurfaced, sparking unflattering comparisons of the mogul’s heirs to lion-killer Walter Palmer.

The Trump brothers went on a 2011 hunting trip in Zimbabwe, where they snapped photos of themselves with enormous dead animals they took down.

In one photo, Donald Trump Jr., known to many as “Donnie,” is seen toting a rifle and flashing a huge grin while seated next to a dead buffalo he had just killed. In another picture, Eric Trump is seen sitting atop his fresh kill, another buffalo, smiling as the dead animal lies still on the ground.

More: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pics-rump-adult-sons-hunting-game-africa-resurface-article-1.2308107

Kaine Co-Sponsors Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act

Posted on by
12

http://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-co-sponsors-bipartisan-sportsmens-act

Monday, June 23, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine joined U.S. Senators Kay Hagan and Lisa Murkowski in supporting the Sportsmen’s Act of 2014, bipartisan legislation that contains 12 bills to ensure sportsmen’s traditions are protected, provide sportsmen more access to federal lands, and support conservation efforts.

“The bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act conserves public land while promoting outdoor recreation activities that support jobs across the Commonwealth,” Kaine said. “By increasing opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, this bill will allow sportsmen to enjoy public lands and contribute to local economies in Virginia and across the nation. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation.”

The Sportsmen’s Act will enact a variety of measures to facilitate the use of and access to federal public lands and waters for hunting, fishing, and shooting. Provisions in the bill will also help increase revenue for wildlife conservation, hunter education and shooting programs.

A full list of provisions included in the bill is available HERE.

In Virginia, access to lands and water for hunting and fishing has a significant impact on the local economy. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation generates $13.6 billion annually in consumer spending in Virginia, supports 138,000 jobs across the state, which generate $3.9 billion in wages and salaries, and produces $923 million annually in state and local tax revenue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, each year 3.3 million people participate in hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching in Virginia, contributing $2.4 billion to the Commonwealth’s economy.

As Governor, Kaine helped preserve more than 400,000 acres of open space for recreation and conservation in Virginia during his four-year term.

From Russia With #HateTrumpsLove — Is Putin’s Petrostate Attempting to Tilt US Election Toward Republicans?

Posted on by
Reply

robertscribbler's avatarrobertscribbler

As the Democratic National Convention continues its week-long stay in Philadelphia, accusations of Russian hacking continue to cloud the proceedings. At this point, it seems likely that Russia is responsible. What’s less clear is what that will mean going forward. — Wired

****

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, for a long time now, have aligned their statements and political actions. As it becomes more and more certain that Russia hacked into Democratic National Committee emails in what appears to be a weaponized information warfare attack on the U.S. electoral process, one has to seriously consider the notion that Trump stands to substantially benefit from such an act of international cyber-aggression.

When asked in December about the killing of journalists under Vladimir Putin, the Republican presidential candidate, who just the day before had called Putin “brilliant” and “a strong leader”, reluctantly admitted that such atrocities under Putin might possibly…

View original post 1,059 more words

The U.S. to Open More Wildlife Refuges to Hunters

Posted on by
6

Conservationists argue that the move will expose more animals to lead poisoning and other environmental threats.


<!–

An elk bugles in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park. (Photo: Getty Image)
Jul 23, 2016
Taylor Hill is an associate editor at TakePart covering environment and wildlife.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service plans to expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 13 national wildlife refuges across nine states, including opening up big game hunting in Colorado’s 92,000-acre Baca National Wildlife Refuge for the first time.

That’s good news for America’s hunters, who will have more chances to target big game species such as elk and deer, as well as prairie chickens, quail, pheasant, ducks, doves, and pigeons.

But conservationists fear the move will expose wildlife to lead poisoning and other threats.

“The best purpose for our national wildlife refuges is the original purpose: to provide an inviolate sanctuary for the protection of our native wild spaces and wildlife,” said Jennifer Place, program associate at Born Free USA in Washington, D.C.

More:http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/23/more-national-wildlife-refuges-opened-hunting-and-fishing

Calling all animal lovers: Trump’s sons are proud murderers of endangered species.

Posted on by
5
View image on Twitter

Horrible people doing horrible things,

More Daily Beast:

The Trump boys were hunting in Zimbabwe—the same country where Cecil was killed—and though Zimbabwean animal conservation groups looked into the incident, the hunt was deemed perfectly legal. Once the photos went viral online, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted (and then deleted

CnxlOqgW8AATJy5_1_.jpg

 

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/20/1550051/-Calling-all-animal-lovers-Trump-s-sons-are-proud-murderers-of-endangered-species