What would it be like for humans to be treated like animals?

http://news360.com/article/291521649/#

What would it be like for humans to be treated like animals?

These sketches say it all. From an alligator walking the runway with a human bag, to a man-drawn carriage pulling horses — prepare to question your own choices.

To believe that one race holds supremacy over all other living beings is to live in an illusion, to be infatuated with a lie and promise of power, and to contribute to a destructive and cruel cycle which exploits and harms other sentient, innocent creatures every day.

Yet this is exactly what is happening all around the world. Not only are women treated as less than equals in every profession (making up 40% of the workforce, yet hold only 1% of the world’s profits), but animals in every country and region are considered to be less intelligent, and in effect, less worthy of having rights.

Just because animals do not communicate in the same way human beings do does not make them any less important – or essential – to the ecosystem and workings of the world.

To shed light on the way animals are treated and cause viewers to contemplate their own actions, these creative – and somewhat disturbing – cartoons have been compiled into a collection for YOU to ponder what it would be like if animals treated humans the same way they are presently being treated.

AnimalTreatment

AnimalTreatment2

AnimalTreatment

What are your thoughts? Comment below. And if you support the general message being conveyed through the cartoons, please share with others so they, too, may benefit from the thought-provoking sketches as well.

Words by Amanda Froelich
This post originally appeared on TrueActivist.com.
Source: Higher Perspective

Also see: Will you see a South African rhino on your next trip to South Africa?

Also see: Is dehorning South African rhinos really the solution?

Port to Fence off Astoria Sea Lions

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

http://www.dailyastorian.com/DA/port/20150422/port-to-fence-off-sea-lions
The Port of Astoria is putting up barriers to sea lions in the East End Mooring Basin.
By Edward StrattonThe Daily Astorian  April 22, 2015

The Port of Astoria will begin fencing off the docks at the East End Mooring Basin this week to keep sea lions off, Executive Director Jim Knight announced at the Port of Astoria Commission meeting Tuesday night.

The obligation of the Port is to protect the publicly owned docks, he said, and other possible solutions, such as lightly electrified pads, didn’t work out.

“I’m also curious to see where the sea lions go,” Knight said, adding jokingly he hopes they won’t make their way to the Port’s West End Mooring Basin.

Commissioner Stephen Fulton asked about an offer he’d heard in the community to build a sea lion-specific dock.

Mike Weston, the Port’s director of business development and operations, said sometime last year, the Port had been approached by Sea Shepherd with an offer to pay for a sea lion dock. But the offer would have stipulated that the Port expel the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife from the East End Mooring Basin, Weston added, and the Port can’t control what the state does.

ODFW periodically traps and brands sea lions at the basin, as part of a tracking effort. It’s authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to kill up to 93 sea lions a year found predating on salmon at Bonneville Dam.

Larger issue

016

The sea lion issue has been a divisive one, with members of the Sea Lion Defense Brigade regularly attending Port meetings and squaring off with diametrically opposed audience members, and often Port Commissioner Bill Hunsinger.

“We don’t have to, in the Port of Astoria, provide a sanctuary for sea lions,” Hunsinger said, adding that nature’s balance is out of whack, with sea lions possibly finding a new place to breed and live full time now that they’re starving in California.

Biologists from NOAA have pointed to odd wind patterns leading to rising ocean temperatures affecting the food source of sea lions, largely sardines. Female sea lions are taking longer to find food for their pups, who are looking for food on their own before they are ready, and washing up emaciated along the West Coast. Meanwhile, sea lions are moving north and into the Columbia River to take advantage of strong runs of smelt and salmon.

Numbers of sea lions spiked during the smelt run in March, with one count by the ODFW estimating more than 2,300 in the East End Mooring Basin. The situation seems to have boiled over, with a federal investigation by NOAA agents into possible sea lion shootings at the basin earlier this month.

“Clearly there is something wrong with ocean conditions,” and sea lions need more support than ever before, Astoria resident Ted Thomas said. He asked the Port Commission to publicly condemn the possible shootings, state its support for the Marine Mammal Protection Act and release to the public the same surveillance tape footage Port staff gave to NOAA investigators.

Members of the Sea Lion Defense Brigade, including Stacey McKenney and Veronica Montoya, approached and commented about how the sea lions are so noisy because of the ODFW branding.

011

NOAA proposes de-listing Humpback Whales

Agency proposes taking humpbacks whales off endangered list

By Caleb Jones
Star Advertiser
Associated Press

POSTED: 07:52 a.m. HST, Apr 20, 2015
LAST UPDATED: 08:56 a.m. HST, Apr 20, 2015

< http://www.staradvertiser.com/multimedia/photo_galleries/viewer?galID=300684361>
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A humpback whale jumps out of the waters off Hawaii in this undated photo.
(AP Photo/NOAA Fisheries)

The federal government on Monday proposed removing most of the world’s
humpback whale population from the endangered species list, saying they
have rebounded after 45 years of protections.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries wants to
reclassify humpbacks into 14 distinct populations, and remove 10 of those
from the list.

“As we learn more about the species — and realize the populations are
largely independent of each other — managing them separately allows us to
focus protection on the animals that need it the most,” Eileen Sobeck,
assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries, said in a statement.

Humpbacks were listed as endangered in 1970, four years after the
International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling.

The whales have rebounded in the North Pacific since the listing, which
requires federal approval for federally funded or authorized activities
that could harm whales or their habitat.

Last year, the state of Alaska filed a petition to remove some North
Pacific humpback whales from protection under the Endangered Species Act.
That population, estimated at more than 5,800, feeds in Alaska in the
summer and breeds in Hawaii in winter.

Environmental groups have said North Pacific whales continue to be
vulnerable to factors including increased shipping, climate change and
ocean acidification, which affects the prey stock.

The NOAA said in a release announcing its proposal that protection and
restoration efforts have led to an increase in humpbacks in many areas.

Under the plan, two of the populations would be listed as threatened, in
Central America and the Western North Pacific. The agency said these whales
at times enter U.S. waters.

The other two populations — in the Arabian Sea and off Cape Verde and
northwest Africa — would remain listed as endangered.

Humpbacks are found around the world. They weigh 25 to 40 tons and can grow
up to 60 feet long, according to NOAA’s website. The whales are primarily
dark gray with some white spots, and their pectoral fins can get as long as
15 feet.

If the proposal passes, the humpback populations that are removed from the
endangered list would still be protected under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.

The public has 90 days to comment on the recommended changes.

Conservation group questions accuracy of Idaho wolf numbers

copyrighted wolf in river

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2015/04/13/conservation-group-questions-accuracy-of-idaho-wolf-numbers/25702265/?fb_ref=Default

“Since 2009 more than 1,300 wolves have been hunted or trapped in Idaho, and another nearly 500 have been lethally removed from Idaho’s landscape,” Andrea Santarsiere, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “In the face of these astounding numbers, it’s no wonder that Idaho may have experienced a nearly 50 percent drop in breeding pairs.”

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game in a 70-page report released April 3 said there were at least 770 wolves in the state, with a minimum of 26 breeding pairs, as of Dec. 31, 2014. The Center notes that’s a steep drop from the 49 breeding pairs in 2009, when wolves in Idaho reached their peak.

The Center also questions the state agency’s estimate of 6.5 wolves per pack, a key number as it’s part of an equation — when multiplied by the number of packs in the state— to tally the overall population.

Jim Hayden, a biologist with Fish and Game, defended the state report’s estimate of the minimum number of wolves in Idaho. Hayden is listed as an editor of the report.

“The 770 is a number we’re very confident with,” he said. “We know the actual truth is higher than that, we just don’t know how far higher.”

He said the agency stopped counting breeding pairs of wolves after surveying 43 packs because it’s expensive and the number had cleared the minimum as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The federal agency could retake management control of the Idaho wolf population if numbers fall below certain criteria.

If the state fails to maintain 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves over any three-year period, or if the population falls below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in any year, the federal agency could take over.

Mike Jimenez, Northern Rocky Mountain wolf coordinator for Fish and Wildlife, said the federal agency reviewed Idaho’s methodology and is confident in the numbers.

“From our perspective, they are far above recovery goals,” he said. “How to manage wolves and hunt wolves — that’s a state issue.”

The wolf population has grown so much, Jimenez said, that biologists can no longer rely on using radio collars when doing counts.

“We’re way past that,” he said. “We have a very large wolf population in the Northern Rockies. We’re trying to reduce the need for radio collars.”

Fish and Wildlife estimates that a minimum of 1,783 wolves in more than 300 packs roamed the six-state region at the end of last year.

Hayden said that radio collars on 32 packs in Idaho were used by Fish and Game to come up with 6.5 wolves per pack, which is an increase from 5.4 wolves per pack the previous year.

But he said the agency is relying more on remote cameras and, this spring, will be collecting scat at wolf rendezvous sites to get DNA samples. The DNA can help determine pack size and the number of pups. He noted the wolf population is expected to jump 40 percent with the addition of pups this spring.

The DNA can also be used to help determine harvest levels by hunters.

Some groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, would rather there be no harvest.

“We don’t think wolves should be hunted at all,” Santarsiere said. “But with such aggressive killing of a species so recently considered endangered, there at least needs to be careful monitoring.”

Conservationists Challenge Grizzly Killing in Grand Teton National Park

Federally approved ‘take’ of grizzly bears threatens recovery

Grizzly bear and cub in Yellowstone National Park.

Grizzly bear and cub in Yellowstone National Park.  Jim Peaco / National Park Service

Washington, D.C. —(ENEWSPF)–April 6, 2015. Conservation groups have filed a legal challenge against two federal agencies for approving the killing of four grizzly bears, a threatened species, within Grand Teton National Park in northwest Wyoming.

The lawsuit, filed last Friday, April 3, by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and Western Watersheds Project, targets September 2013 actions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Park Service to allow the lethal “taking” of four grizzly bears over the next seven years in connection with a fall elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park.

“Authorizing the killing of four grizzly bears in a national park is not good management for grizzlies or national parks,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso. “The government should be working to eliminate grizzly mortality threats, not handing out authorizations to kill grizzly bears in one of our nation’s premiere national parks.”

The agencies authorized the challenged grizzly “takings” in response to an incident on Thanksgiving Day 2012 in which three hunters participating in the Grand Teton elk hunt shot and killed an adult male grizzly bear.  Anticipating more such conflicts as the region’s grizzlies increasingly turn to meat-based food sources such as hunter-killed or wounded elk, federal officials in September 2013 approved the killing of four more grizzly bears in connection with future elk hunts in Grand Teton through the year 2022.

In doing so, however, government officials failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the expected Grand Teton “takings” together with other grizzly bear mortality that federal agencies have authorized.  The authorized killing of these four grizzlies, when added to the amount of other similar grizzly  “take” determinations issued by FWS and currently in effect for other actions in the Greater Yellowstone region, could result in the killing of as many as 65 female grizzly bears in a single year. This level of mortality exceeds sustainable levels for female bears set by government biologists by more than three times.

“Allowing four additional grizzly bears – a threatened species – to be killed in one our nation’s most iconic national parks, without even requiring significant measures to reduce conflicts between people and bears, is inexcusable,” said Bonnie Rice with Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign. “The Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly increased the number of grizzly bears that can be killed, without looking at the broader impact on grizzly recovery in the region.”

“Throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appears to have forgotten basic math,” added Jonathan Ratner of Western Watersheds Project.  “They have been handing out permits for the killing of grizzly bears like candy but they have conveniently forgotten to add up all of the take they have authorized.”

Legal Document: http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/complaint-conservationists-challenge-grizzly-killing-in-grand-teton-national-park

Background:

Federal biologists acknowledge that the growth of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has flattened over the past decade. Recently, the grizzly population has been faced with the loss of two of its most important food sources in the Yellowstone region—whitebark pine seeds and cutthroat trout—due to changing environmental conditions driven in part by a warming climate. In the wake of these changes, scientists have documented the bears’ transition to a more meat-based diet, but that diet leads to a greater potential for conflict with human activities, resulting in more grizzly mortalities.

Such increasing grizzly bear mortalities are of particular concern because analysis of government grizzly bear conflict and mortality data shows a declining population trend for the Yellowstone-area population from 2007-2013. Veteran grizzly biologist David Mattson documented these findings in a declaration supporting the conservationists’ challenge.

In its decision , FWS reasoned that approved grizzly killing associated with the Grand Teton elk hunt would remain within sustainable levels. However, the conservationists contend that FWS cannot rely on compliance with sustainable grizzly mortality thresholds to justify additional killing of Yellowstone bears unless federal officials consider the impacts of all the grizzly bear mortality they have anticipated across the region.

The Grand Teton elk hunt results from a misguided program of winter elk feeding on the nearby Jackson Hole National Elk Refuge. The longstanding elk feeding program began for the altruistic purpose of sustaining elk through the harsh Northern Rockies winter.  More recently, however, the crowding of elk on winter feed lines has been documented to subject the elk to a severe threat of wildlife disease mortality that outweighs the benefits of feeding.  Further, the practice has led to the artificial inflation of the elk population such that the extraordinary step of hunting in a national park—with associated grizzly bear mortality—has been deemed necessary to control elk numbers.

Matteson Declaration: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Mattson%20Declaration.pdf

About Earthjustice

Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit environmental law organization. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. We are here because the earth needs a good lawyer.

Source: www.earthjustice.org

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny a permit to kill 11,000 cormorants

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny a permit to kill 11,000 cormorants. ·  Trouble viewing this email? Try our web version.
Audubon logo | ACTION ALERT
OPPOSE CORMORANT SLAUGHTER
arrow pointing at letter
Double-crested Cormorant with eggs
A Double-crested Cormorant protects its eggs on East Sand Island.
Urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny the permit that will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to kill 11,000 cormorants.
Take Action ›

Dear Jim,

The Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with a misguided plan to kill 11,000 Double-crested Cormorants—15 percent of the entire Double-crested Cormorant population west of the Rocky Mountains—and destroy 26,000 nests.

In order to carry out this slaughter, the Corps needs a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). We have a very short window of time to ask the USFWS to deny the permit and save these birds.

Urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny the permit that will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to kill 11,000 Double-crested Cormorants and destroy 26,000 nests.

The cormorants live and nest on East Sand Island, a globally-significant Important Bird Area (IBA) in Oregon’s lower Columbia River estuary. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Fish and Wildlife Service itself acknowledges that the proposed plan would reduce the population of cormorants below the number they previously said was sustainable. While cormorants do prey on salmon, the fish are endangered because of dams, pollution, habitat loss, and an array of other factors—not because of the cormorants.

According to the Audubon Society of Portland, which is closely tracking this issue, “It is time for the US Army Corps to do a ground-up review of its entire approach to managing birds in the Columbia Estuary.” Audubon opposes the Corps’ plan to slaughter thousands of cormorants and we have urged the Corps and its partners instead to review and rebuild their strategy for management of avian predation on fish on a regional scale. Such a strategy needs to be based on sound science, fully employ and evaluate non-lethal measures of reducing avian predation, and consider a full range of alternatives beyond manipulation and control of native wildlife.

Send a letter today urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny the permit that will allow thousands of cormorants to be killed at East Sand Island!

Thousands of Cormorants to be Killed: There Will be Blood

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to kill 11,000 and destroy 26,000 nests

Post published by Marc Bekoff Ph.D. on Mar 28, 2015 in Animal Emotions

In August 2014 I wrote an essay called “Birds and Us: Should Cormorants Be Killed toimage Save Salmon?” in response to Felicity Barringer’s essay in the New York Times called “Taking Up Arms Where Birds Feast on Buffet of Salmon (link is external).” Ms.Barringer’s essay dealt with the situation in Oregon’s Columbia River where salmon living in the river were killed off due to hydroelectric dams and are now increasing in number, and double-crested cormorants, who like to eat salmon, have become aware of this and are a threat to the fish. Many people, including conservation biologists, say, “shoot the birds.” Others, such as the National Audubon Society’s Stan Senner, argue that killing some of the birds who make up 25 percent of the birds’ western population “is an extreme measure, totally inappropriate.” Mr. Senner “said it was possible to shoo them away, noting ‘They came from somewhere else. They can go back to somewhere else.’” He also notes, “We’re not persuaded they have fully explored ways of improving habitats elsewhere or other means of dispersing” these birds.

I thoroughly agreed with Mr. Stenner that the cormorants shouldn’t be shot. The guiding principle of compassionate conservation (see also (link is external)) is “first do no harm”, which means the life of each and every individual animal is valued. So, trading off individuals of one species for the good of individuals of another species or of the same species isn’t acceptable. I also agree with retired marine biologist Bob Hees, who is quoted as saying, “I’ve seen people try to mess with Mother Nature before, and it never works. It goes toward creating more problems.” The cormorant-salmon situation is a good catalyst for open discussions about creating a viable and practical conservation ethic based on compassion.

There will be blood: Experimental killing sprees are wrong and likely won’t work

Despite experts agreeing that killing the cormorants is wrong and won’t work, it turns out that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning to kill nearly 11,000 cormorants and destroy more than 26,000 of their nests to try to reduce cormorant numbers by more than half. You can read the details in an essay by Alicia Graef called “Plans Move Forward to Kill Thousands of Cormorants (link is external).”

Ms. Graef also notes, “Criticism [to the killing spree] was also brought by researchers from Oregon State University who were hired by the Army Corps to study the bird population on the island. They say the Army Corps ignored their findings and isn’t using the best available science in its plan to protect young salmon. Unfortunately, despite widespread opposition from the public and scientific community, the Army Corps announced it has finalized its decision that will slightly reduce the number of cormorants targeted, but will still kill nearly 11,000 of them and destroy more than 26,000 of their nests in an effort to reduce their numbers by more than half.”

Killing one species to save another is a rather common occurrence and I also wrote about this heinous practice in an essay called “Killing Barred Owls to Save Spotted Owls? Problems From Hell.” In this piece I wrote about an essay in the magazine Conservation by science writer Warren Cornwall called “There Will Be Blood (link is external),” and noted that it is a must read for anyone interested in keeping up with current discussions and debates about the supposed need to kill animals of one species to save those of another species. The question at hand in Mr. Cornwall’s excellent essay is, “Should barred owls be killed to save endangered spotted owls?” Spotted owls are shy birds who favor ancient forests that are disappearing due to logging in the northwestern United States, and they are threatened by larger and more aggressive barred owls who have migrated west from their original homes on the east coast of the United States.

Killing one species to save another isn’t a “sad good,” it’s wrong

At the beginning of his piece Mr. Cornwall writes, “The pressure to reach for a gun to help save one animal from another is stronger than ever. And it has triggered a conservation problem from hell.” He’s right. I argued against killing the barred owls and against the position of ethicist, Bill Lynn. Dr. Lynn was hired by the Fish and Wildlife Service and was initially skeptical about the above killing experiments, however, he changed his mind. He concluded that it was all right to kill the barred owls as an experiment if it was done as humanely as possible, and called it a “sad good.” For me, a “sad good” is a very slippery slope that sets a lamentable precedent for opening the door for the more widespread “experimental killing” of barred owls and other species. Dr. Lynn balked on supporting a region-wide war on barred owls, and, experts protested any killing because they were convinced it simply wouldn’t work.

The killing of the cormorants is really a murderous experiment and is wrong and likely won’t work. Even if it did “work,” whatever that means, according to Ms. Graef, “the Audubon Society of Portland announced its Board of Directors has voted to sue both the Army Corps and the FWS if permits are granted. Bob Sallinger, the organization’s conservation director, said in a statement (link is external): We are deeply disappointed that despite more than 145,000 comments opposing this decision, the federal government has chosen to move forward with the wanton slaughter of thousands of protected birds. Rather than addressing the primary cause of salmon decline, the manner in which the Corps operates the Columbia River Hydropower System, the Corps has instead decided to scapegoat wild birds and pursue a slaughter of historic proportions. Sadly this will do little or nothing to protect wild salmon but it will put Double-crested Cormorant populations in real jeopardy. The organization is hoping to get the Army Corps to focus instead on non-lethal measures that will protect both birds and salmon. For more info on how to help protect these cormorants from being needlessly killed, visit the Audubon Society of Portland (link is external).”

Please do all you can to stop this unnecessary slaughter.

Marc Bekoff’s latest books are Jasper’s story: Saving moon bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservationWhy dogs hump and bees get depressed, and Rewilding our hearts: Building pathways of compassion and coexistenceThe Jane effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson) has recently been published. (marcbekoff.com; @MarcBekoff)

Columbia River cormorant plan calls for shooting 11,000 birds, destroying 26,000 nests

Painting Courtesy  Barry Kent MacKay

Painting Courtesy Barry Kent MacKay

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/02/east_sand_island_cormorant_kil.html

By Kelly House | The Oregonian/OregonLive The Oregonian

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has scaled back its plan to kill thousands of federally protected migratory birds to keep them from eating endangered juvenile salmon and steelhead at the mouth of the Columbia River.

On Friday, the corps released a final environmental impact statement detailing plans to use lethal measures to shrink the East Sand Island colony of double-crested cormorants, a long-necked black sea bird.

The revised version of a preliminary plan released last summer calls for shooting nearly 11,000 birds by the end of 2018 and pouring oil over 26,000 nests to prevent eggs from hatching. The corps’ goal is to reduce the colony by 57 percent, to about 5,600 breeding pairs.

It represents a rollback from the original plan, which called for shooting 16,000 birds to achieve the same population reduction.

The corps estimates that since 1989, the cormorant colony on East Sand Island has exploded from 100 nesting pairs to 13,000. During that time, the birds have eaten about 11 million smolts yearly, or nearly 7 percent of juvenile steelhead that pass by East Sand Island on their way to the ocean.

Plans to kill the birds were drawn up in response to a NOAA Fisheries biological opinion that recommended the corps trim the cormorant colony in order to protect endangered fish.

The changes to the plan come in response to more than 152,000 public comments on the original plan, nearly all of which expressed opposition to the killing.

Environmentalists on Friday said they aren’t satisfied, arguing the new plan still resorts to “wanton slaughter” without considering other ways to protect endangered fish.

Bob Sallinger, conservation director with the Audubon Society of Portland, argued the corps is blaming cormorants “when the primary causes for salmon declines are the dams, habitat loss and hatchery fish.” Before resorting to killing, he said, the corps should consider modifying dams to improve fish passage, improving habitat along the Columbia River, and forcing the birds off the island by reducing their habitat.

“We’re talking about killing 15 percent of the population west of the Rocky Mountains,” Sallinger said. “That level of lethal control is absolutely horrific.”

But Blaine Parker with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission said he was disappointed that the corps didn’t stick to the original plan. He questioned whether the revised option would make a great enough dent in the number of juvenile fish eaten by cormorants each year.

“There’s been a lot of work done to get fish passage projects at the dams,” he said. “To have all that work done, and then have those fish run into yet another obstacle once they reach saltwater, is a tremendous loss.”

The corps is still at least a couple of months away from going through with the culling. First, it must publish its plan in the federal registry and wait 30 days before issuing a record of decision. Then, it must obtain permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and hire workers to do the job.

The workers would shoot cormorants on land and in flight. The plan also calls for flooding a portion of the island to reduce nesting land for surviving birds, combined with hazing to discourage them from staying on the island.

If all goes according to plan, corps spokeswoman Diana Fredlund said, culling could begin soon after the cormorants return to East Sand Island this spring from their winter habitat in the southern United States.

Fredlund couldn’t offer further details about what a culling would entail, but said, “it’s done humanely and under all the proper veterinary approvals.”

Sallinger said if the plan receives final approval group is “prepared to use all tools at our disposal” to fight it, including a lawsuit.

 

Opportunity for Public Comment – Updating the Bison Mgmt Plan (IBMP)‏

Updating the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP)
The State of Montana and National Park Service (NPS) are jointly preparing a Yellowstone-area Bison Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS). The purpose of the plan/EIS is to conserve a wild and migratory population of Yellowstone-area bison, while minimizing the risk of brucellosis transmission between these wild bison and livestock to the extent practicable. This planning process will result in a new, long-term decision about how to manage bison in Yellowstone National Park and on adjacent lands outside of the park in Montana. Learn more
 
Opportunity for Public Comment
The comment period is March 16, 2015 – June 15, 2015. Public scoping meetings will be held in Bozeman, Gardiner, and West Yellowstone, Montana. For details about these events, visit the National Park Service Planning, Environment & Public Comment (NPS PEPC)
Public comments will be accepted at the public scoping meetings and via the following methods:
Online:
Written, on Paper:
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to:
  • Yellowstone National Park
  • Yellowstone Bison Management Plan EIS
  • PO Box 168
  • Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
 
Deadline
The comment deadline is June 15, 2015.
Please note that comments cannot be accepted by fax or email; comments can be submitted only in the ways specified above. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
10014905_690591771018830_6980526338990347642_n