“I don’t agree with it. We’ve gotten to a point where we properly manage the wolves,” Montana state Sen. Bob Brown, a Republican, said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/states-defend-expanded-hunting-after-biden-administration-says-gray-wolves-n1279952

Gray wolves in Montana.Dennis Fast / VWPics / Getty ImagesSept. 23, 2021, 12:24 PM PDTBy Deon J. Hampton

State officials and trappers in the Western U.S. say they don’t want the Biden administration to restore federal protections for gray wolves, with some arguing that doing so would lead to a population boom that could threaten livestock.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said last week it would spend up to a year reviewing whether or not to reinstate federal protections on gray wolves, a turnaround from August when the Biden administration said it would uphold the previous administration’s decision to remove the gray wolf from the list of animals protected by the Endangered Species Act.

“I don’t agree with it. We’ve gotten to a point where we properly manage the wolves,” Montana state Sen. Bob Brown, a Republican, said. “The state has been managing them, and I believe it should be up to the state to continue.”

While gray wolves have recovered from near extinction in parts of the country, they have not returned to their historic range in the lower 48 states.

The federal agency’s decision to re-examine its position came after it found credible a pair of petitions arguing that the animals should receive protection after some states adopted more permissive hunting laws.

In May, the Center for Biological Diversity and The Humane Society of the United States said in a petition to federal officials that laws enacted earlier this year in Idaho and Montana allow hunters and trappers to kill a large majority of gray wolves.

In July, the Western Watersheds Project, whose petition included about 75 other conservation and wildlife groups, voiced similar concerns and concluded that gray wolves could possibly become extinct in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

State officials in Montana and Idaho said that while the new laws do advance wolf hunting, measures are in place to maintain a sizable population.

For instance, if Montana’s wolf population drops below 450 or if Idaho doesn’t maintain at least 15 wolf packs — possibly 150 wolves — then an automatic review is triggered from either state’s fish and wildlife commission, which oversees hunting, officials said.

“It is unfortunate that Idaho’s wolf management has been mischaracterized and sensationalized,” Idaho Republican Gov. Brad Little wrote in a statement. “I am confident the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will recognize that Idaho has struck an appropriate balance that allows for active management of wolves while ensuring sufficient mechanisms are in place to maintain a healthy population.”

A record number of wolves were killed in both Montana and Idaho last year, yet the wolf population has remained flat, officials in both states said.

Still, federal wildlife officials saw enough in the petitions to warrant a review.

“The petitioners present substantial information that potential increases in human-caused mortality may pose a threat to the gray wolf in the western U.S.,” the Fish and Wildlife Service said in a statement. “The service also finds that new regulatory mechanisms in Idaho and Montana may be inadequate. Therefore, the service finds that gray wolves in the western U.S. may warrant listing.”

Designating wolves under the act would protect them from extinction by disallowing the hunting of the animals.

In 1978, the federal government reclassified the gray wolf as an endangered population throughout the U.S. with the exception of Minnesota, which designated the species as threatened, according to the service.

In 2011, the wolves were delisted in Idaho and Montana due to recovery, meaning their numbers were restored.

Recommended

CULTURE MATTERSMarvel sues artists and their heirs to block them from rights to Spider-Man, other heroes

U.S. NEWSSorority suspended over racist presentation on Black football players at North Carolina college

Critics opposed to federal oversight of wolf hunting and the bestowal of an endangered species designation said the animals reproduce quickly and tend to roam Western states feeding on livestock, which hurts ranching and farming.

Both Montana and Idaho enacted laws this year making wolf hunting easier.

In Montana, Senate Bill 314 allows for the hunting of wolves with the intent to reduce the population to a sustainable level but not less than 15 breeding pairs, according to the legislation sponsored by Brown.

In Idaho, Senate Bill 1211 established a year-round trapping season for wolves on private property with the owner’s permission, there are no weapon or motor vehicle restrictions on designated public lands and dogs may be used to hunt wolves, the law reads.

State wildlife officials estimated there are roughly 1,200 gray wolves in Montana and around 1,550 in Idaho.

In 2020, both states had record-setting hunting seasons. There were 327 kills in Montana and 584 in Idaho. Wildlife officials in both states said the record hunts did not diminish the wolf population.

“Wolves are closer to being out of control than extinct,” said Chyla Wilson, spokeswoman for the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. “Placing wolves on an endangered species list would essentially revoke hunting season and lead to a population boom. We’re 10 times above the required amount.”

Sharon Kiefer, spokeswoman for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, agreed the number of wolves would increase under federal protection, resulting in more elk, deer and private livestock being killed by wolves.

Neither state has a limit on how many wolves can be hunted.

Suzanne Asha Stone, director of Idaho-based International Wildlife Coexistence Network, said wolves are being eradicated.

“Wolves should be embraced like mountain lions, bears, elk and deer. Wolves are being persecuted in ways other animals aren’t,” she said. “In order for them to not be wiped out again, they need to be put on an endangered species list.”

Jim Dutcher, who famously spent six years raising and living with a wolf pack, said he wants the federal government to take control of wolf regulations in the West once the review is complete.

“We’re all for it. We’ve been asking for it to happen. Idaho is out of control,” said Dutcher, co-founder of the Idaho-based nonprofit Living With Wolves.

But there are many who maintain the two Western states are hunting wolves successfully.

“The new laws in Idaho and Montana are going to have very little effect on wolves,” said Rusty Kramer, president of the Idaho Trappers Association. “I’m seeing more wolves than ever before.”

https://gizmodo.com/how-bigger-arctic-waves-are-changing-clouds-1847738798

As sea ice retreats in the Arctic, it’s leaving more open ocean. That’s having unexpected and strange impacts on the region’s cloud cover.

ByBrian KahnToday 11:20AMComments (1)Alerts

There’s no shortage of evidence the Arctic is unraveling into a new and strange state. The latest example is honestly one of the weirdest I’ve come across in nearly a decade reporting on the issue.

A new study published in Geophysical Research Letter this week chronicles how Arctic sea ice’s disappearance has led to more open water and waves that are creating more clouds. The mechanism for this process is even more wild: The waves are ejecting organic matter into the sky that becomes the nuclei of tiny ice particles. Oh, and the organic matter is increasing in the seas ringing the Arctic because they’re getting warmer water transported from the Pacific, making those seas more productive. Like I said, extremely weird!

The intricate study took place in the Chukchi Sea, which sits just north of the Bering Strait. Researchers from Japan gathered an incredible array of data in November 2018 on the trip for the new study. To study the ocean and sky above it, they observed the temperature, wind, humidity, cloud cover, and ocean productivity using a variety of instruments on the R/V Mirai.

While satellites have been used to monitor cloud cover in the Arctic, extensive on-the-ground (or more accurately, on-the-ocean) data is more challenging to come by. Jun Inoue, a geoscientist at Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research who led the study, said in email the researchers planned the trip for November because the ice-strengthened research ship could handle the conditions, offering “a great chance to find a new process.”

Related Stories

Catastrophic Volcanic Eruption Prompted Construction of Ancient Maya Pyramid, Research SuggestsAfter Hurricane Ida, the Map of Louisiana May Never Look the Same AgainRare Absence of Summer Snow Is Killing Mount Shasta’s Glaciers

That hunch turned out to be correct. Inoue and his group observed ice crystals forming in clouds during a period of relatively high waves and strong wind. The group was able to sample what are known as ice-nucleating particles, basically tiny bits of solid matter that ice can form around and condense into clouds. Soot, sea salt, and even pollution can all be part of that process. But tests on the samples Inoue and his colleagues gathered show that the particles were likely from oceanic organic matter.Top ArticlesREAD MOREHow to Use FaceTime If You Don’t Havean iPhonehttps://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.481.0_en.html#goog_1825246109https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.481.0_en.html#goog_1145947129https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.481.0_en.html#goog_583458416

Inoue noted that sea ice’s disappearance isn’t happening in a vacuum and its loss “can modify many things (winds, waves, ocean structure, aerosols, clouds),” all of which interact with each other. The new study neatly shows that. Previous research has shown that Arctic and Pacific Oceans are blurring together where they meet. (A similar process is happening in the Atlantic.) On impact of that blurring is that those areas are becoming more productive, with tiny organisms floating throughout the water column.

At the same time, climate change is eating into sea ice. Oh, and the Arctic is getting stormier. All that have now conspired to kick up more waves full of little critters and plant matter, which in turn are leading to more nuclei for ice particles in the air. I don’t mean to repeat myself, but this is all extremely weird!

But it’s also more than just an odd climate change fact you can bust out at parties. (Wait, I’m hearing I’m the only one who does this. Hmm.) The research has very real implications for climate modeling in the Chukchi and other shallow Arctic seas to figure out what comes next. The study notes changing cloud cover could, in a strange twist in a paper full of them, actually help protect sea ice by leading to increased snowfall. That’s not a given, of course, and it won’t magically reverse the long-term dire trend and outlook for sea ice. But it does point avenues for refining projections. Inoue said the research will also expand to the Antarctic as well.Subscribe to our newsletter!From life on Earth to everything beyond, we’ve got it covered. Subscribe to our newsletter.Type your emailSign Me UpBy subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

“We will start the Antarctic expedition in 2022 (6 yrs project),” he wrote. “Representation in clouds over the Southern Ocean has a large uncertainty in climate models. The water depth in the Southern Ocean is deeper than the Chukchi Sea; however, we think there would be the same kind of air-sea interaction related to cloud formation.”

BYWilliam Rivers Pitt, TruthoutPUBLISHEDSeptember 23, 2021SHAREShare via FacebookShare via TwitterShare via Email

READING LISTENVIRONMENT & HEALTHActivists Ramp Up Pressure on Biden Administration Ahead of UN Climate TalksENVIRONMENT & HEALTHBiden EPA’s Clean Car Standards Fall Short Even of 2012 StandardsWAR & PEACESupport for Nuclear Ban Treaty Is Rising. Nuclear Nations Are on the Defensive.POLITICS & ELECTIONSJan. 6 Committee Issues First Subpoenas, Seeks Testimony From 4 Trump AidesENVIRONMENT & HEALTHBiden EPA Announces New Rule to Reduce Use of HFCs, a Potent Greenhouse GasWAR & PEACEAre the Motives of War Profiteers Driving Us to the Brink of a New Cold War?

“The United States will compete, and will compete vigorously, and lead with our values and our strength,” President Biden told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. “We’ll stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation. But we’re not seeking — I’ll say it again — we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs.”

This was the only part of Biden’s speech where he said the words “Cold War.” They stood out; last everyone had heard, the U.S. was engaged in a “war on terror” that, thanks to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), could conceivably run on until the stars burn out. The Cold War is black-and-white television, duck-and-cover drills, Ike, Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon, Ronald Reagan scaring the hell out of everyone, and finally a wall falling on my 18th birthday, seemingly a thousand years ago.

Biden did not say “China” in that particular passage either — though China was mentioned several times elsewhere in his remarks — but that country was most certainly the intended recipient of that specific message. Biden was speaking amid a diplomatic meltdown between the U.S. and long-time ally France over a new Australia/United Kingdom/United States (AUKUS) strategic alliance, and specifically over the sale of at least eight nuclear submarines to Australia by the U.S.

Don’t miss a beat

Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

• Email

France was perturbed because it only learned of the new AUKUS alliance after Australia publicly announced it. This was an open-handed slap from Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a man any modern U.S. Republican would embrace on sight, to the more left-leaning French prime minister, Emmanuel Macron. France was legitimately outraged over having been excluded from such important, high-level discussions and the French ambassador to the U.S. was immediately called home.

Why the sudden reversal? Nuclear subs are more expensive to maintain and operate, and New Zealand does not allow anything nuclear within its territorial waters, which from a strategic standpoint leaves a huge swath of Australia’s coast exposed. The Pacific is massive, to be sure, but what set of circumstances exist that would lead Australia — and the U.S. — to believe that nation needs at least eight of the most fearsome weapons platforms ever devised?

Answer: The “pivot to Asia,” an Obama-era recasting of global strategic imperatives which was exacerbated by Donald Trump’s blizzard of nonsense tariffs against China. “Until this week, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ by the United States had been more of a threat than a reality for Europe,” reports The New York Times. “But that changed when the Biden administration announced a new defense alliance against China that has left Europe facing an implicit question: Which side are you on?”

“We are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs,” Biden said at the UN.

But the sudden new AUKUS alliance (a rigid bloc?), and the placement of U.S.-made nuclear submarines into that portion of the Pacific, seems vividly at odds with the president’s placating words. Indeed, it is beginning to feel as if a new Cold War is off and running.

Deploying U.S.-made subs in that part of the Pacific Ocean is a big, deliberate thumb in China’s eye, an act provocative enough to motivate UN Secretary-General António Guterres to speak words of warning a day before Biden’s speech. “We need to re-establish a functional relationship between the two powers,” Guterres told the Associated Press. “We need to avoid at all cost a Cold War that would be different from the past one, and probably more dangerous and more difficult to manage.”

At bottom, however, the argument between France and the U.S. was as much over money as it was national pride. France had already inked a deal to sell a dozen diesel-powered submarines to Australia, and the AUKUS nuclear sub deal blew that up. The collapse of this arrangement cost France tens of billions of euros — France is the United States of Europe when it comes to global arms sales, and France’s leaders take the arms trade as seriously as U.S. leaders do — which could translate into a whole slew of lost jobs if that money is not recouped. (French defense contractor Naval Group, which is partially owned by France and was already building the diesel subs, intends to bill Australia for the lost revenue.)U.S. politicians and the corporate “news” media have a casually self-destructive way of discussing military spending: They don’t.

It would surprise me not one single bit if the AUKUS agreement, and specifically the sub sale switcheroo from France to the U.S., first came into being after a few phone calls to some officers in “defense” procurement from lobbyists for General Dynamics and/or Huntington Ingalls, the only two shipbuilders in the U.S. with shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines. The cost to build one of these monstrously deadly machines runs, on average, around $3 billion per unit.

“Why are you letting France get that money?” would have almost certainly been the crux of such a call. “Don’t you love America?” And away we go.

Money. Cold Wars, you see, are notoriously expensive (read: wildly lucrative for the various war profiteers that circle the Pentagon like so many carrion birds).

The average military spending during “peacetime” in the Cold War ran about $285.4 billion per year. The first hot Cold War conflict in Korea, according to Richard M. Miller Jr. of Praeger Security International, cost $678 billion. The cost of the Korean Conflict spanning from 1951 to 2000 is over $1 trillion. The Vietnam War cost another $1 trillion. Benefits to the veterans and veteran families of those wars runs into the tens of billions of dollars per year. The total cost of the Cold War from 1948 to 1991 is estimated to be $13.1 trillion, including $5.8 trillion for the development and maintenance of a vast nuclear arsenal.

These eye-popping numbers, all pegged as closely as possible to current dollar values, scarcely tell the tale of the present moment. The “Black Budget” cost of the national security state, born during World War II and massively expanded during the Cold War, is unknown… well, somebody knows, but they ain’t telling. The Pentagon, for its part, currently has a $35 trillion hole in its accounting. Nobody seems to know just where that money went… but somebody knows, and again, they ain’t telling. Meanwhile, despite our “withdrawal” from Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror grinds on relentlessly, and expensively.

U.S. politicians and the corporate “news” media have a casually self-destructive way of discussing military spending: They don’t. If someone goes on TV and says we have to feed the poor, ten voices will be raised howling “How much will that cost?” and “We can’t afford it!” A president flips 20 missiles into a foreign country, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars from construction to deployment to launch, and “How much did that cost?” never seems to come up.Among the many things the Cold War is remembered for, inflicted popular fear and mass control stand out.

It comes down to this: Every bullet, every bomb, every attack helicopter, every destroyer, every fighter jet, every field meal, every tent, every rifle, every pistol, every grenade, every land mine, every missile, every submarine (!), every uniform, every pair of boots, every body bag, every coffin, every everything that goes into the U.S. war-making machine is money flooding into some “defense” contractor’s bank account and stock portfolio.

It has been 73 years since the onset of the first Cold War, and the “terror” war is not quite the money spigot it was for the last two decades. Still, 53 cents of every tax dollar goes to the fighting of and preparation for war already, and a new Cold War with China would dramatically increase that.

It goes entirely without saying that a new Cold War with China is an astonishingly terrible idea, an undermining of nuclear nonproliferation efforts and a good reason for China to harm the U.S. by way of the massive share of our economy they already own and control. The potential cost in human life is nigh incalculable… but ask yourself this: When was the last time you can remember the warmakers actually thinking things through when massive profits were in play? I’m stumped.

There is also this: Among the many things the Cold War is remembered for, inflicted popular fear and mass control stand out. Here in the “free” U.S., the groupthink inspired by enmity toward the Soviet Union destroyed lives and constrained liberty for decades. It inspired two lucrative shooting wars, one of which technically never ended and another that lasted 20 years, along with a dozen proxy skirmishes around the world. All of this invigorated the fury and paranoia of enforced patriotism, and did great and lasting damage to those who did not take up the standard of war.

As we enter an era of unrest, amid racist police violence and state efforts to repress the popular uprising against it, a fascist authoritarian surge in the halls of government everywhere, and a climate preparing to show us all who is really in charge around here, a new Cold War with all attendant mechanisms of enforced control would be just the ticket for those looking to make a buck while avoiding actual solutions to these concerns.

“If you want a picture of the future,” wrote George Orwell, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” I am forced to wonder if future years will have us looking back on this seemingly insignificant submarine deal between the U.S. and Australia the way historians today regard George Kennan’s “Long Telegram”: One diplomat’s long transatlantic missive that is now widely regarded as the seedcorn for U.S. Cold War policy toward the U.S.S.R. — along with all its consequences — for the next five decades. It had to start somewhere. It always does.

Washington, D.C. — Today dozens of non-governmental organizations and scientists sent a letter to President Biden supporting the candidacy of Michael Phillips for Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Conservation groups believe that Phillips is the ideal candidate for the position as a respected leader in biodiversity conservation with special expertise in endangered species management. “His vision has resulted in critical ecological restoration of vast landscapes across North America through his leadership of gray and red wolf reintroductions. His ability to direct conservation of some of the most controversial animals, from wolves and grizzly bears to bison and black-footed ferrets and his excellent track record as a Montana Senator and Representative have prepared him well for the challenges of directing the USFWS through unprecedented challenges of biodiversity and climate crises. His demonstrated leadership, ability to coalesce diverse interests toward a common goal and big picture vision with deep knowledge of strategic planning and implementation would serve him well in this position,” the letter states.

The Director of USFWS oversees a budget of over $1.5 billion to conserve, protect, and enhance native species of fish, wildlife, plants, and their respective habitats. “Phillips’ stellar credentials and strong science-based background should make him everyone’s top candidate for this critical role,” said Camilla Fox, Founder and Executive Director of Project Coyote. “Additionally, he served as an elected policymaker and knows the intricate functioning of state and federal governments, and the USFWS in particular,” said Fox. In addition to Phillips’ extensive experience with USFWS-jurisdictional issues, including serving on recovery teams for myriad iconic species, he also has expertise in international conservation, including through his involvement with IUCN specialist groups for bison, wolves, and other canids.

“The Biden-Harris Administration faces monumental wildlife conservation challenges in the coming years.  The sixth mass extinction of life on earth has begun and we humans are the cause.  The USFWS must provide enlightened, science-based leadership to stem the tide of extinction and protect our country’s diverse wildlife heritage for current and future generations,” said Dave Parsons, a career USFWS wildlife biologist who led the Mexican wolf recovery program from 1990-99. “Reversing existential threats to biological diversity and the health and critical functions of ecosystems will require bold new leadership at the US Fish and Wildlife Service,  With his decades of wildlife conservation experience in every region of the country, including Alaska, Mike is the right choice for the job.”

“From species reintroductions to the climate crisis, Mike Phillips has the knowledge needed to inform effective science-based decision-making,” said Dr. William Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology at Oregon State University. “Mike is the leader we need to navigate through complex and uncharted territory.” 

Phillips’ tireless efforts for wildlife and wildlands have been recognized by numerous entities over the years, including most recently by The Wildlife Society who awarded him the prestigious 2021 Aldo Leopold Memorial Award, in recognition of his distinguished service to wildlife conservation.

“Mr. Phillips has been an exceptional conservation leader for decades and an effective legislator for his diverse constituents,” said Nuna Teal, PhD, Program Director of One Earth. “No one is better equipped to lead USFWS through the biodiversity challenges we are facing today.”

Read the letter to President Biden here.

* * * * *

Washington, D.C. — Today dozens of non-governmental organizations and scientists sent a letter to President Biden supporting the candidacy of Michael Phillips for Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Conservation groups believe that Phillips is the ideal candidate for the position as a respected leader in biodiversity conservation with special expertise in endangered species management. “His vision has resulted in critical ecological restoration of vast landscapes across North America through his leadership of gray and red wolf reintroductions. His ability to direct conservation of some of the most controversial animals, from wolves and grizzly bears to bison and black-footed ferrets and his excellent track record as a Montana Senator and Representative have prepared him well for the challenges of directing the USFWS through unprecedented challenges of biodiversity and climate crises. His demonstrated leadership, ability to coalesce diverse interests toward a common goal and big picture vision with deep knowledge of strategic planning and implementation would serve him well in this position,” the letter states.

The Director of USFWS oversees a budget of over $1.5 billion to conserve, protect, and enhance native species of fish, wildlife, plants, and their respective habitats. “Phillips’ stellar credentials and strong science-based background should make him everyone’s top candidate for this critical role,” said Camilla Fox, Founder and Executive Director of Project Coyote. “Additionally, he served as an elected policymaker and knows the intricate functioning of state and federal governments, and the USFWS in particular,” said Fox. In addition to Phillips’ extensive experience with USFWS-jurisdictional issues, including serving on recovery teams for myriad iconic species, he also has expertise in international conservation, including through his involvement with IUCN specialist groups for bison, wolves, and other canids.

“The Biden-Harris Administration faces monumental wildlife conservation challenges in the coming years.  The sixth mass extinction of life on earth has begun and we humans are the cause.  The USFWS must provide enlightened, science-based leadership to stem the tide of extinction and protect our country’s diverse wildlife heritage for current and future generations,” said Dave Parsons, a career USFWS wildlife biologist who led the Mexican wolf recovery program from 1990-99. “Reversing existential threats to biological diversity and the health and critical functions of ecosystems will require bold new leadership at the US Fish and Wildlife Service,  With his decades of wildlife conservation experience in every region of the country, including Alaska, Mike is the right choice for the job.”

“From species reintroductions to the climate crisis, Mike Phillips has the knowledge needed to inform effective science-based decision-making,” said Dr. William Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology at Oregon State University. “Mike is the leader we need to navigate through complex and uncharted territory.” 

Phillips’ tireless efforts for wildlife and wildlands have been recognized by numerous entities over the years, including most recently by The Wildlife Society who awarded him the prestigious 2021 Aldo Leopold Memorial Award, in recognition of his distinguished service to wildlife conservation.

“Mr. Phillips has been an exceptional conservation leader for decades and an effective legislator for his diverse constituents,” said Nuna Teal, PhD, Program Director of One Earth. “No one is better equipped to lead USFWS through the biodiversity challenges we are facing today.”

Read the letter to President Biden here.

* * * * *