• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Center for Biological Diversity is not our friend

Liberty Belle said:
BMR - did you forget to take your medication again?
Click to expand...


No I'm not on any medication LB. But I do admire the patriotism of many Americans. We fly flags in our yard, I'm sure from the up bring of my wife. My daughter ,since she is a US citizen was proud to carry the Stars and Stripes in our home town pararde 2 years ago when our little town of less then 20 people swelled to over 2,000 for the Homecoming parade celebrating our 75th birthday. Many of our early and not so early settlers are from the US. I also see the bald eagle a symbol of the US and well worth being protected.
 
My buddies in Wyoming tell me a eagle is just a glorified raven with a white head-I think they must be stabilizing population wise as there sure are alot up here. They aren't quite as tasty as ruffed grouse though lol.
 
WB said:
I get a kick out of those that think that if we did no predator control and just let nature take care of itself that things will eventually even themselves out. It shows whose pocketbook is not being effected. Yes I know for every coyote we shoot another takes his place but we have to protect our livestock. For those of you who have to contend with wolves and mountain lions I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

I wonder if all of theose who think that way ever trap mice in their houses. Just turn the cats loose to cut down the numbers.

Wonder if they kill rats or flies or other pests. Seems the way to handle problems varies as to how far away the problem is from you! :wink:
 
Continuing a control program that doesn't seem to be addressing any bodies needs probably isn't the brightest either-we don't poison our gophers out but the kids hunt them pretty steady-we shoot coyotes but not all of them-maybe what we do isn't perfect but we haven't had a range war over it yet either. I'm glad we are able to adapt and ranch amongst the major predators the South Dakota solution doesn't look very appealing to this cowboy. Now I'm sure I'll get a blast or two about it not being my business but if that's the case why bring it up on a public forum.
 
Northern Rancher: I will gladly debate any issue any time and no there is not a range war in South Dakota. To see the solution to the problem as letting nature take its own course is not viable to us landowners. Heck you admit you shoot as many gophers as you can. You need to see the devastation prarie dogs do when they are left to their own devices. It is trully amazing how they can absolutely ruin grassland even in areas where there is a strong coyote population. It takes fox and other smaller predators to get the prairie dogs and in this area if you have coyotes you won't have very many fox. In this area the only natural predator of coyotes is mainge. And good luck in shooting them all it is impossible and will never happen.


Things tend to get muddled and fuddled when the government is the landowner. They tend to not be very good neighbors when it comes to controling pests. Whether it is noxoius weeds or prairie dogs. When we have so called conservationists like Tony Dean running around telling our city dwelling friends that ranchers are ruining the prestine environment of South Dakota by shooting predators that are killing their livestock or by poisoning prarie dogs that are totally ruining their land it kind of leaves a sour taste in your mouth. Hard feelings are the usual result.
 
One more thing: We used to have almost no coyotes until the government came up with the brilliant idea of the CRP program. Since it was started here the deer and coyote populations have exploded.
 
Coyotes don't eat prairie dogs-we have tons of both fox and coyotes here. I don't think a goal of total coyote eradication is very wise economically and biologically-what I'm getting at is there any progress being made with the aerial control program-is there less predation from before it started. I admit we hunt everything on our ranch but we don't totally try to wipe out anything. Maybe all the interest groups should sit down together and try and come up with an answer to the problem. There's got to be something besides the don't kill any-and the kill them all theory. WB I've travelled quite a bit through South Dakota and Wyoming-heck I've even shot my share of prairie dogs. It is political suicide for ranchers to lobby for the eradication of any species-I think we should all know that is the reality in the world we live in-padlocks and rhetoric unfortunately wn't change that. As fot the CRP program -you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Northern Rancher – I hate to break this to you, but coyotes do eat prairie dogs and any other rodent they can find. They're not finicky eaters. When I see a coyote, a fox or even a mountain lion hunting a prairie dog town, I have conflicting emotions - I don't know which one to cheer for!

Yes, there is a lot of progress being made with the aerial control program. Predators almost ended the sheep business here in western South Dakota when the greenies got the feds to ban 1080, which they still can use to kill rats in the cities because greenies don't like rats anymore than we like coyotes and prairie dogs.

Where did you get the idea we're trying to totally wipe out any species? Have you been listening to the urban liberal media? No person or organization I know of has been lobbying for the eradication of any species. All we are trying to do is protect our livestock and our livelihood from predators, pests and environmentalists.

Don't worry about the CRP program, it's going to die a natural death, as well it should, because landowners can rent their farmland and their pastures out for much more than the CRP program will pay them. Good riddance, I say.
 
The CBD is at it again. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't lay awake nights worrying if the Arctic is going to melt and cause the polar bears to become extinct. Maybe I'm just insensitive? :???:

PLAYING GOD AND STEALING LAND

Thursday, February 16, 2006


What could possibly be more arrogant than to think that humans should determine which specie continues and which goes extinct? Or that humans can, in fact, keep a specie from going extinct?

A news item in the February 20 edition of U.S. News & World Report noted, "Citing concerns over climate change, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week began reviewing whether polar bears should be declared a threatened species. If they are, federal regulations would be required to considered the impact on the animals before ruling on such matters as industrial emissions or fuel economy standards."

I submit that is such madness and idiocy that the mere stating of the notion polar bears are going extinct or threatened by the alleged melting of the Arctic is too bizarre for rational people to contemplate. That said, the USFW will dispatch people "to collect data on polar bear population, distribution, the effects of climate change, and threats from development, contaminants, and poaching." Guess who set this nonsense in motion?

If you said the Center for Biological Diversity of Tucson, Arizona, you'd be right. Not exactly a hotbed of polar bear activity, the Center asserts that, "Arctic melting could cause polar bears to become extinct by century's end." "Could" is the key word here.

This is a splendid example of the way the environmental movement is forever cozying up to the federal government to get it to spend your tax dollars on projects of such dubious merit that a school child would dismiss it out of hand. Polar bears going extinct? The whole of the Arctic melting?

The last time I checked, the State of Alaska offered the wandering polar bears some 571,951 square miles, surrounded by 91,316 square miles of water in which to frolic. Alaska is the largest of all the U.S. States. Room enough for plenty of polar bears, scads of caribou, all manner of wildlife, and even the occasional oilrig or two with which to extract millions of barrels of oil from ANWR.

Could it be all the worrying about polar bears has nothing to do with polar bears and everything to do with thwarting the effort to reduce our dependence on the Middle East for the oil we consume? The answer is yes!

Environmentalists whose second greatest sport is playing God and whose first is getting laws passed to deprive people of the use of all public and private property in America, have been playing this game for a very long time. As this is being written, instead of just letting the Endangered Species Act go extinct, Congress is wrestling with ways to continue what is arguably the single worst piece of legislation of the past thirty-two years.

How's this for a record-setting level of incompetence? Since its enactment, the ESA has listed 1,300 species as endangered. Only 34 of these species have made it off the list and, of these, 9 are now extinct, 14 are now judged to have been improperly listed, and 9 have been judged to have "recovered" to be delisted. That's less than one percent!

The real story of the ESA is even worse than this appalling waste of tax dollars and the personnel to run about counting the population of these species. The ESA has been used to destroy the livelihood of thousands who worked for the northwestern timber industry, effecting turning some communities into ghost towns. The U.S. actually imports timber from Canada despite having an abundance of it here. The ESA was used to bludgeon the farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon, when the water they needed for irrigation was shut off to protect a suckerfish! The examples of how the ESA has been used to deprive Americans of the value and use of their private property are endless.

The United States of America has got to rid itself of the folly of "saving" various species while decimating the lives and livelihood of Americans in the name of some fish or some owl, some wolf or some bear.

Ninety-five percent of all the species that ever called Earth home are extinct. Let's show some care for those that share the Earth, but let's not throw millions at their alleged survival because some environmentalists want to ruin our national economy.

America is not Disneyland where all the animals and fish sing and dance. America is the home to people who farm, who harvest trees, who graze livestock, who do all the hard work of providing us the food and other things we need.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

© 2006 Alan Caruba
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/160/3828/2006-02-16.asp?wid=160&nid=3828
 
Here is some more of their garbage from today, from the Billings Gazette, the right leaning paper that supports farming and ranching. NOT

Parks endangered due to climate change, organizations say
By The Associated Press

HELENA -- Glacier National Park in Montana and adjacent Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta should be declared endangered, because climate change is eliminating glaciers and harming the park environment, a dozen organizations say in a petition.

The Rocky Mountain parks, together known as Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, are covered by a 1995 international treaty under which they became a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Now they should become a World Heritage Site in Danger, said the groups, which include the Center for Biological Diversity.

"The effects of climate change are well-documented and clearly visible in Glacier National Park, and yet the United States refuses to fulfill its obligations under the World Heritage Convention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Erica Thorson, an Oregon law professor who wrote the petition submitted Thursday to the World Heritage Committee.

Dr. Mechtild Rossler, chief of the World Heritage Committee's European and North American section in Paris, said the organization had received the petition, but couldn't comment at length until officials had a chance to review it. Glacier has 27 glaciers, down from about 150 in 1850, said ecologist Dan Fagre, who coordinates global change research for the U.S. Geological Survey at West Glacier.

Endangered status would require the World Heritage Committee to find ways to mitigate how climate change affects the park, Thorson said. Better fuel efficiency for automobiles and stronger energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances are among the ways to reduce greenhouse pollution that contributes to warming, the petition says.

The proposed designation is "a ridiculous idea" that cannot be supported by sound science, said S. Fred Singer, a retired University of Virginia environmental sciences professor who established a research nonprofit called The Science and Environmental Policy Project. Singer disputes that greenhouse gases are warming the environment and that governments can curb glacial erosion by stiffening pollution controls.

Of 20 major world glaciers that began shrinking around 1850, about half had stopped shrinking by the end of the 20th century and some were growing, Singer said.

But in a forecast that some scientists have advanced, Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity said the glaciers at Glacier park will vanish entirely by 2030 if current trends in climate change continue.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the mean summer temperature at Glacier park has risen by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.

Fagre has described glaciers as "excellent barometers of climate change" and said that what happens to them is indicative of changes elsewhere in an ecosystem. As an example, he said, warmer weather in Glacier has caused snow to melt earlier in the season and that accelerates the growth of plants.

While some people attribute growing warmth to smokestack pollution and other effects of human activity, others say the world is going through a natural warming cycle.

Fagre stopped short of clearly affiliating with either camp but said "we haven't seen any warming to this degree as far back as we can go, and we can go back about 500 years. This comes at a time when humans are having the largest impact on the planet they ever have, with land-use change, human population levels ..."

The petition is one of four to be discussed next month at a Paris meeting on climate change and sites that hold World Heritage status through the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Four other sites covered by earlier petitions seeking endangered status are Belize Barrier Reef in Central America; Huarascan National Park in Peru; Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal; and Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

The Glacier-Waterton petition came on the one-year anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. It took effect Feb. 16, 2005, without the United States' participation.

Besides the Center for Biological Diversity, the petitioners are Defenders of Wildlife and Defenders of Wildlife-Canada; David Suzuki Foundation; Green House Network; ForestEthics; Humane Society International and Humane Society of the United States; Montana Wilderness Association; The Pembina Institute; Wildlands CPR; and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.


Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
What do you bet that the glacier stopped thawing the last couple days? I don't much appreciate what it took to get it stopped. Are these the temperatures that the CBD and the other enviromental nut cases have in mind for the planet? If so, I'm all for doing everything I can to promote global warming.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top