28 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2018
    1. But as Republican support has decreased since 2004, the gap between the two groups has widened to 38 percentage points. 

      I wonder why. Weather issues? Success in conservation? A population lost their ability to manage themselves?

    1. this spring demonstrate why we should continue to invest in America’s lands and waters for the benefit of our families, communities and economies.

      Speak of current events that everyone is aware of.

    2. We understand this country faces a budget crisis and that all Federal programs, including conservation initiatives, should share a fair proportion of the spending reductions. We understand, as well, that the leadership of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee faces daunting challenges in constructing a bill with very limited resources. And we recognize some positive elements of the bill such as support for fire restoration.

      They understand what is being asked of them and admit that they understand and even support some items on the suggested bill.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. Under the federal law, hunters are prohibited from shooting or trapping wolves while at their dens with cubs, using airplanes to scout for potential grizzly bear targets, trapping bears with wire snares and luring bears with food to get a point-blank kill.

      In another article, it is phrased as if Obama took over the wildlife and fish. He did, but the laws are to ensure that the predators (wolves and bears) were not hunted unfairly ie while taking care of their families or by copter.

    1. Mojave Desert groundwater through a pipeline

      Ground water is important. Without it you will have a dust bowl blowing through the desert. It will harms those down wind and those living above the groundwater if it is removed.

    2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to “expeditiously” rescind its hydraulic fracturing regulations, ends duplicative, fracking fluid reporting requirements, and gives the agency 21 days to review its recent methane flaring rule to determine whether it is consistent with Trump’s energy independence orders.

      Aren't BLM lands public?

    3. sound conservation basis

      Lead bullets are known to poison scavengers. Lead is a dangerous metal that affects human's liver, kidneys, reproductive system, and nervous system. It is not something we want in our water. https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/toxic-metal-health-dangers-lead/

    1. Organisations require a new training regime that can offer a modern generation of entrepreneurs and leaders the right set of tools to balance both economic and environmental sustainability.

      This calls for retraining of old ideas. This could be rather costly -financially speaking. Not to mention changing a mass of human's opinions is no easy feat. This will take time and money, but if we don't start now...

    2. Minimising these inefficiencies through careful waste management translates directly into reduced costs, and does not require lowering output.

      A win win.

    1. The country’s size, number of species, and conservation status from the start of the study were all important in determining how development affected biodiversity.

      This is possibly why places like Fiji and Ukraine are leading in improving biodiversity while larger and more dense countries such as the US and Australia are loosing it.

    2. 109 countries that signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and that increased their conservation budget accordingly had significantly lower biodiversity loss.

      In reference to the 'Nature' study above, that website said that they "reduced biodiversity loss in 109 countries (signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Development Goals), by a median average of 29% per country between 1996 and 2008". The dates are a little different between the two...

    1. Not all social networking is created equal.

      Some social media sites can help bolster self image, while others tear it down. You-tube is one of the better sites in this right, while Instagram is the worst.

    1. Travel and tourism help to stimulate the state economy.

      This is also true for Utah. Outdoor companies hold expos there and that brings in major revenue for the state.

    2. Arizona outdoor enthusiasts support conservation through the purchase of hunting and fishing equipment.

      This is a clever idea. Get those whose actions more or less need conservation to counter/help pay a tax on their items related to their activities benefiting the group as a whole.

    1. Bradley has filed a bill seeking to double that to $100 million a year.

      There is some hope for the organization with the new administration in charge. Though this number is not exactly what Amendment 1 called for, and special interest political projects are going to take most of the A1 funding, it's a start.

    2. Amendment 1.

      This amendment is the Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative Constitutional Amendment passed in 2014. It passed with a very high approval rating and guaranteed $300 million for Florida Forever out of $750 million in funding in total.

    1. Though legislators argued they could not fund Florida Forever during the recession, the FDOT budget makes clear that this was a matter of political will, and not money.

      Funding and what gets funded is dictated by what people and those in power value. It is clear that the transportation department is seen as more valuable than Florida Forever.

    1. The ideal “cost-effective” group is what we should be aiming for with every endangered species: enough funding and evidence of recovery. But two groups had evidence of overspending. One was the “costly success” group that showed evidence of recovery but had more funding than needed. The second was a “costly failure” group that had adequate funding but wasn’t showing evidence of recovery.

      Everything hinges on money and getting a return. Gerber goes on to explain how the percent with over funding should give that overflow to those lagging behind, the "injurious neglect" group (a group of 182 plants and animals). She also comments that that way is far more palatable than efficiently cutting the "costly failure" groups.

    1. Companies that have signed up for its program pay an initial enrollment fee based on their size and activity, and in exchange receive a guarantee not to be placed under future regulatory burdens.

      This sounds a little like a bribe. They can continue their work and only have to pay and act a certain way for the time being. These short term contracts do not seem to support the species in the long run. The moment the creature is off the list, there is a large chance they will go back to the way they once were.

    1. The strategies are applied too generally, they say, as an inflexible, regulatory "blueprint"

      One "blueprint" will not fix every species. The environments surrounding each and every animal are different. The circumstances vary greatly between species, their location, their status, their popularity (everyone knows about polar bears and rhinos, but who knows about the Kakapo?) etc.

    1. only 12 percent of endangered species on the U.S. endangered species lists are receiving as much funding as prescribed in their recovery plan.

      https://www.worldwildlife.org/places there are also smaller independent groups with easy to reach and chip in sites. For any specific endagered species. Such as the Vaquita porpoise: https://www.seashepherd.org/milagro/donate-now/vaquita-appeal.html

    2. conservation groups often fail to look into past patterns of human population densities in and around proposed protected areas. They also fail to delve into the history of land tenure, conflict and resource use in the forests or habitats they want to protect.

      The first step is always to collect data.

    3. “If the local people do not see a benefit of local conservation, then whatever the laws are, they are going to be ineffective,

      People feel the need to be immediately benefited. They will perhaps see the the conservation as an attack on their rights and liberties if they do not see themselves as cared for.

    4. displacing local communities from their traditional lands, restricting their access to resources within the parks, and providing little or no compensation, can make them hostile towards the conservation groups and their efforts. Often, this leads to conflict, compelling the communities to go against the established rules, and harvest resources and hunt illegally.

      Caught between a rock and a hard place.

    1. 1,200 occupied breeeding areas

      The Goal of the effort. Does this mean to have 1,200 breeding pairs or have multiple nests in each of the 1,200 areas.

    2. Annual surveys.

      The first step is always to assess the problem. One must see the patterns and how dire the situation is if they are going to begin to fix it.

    3. The ultimate success of efforts to restore breeding populations, whether by natural or artificial means, depends largely on survivorship. Providing improved habitat conditions, particularly during the winter period, probably is the most important means of maximizing survivorship.

      By any means necessary. Are most conservation like this? Are their efforts that wouldn't do it artificially?