Nature and the Law: Center for Biological Diversity continues to work the courts

The conservation strategy adopted by the Center for Biological Diversity revolves around bringing the courts to bear on the issues that seem to have been ignored and to put the feet of government agencies to the fire when it appears they are not fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations. It is a strategy that certainly keeps the Tucson, Arizona-based nationwide organization busy.

Turning attention towards the predicaments of cats in the United States (wild, not domesticated) and a few other animals, here's what Executive Director Kieran Suckling and his staff have been up to:

Historic Suits Defends 214 Rare Species From Pesticides
"In the most comprehensive legal action ever taken to protect wildlife from pesticides under the Endangered Species Act, the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America sued the Environmental Protection Agency today for failing to determine whether hundreds of approved pesticides harm already-imperiled species around the country.

The lawsuit names more than 200 species in 49 states -- from the Florida panther to the Chiricahua leopard frog to the Alabama sturgeon -- that wildlife officials and scientists say are threatened by pesticides. Our lawsuit challenges the EPA for not consulting with wildlife agencies before approving more than 300 pesticides. 'For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America's rarest species,' said the Center's Jeff Miller."

Read more in a Center for Biological Diversity press release.

Lynx to Earn More Protected Habitat
"The feds will likely protect more habitat for the stealthy Canada lynx, one of North America's most imperiled predators; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has dropped its appeal of a federal court decision last summer that said the agency's 'critical habitat' designation for the lynx was too paltry.

Only about 1,000 Canada lynx remain in the United States, and about half of them are in Montana. After a lawsuit in 1994 by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (now merged with the Center for Biological Diversity) and allies, the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 designated the spotted silver cat as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act. But even after a Center lawsuit overturning a previously inadequate critical habitat decision, the agency failed to base its designation on areas where lynx currently roam, leaving out habitat key for recovery (especially in Colorado). The latest development means the Fish and Wildlife Service will reevaluate how much critical habitat it will assign to this rare and mysterious forest cat."

Read more in the Helena Independent Record.

Suit Filed to Block Loan to Proposed Minnesota Mine
"The Center for Biological Diversity and four partners on Tuesday sued Minnesota's Iron Range Resources Board over its $4 million loan to PolyMet Mining Company, which has proposed the state's first open-pit sulfide mine. The state agency's loan is premature and illegal under state law because the proposed mine is still going through the required environmental review process. The mine site is in the Superior National Forest, within the Lake Superior watershed.

PolyMet's proposed mine would destroy hundreds of acres of high-quality wetlands, violate water-quality standards for hundreds to thousands of years, and eliminate two square miles of protected 'critical habitat' for imperiled lynx and wolves. The draft environmental impact statement for the proposal was deemed "environmentally unsatisfactory-inadequate" by the EPA, triggering the need for a supplemental draft analysis that is still months from completion."

Read more in the Duluth News-Tribune.

The Center for Biological Diversity wants people to realize that the legal process can be a very productive tool in building conservation awareness. The latest edition of their newsletter, Endangered Earth, recaps many of their 2010 accomplishments and lays out the organization's objectives for 2011. You can download it by clicking here.

Polar Bears: good news and bad news in the U.S.

Following up on my December 19th posting regarding polar bears, here's an example of one-step forward, two steps back.

Gaining Ground, Literally
The step forward has to do with the designation in late November of 187,000 sq.miles of northern Alaska wilderness as a "critical habitat" for polar bears. As part of a mandated response to having the polar bear listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the area - although it had to be prodded into action by a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) which has been after the Fish and Wildlife Service to fully implement protections, like the critical habitat, required by the Endangered Species Act.

The critical habitat designation mandates that any federal agency that would wish to open up any of the land for economic activity (as in granting permits for gas and oil exploration, which several oil companies were planning on doing), they would have to first consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding adverse impact against the polar bears.

“This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations,” said Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in a Fish and Wildlife Service news release. “Nevertheless, the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of its sea ice habitat caused by human-induced climate change. We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species.”

Read about the polar bears' "critical habitat" in BBC News.

Losing Ground
In response to the critical habitat designation, the governor of Alaska has announce his intention to have the state file suit against the federal government. As reported by the Washington Post, Governor Sean Parnell contends the critical habitat designation will delay jobs and increase costs - or even kill - resource development projects that are important to Alaska.

"Once again, we are faced with federal overreach that threatens our collective prosperity," Gov. Parnell said. "We don't intend to let this stand."

A recent newsletter from the CBD reported, "The Center is already in court defending the polar bear against the state's previous suit to have it removed from Endangered Species Act protection, arguing instead that protection should be upgraded. Scientists estimate there's a greater than 80 percent chance that polar bears in Alaska will be extinct by mid-century under current greenhouse gas emissions trends."

"They [the Alaska state government] have opposed every Endangered Species Act listing to date," said CBD attorney Brendan Cummings.

Read more about Alaska's threat of legal action in the Washington Post.

Losing More Ground
The Center for Biological Diversity will be kept busy with the additional setback announced this past Wednesday by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The department filed arguments in court to support its decision to list the polar bear as threatened, as opposed to endangered under the Endangered Species Act - endangered being a designation that many conservation groups have pushed for because it requires the government to address the source of the endangerment (global warming).

Also, the department is maintaining a Bush-era decision to exempt greenhouse gases from regulation under the Endangered Species Act, thereby eliminating from consideration all scientific studies and data that point to climate change as being one of the primary threats to polar bear ice-based habitat.

The CBD plans to counter the department of the Interior's arguments in court in February. CBD attorney Kassie Siegal said, "[The department's action] puts a gloss on a horribly flawed Bush-era decision that is anti-science and serves to greatly undermine the protection of not just the polar bear but all of America's imperiled wildlife."

There are some environmentalists and legal experts that feel that the Endangered Species Act is not the best vehicle for pressing forward with the greenhouse gas issue, that it would best be served in Congress than in the courts. But given the current state of partisan politics and the influence of gas and oil lobbyists, that probably won't be happening any time soon, so groups like the Center for Biological Diversity continue with legal action.

Read more about the Dept. of Interior decision in the Los Angeles Times.

Orcas and Salmon: organizations take aim at U.S. plan that could impact Washington/Oregon whales

Here is information from Howard Garret of the Orca Network regarding action being taken against a proposed conservation plan for salmon in the northwest U.S.'s Columbia Basin (where the Columbia and Snake River end at the Pacific coast of Oregon and Washington). Apparently, the plan contradicts existing science regarding the impact of a decline on salmon on the resident orca population.

"On October 29, salmon advocates asked a federal judge to reject the Obama Administration’s 2010 Plan for Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. This includes chinook salmon that are essential nutrition for our Southern Resident Killer Whales. Today, three facts are clear. One, our orca are often very hungry. Two, they historically dined regularly on Columbia Basin chinook – especially in the lean months of March and April. Three, by failing endangered salmon, the 2010 Plan will also fail our endangered orcas.

The endangered Southern Resident orca community declined over 20% a decade ago and still teeters on the brink of extinction. Multiple studies tell us why: inadequate runs of Chinook salmon. For thousands of years this unique and cohesive orca clan has survived almost entirely on king salmon, especially those returning to the Columbia basin during winter and spring. In the past few decades those Chinook runs have dwindled to a small percentage of their former numbers. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) notes that 'Perhaps the single greatest change in food availability for resident killer whales since the late1800s has been the decline of salmon in the Columbia River basin' (p. 95).

We expected more from NOAA and the Obama administration when they released their Columbia Basin salmon plan as required by the Endangered Species Act. On inauguration day, we were told that good science would trump biased economics and DC politics, and that the process would be transparent. Instead we got a repeat of the corrupt Bush plan and secrecy rather than honesty, despite fierce criticism of that status quo plan from the American Fisheries Society, a wide range of independent biologists, and NOAA’s own scientists.

Regarding orcas specifically, NOAA also fails to explain the huge discrepancy between their 2010 Columbia Basin salmon plan and their 2009 California salmon plan. The CA plan says hatchery fish are no substitute for wild salmon, that orcas need viable wild salmon runs, and there are far too few today. The Columbia plan inexplicably says that hatchery fish are a reliable replacement for wild salmon, and suggests that there are plenty of salmon for orca survival. Despite repeated requests to NOAA to address and resolve this inconsistency, none has been offered.

There is no doubt in the scientific community about the ecological connection between Columbia/Snake salmon and our much-loved orcas. Canada’s DFO found '…that [orca] survival rates are strongly correlated with the availability of their principal prey species, chinook salmon.' A study concluded that 'Chinook salmon, a relatively rare species, was by far the most frequent prey item.' Winter field studies have also found Southern Resident orcas near the mouth the Columbia River eating salmon headed upriver. UW’s Center for Conservation Biology conducted a multi-year orca study of hormones found in fecal material and concluded that: 'Thus far, the hormone data most strongly supports the reduced prey hypothesis' and that 'For now, it seems clear that mitigation efforts to increase number and quality of available prey to Southern resident killer whales will be an important first step towards assuring SRKW recovery.'

Let’s hope that the judge buries this deceptive plan in early 2011, and brings the federal government and the people of the Northwest together to craft a legal, science-based plan that serves our salmon, our communities, and our orcas.

For more information, please visit: Save Our Wild Salmon and the Orca Network."

A Trick, No Treat For Bats: white-nose syndrome hits hard

Halloween's approaching and for those who celebrate "All Hallowed Eve" there's candy, costumes, and images of all things spooky - like zombies, witches, and bats. What would the world be like without those things that go bump in the night? Well, we could do without the zombies, I think. And perhaps witches, both the green Wizard of Oz kind and the ones running for political office.

Then there's bats. What would the world be without bats? As it turns out, it would be a world nearly overrun with bugs. Bats are one of the planet's great equalizers, feeding on insects and helping to keep the populations in balance. While not exactly an "apex predator" like sharks, bats serve a very similar role. Sharks and other large predators that reside at the top of the predator-prey pyramid are kept in check by a slow reproductive rate. Not so for the bat, but then it's feeding on insects that can number in the millions.

So, bats, those spooky little critters of Dracula movie fame that can congregate in caves by the thousands and make us run for cover lest we get one in our hair, are actually very important to maintaining a healthy ecosystem.

But in the eastern United States, parts of Canada, and even France, we are losing vast numbers of bats to a disease: white-nose syndrome. This syndrome manifests itself as patches of white fungus on the nose and wings of the bat. There are several suspected fungi thought to be possibly involved, although Geomyces destructans is considered the most likely culprit. It is a cold-temperature fungus that can flourish in the caves that bats inhabit. The white-nose syndrome disrupts the bats normal winter hibernation cycle and produces behaviors, like flying, that can lead to the bat's death, often from starvation (due to a combination of excessive activity combined with the winter's lack of food).

No more ugly little bats. Big deal, right? So what if there's a few more insects, right? We'll just use a rolled up newspaper or get out the bug zapper. Oh, were it that simple.

Actually, the loss of bats in the northeast all the way to the Mississippi poses a tremendous economic threat to agriculture, as bats act as a very important insecticide control agent. Without bats, insects would ravage more crops, more pesticides would have to be used (with their own inherent problems), and food prices would soar. The timber industry would also be effected.

Scientists who have been studying the condition are not exactly sure as to how it is transmitted over such a wide area. To rule out any human involvement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has strictly limited access to known caves where large number of bats live. But the condition appears to be continuing to spread, having first been reported in 2006 and now affecting 9 different bat species. Research has found that the fungus reacts to some human anti-fungal treatments but how those can be applied practically has yet to be determined.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is running a campaign to get the attention of U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to devote serious effort to the issue. Whatever initiatives and small cost that might be required (CBD suggested $10 million), that would easily be offset by the multi-million dollar savings to agriculture and the consumer.

Trick or treat. Looks like it's a trick for the bat this year.

Support the Center for Biological Diversity's petition campaign to save U.S. bats.

Bobcats At Risk: U.S. plans to propose removal of CITES protection

According to the Humane Society International, the bobcat of North America, currently protected by its Appendix II listing under CITES (the international organization that regulates trade in endangered species), is at risk of losing that protected status. And the reason is not rooted in a controversy over its role as a predator, like that being experienced by the gray wolf. Instead, it has to due with a potential demand for fur and how fulfilling that demand can severely impact similar but more critically endangered species of wild cats.

At the behest of fur traders, the United States has requested in the past, albeit unsuccessfully, that the bobcat be removed from CITES protection. Doing so would then enable fur traders to trap and kill more than the 50,000 bobcats that are currently taken under the Appendix II listing. The bobcat's fur is apparently identical to the fur of other cats in the lynx family, like the Iberian lynx - of which there are reported to be only 150 left in the wild.

At first blush, flooding the market with bobcat fur would conceivably protect the more endangered species by satisfying international demand. But according to the Humane Society International, it would have an opposite effect; emboldening illegal trappers and smugglers to go after dwindling stocks of endangered cats since it would now be easier to pass them off in a more robust fur market.

Apparently, the U.S. intends to make the same request at the upcoming March CITES meeting that it has unsuccessfully made in the past. The Human Society International has a form that you can fill out to send a message to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar asking that the proposal be withdrawn. Click here to add your voice.

Here is a sensible case of restricting trade in one species so as to protect more critically endangered species - an issue not rooted in any controversial imbalance in the predator-prey relationship, or loss of cattle or other livestock destined for human use. Just a need to control those wanting to make more profit on bobcat fur simply because the resource is there for the taking. At least for now.

Shark Conservation Act of 2009: moving forward towards final passage

Returning from a week-long assignment, I was pleased to find that the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 had moved along one more step towards reaching President Obama's desk.

The Senate's version (S. 850), introduced by Sen. John Kerry, which is similar to the House version (H. 81) introduced last year by Rep. Madeleine Bordallo, passed the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday. Hopefully, any differences between the two pieces of legislation can be quickly ironed out so that it can move along towards a vote and then on to the White House.

The Shark Conservation Act of 2009 requires that all legally caught sharks within U.S. waters must retain their fins. That prevents shark finning and impacts the attractiveness of fishing for fins when the fishing boat must also retain the entire shark carcass, taking up more cargo space which is less profitable.

According to an Oceana.org press release, "Landing sharks with their fins still attached allows for better enforcement and data collection for stock assessments and quota monitoring. The Act would also close a loophole that allows the transfer of fins at sea as a way to get around current law. Additionally, the bill would allow the United States to take action against countries whose shark finning restrictions are not as strenuous."

You can log on to Oceana.org and send an email message to your senator, asking him/her to support passage of this important shark conservation legislation. We must also support international organizations like CITES and others that seek protection for sharks outside of U.S. or other national waters. International waters needed protection and enforcement, too.

Saving Rainforests: international offsets or shell game?

Tropical rainforests, currently subject to deforestation for lumber and grazing land, are a major storehouse of carbon dioxide - when left alone - and a major producer of CO2 emissions - when destroyed. According to the Los Angeles Times, if American corporations were to utilize international offsets being proposed in current climate change legislation, both the forests and U.S. corporations could benefit environmentally and economically.

Times reporter Margot Roosevelt reports that a blue-ribbon panel, consisting of government, corporate, and environmental experts, has issued a report that ascribes some dollar figures to the concept of international offsets - part of the cap and trade concept, whereby polluters can pay for preserving forests in developing nations rather than pay for expensive equipment to deal with their own pollution. The report states that an investment of $9 billion by 2020 would save corporations up to $50 billion that they would have to spend on their own pollution. Given that deforestation accounts for a disproportionate amount of the carbon emissions in the world, that would appear to be a good deal.

The good news is that it would appear that government officials and particularly corporations, notorious for stonewalling efforts to address global warming, are now facing up to the reality and becoming participants in the solution.

The bad news is whether the entire concept of offsets and cap-and-trade is a viable one environmentally. There are many who feel that cap and trade is nothing more than a industrial shell game, where corporations are skirting their responsibilities to address the mess in their own backyard by borrowing against the efforts of those who either have succeeded in their efforts to curb pollution or are in need of financial support to do just that.

"Some environmental groups are critical of forest offsets, tarring them as a scheme to let corporations off the hook for cleaning up their own emissions. Others worry about bogus schemes claiming false preservation credits, since forest carbon is difficult to measure.

The 71-page report is timed to influence the U.S. Senate as it takes up climate legislation. It recommends that the U.S. government invest $1 billion in tropical forest preservation in the next three years. And it pushes to have tropical forest emissions included in a new international treaty to be considered in Copenhagen in December."

My personal jury is still out on the subject. But the concept of cap and trade does beg the question: what are we looking for, an acceptance of our ecological responsibility or an economic advantage? I'm not sure that you can have both, at least initially. Nature is negatively impacted by our pollution - period. And it doesn't postpone those negative effects for one company or industry as a consolation prize for supporting the elimination of pollution somewhere else. Nature doesn't play that game.

Perhaps cap and trade and international offsets were conceived as a transitional approach. My concern is that governments and corporations will latch on to it as the ongoing standard, and the serious measures regarding CO2 emissions that need to be met will remain an elusive goal.

Read entire Los Angeles Times article.

U.S. and Climate Change: a need to get the eye on the ball

There has been a lot of politics flying around the U.S. of late with considerable attention being placed on the healthcare reform debate. While complicated, it is an issue that the current administration would like to see resolved soon, as there is another strategic issue looming on the horizon that President Obama would like to address: climate change and the related issue of a national energy policy.

What's putting the pressure on the administration are several events coming up soon that will require the U.S. to take definitive steps and have concrete positions or policies. Without the proactive participation of the United States, there can be significant international implications that could hamper overall progress.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, President Obama is in need of shifting the national focus because, first, he has a major climate change speech scheduled at the United Nations tomorrow (Tuesday). Then he meets with the G-20 later in the week in Pittsburgh, where climate change and energy will be a major economic topic. Then there is a major international conference in Copenhagen in December, charged with developing an international agreement on how to deal with climate change. Should the U.S. not be properly focused on the issues at Copenhagen, it could be very disruptive to the conference's potential for success.

The administration is also having to tackle a related issue having to do with whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic, which was first proposed by the Bush administration near the close of its term (300,000 signatures opposing the drilling along with support of over 400 scientists were delivered to the Department of the Interior today as part of a public comment period).

While there are many conservationists, ecologists, and environmentalists that all agree on the need for a sound strategy to deal with climate change and its related issues, it's not all quite so rosy throughout the international diplomatic community. Major industrial nations and 2nd/3rd world countries can have competing or conflicting interests or agendas, based on issues of cost, responsibility for emission levels, demand for economic development - either with new energy sources and power plants or with deforestation. Many countries recognize the problems but have different ideas as to what they can economically do about it.

It is a global issue and a complicated one in finding the necessary common ground or solutions to move forward effectively, to really make a difference. But it is one that can't be ignored, whether you believe that climate change is solely mankind's fault, part of a cyclical natural change, or a little of both.

Read L.A. Times article.

U.S. National Oceans Policy: important task force in charge of charting the future

Did you know that June was National Oceans Month? Neither did I but a proclamation was made by the Obama administration to that effect - one of many proclamations that are made, distributed, and then (if not picked up by the media) sink into oblivion.

It actually comes on the heels of a more important presidential memorandum where President Obama outlines the needs and a time frame for a National Oceans Policy. This too has been going on a bit on the sidelines, what with all the attention on healthcare reform, a unifying energy policy, and foreign policy. But as critical as the oceans are to the future of this planet, for the United States to have a national policy regarding our coastlines, rivers, and lakes is paramount.

An Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force has been set up and public hearings have been scheduled. The first was held in Anchorage, AK in August. The next meeting is tomorrow, 9/17, in San Francisco, CA, and the last meeting will be on 9/24 in Providence, RI. These meetings are open to the public. Following the hearings, the Task Force will have another 3 months to develop a working plan, "a recommended framework for coastal and marine spatial planning."

"The oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and play critical roles in our Nation’s transportation, economy, and trade, as well as the global mobility of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and security," President Obama wrote in the memorandum. "We have a stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable oceans, coasts and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of this and future generations."

"The challenges our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are facing are complex, and to meet these challenges we must have the participation of a wide spectrum of views from within the federal government," said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The Task Force has a wealth of opportunity to make our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes healthier - both environmentally and economically."

If you can't attend one of the public hearings, you can submit comments online - but to be seriously considered your comments must be relevant to the issues and objectives of the Task Force (read about them on the Council for Environmental Quality web page). In other words, no rants, just solid comments and suggestions.

Although this has had little press, it is vitally important as it will set the tone and agenda for this administration when it comes to ocean conservation.

Sharks On The Agenda: international RFMO consider better management

A recent meeting held in San Sebastian, Spain by the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) produced some consensus on the need to control and better manage shark fisheries. The RFMOs are an international matrix of regional territories, each territory including certain key countries, with the responsibility of managing fisheries to not only insure their commercial future but the conservation of the species involved ranging from tuna to sharks to turtles to sea birds.

Concern over major fish stocks like tuna had preoccupied the RFMOs for some time but now concern has been raised regarding shark populations and the taking of sharks either deliberately or as accidental bycatch.

In a recent press release from Oceana:

Fishing Nations Seek Cooperative Action to Manage Shark Fisheries Worldwide

Washington -- Oceana issued the following statement from senior vice president for North America and chief scientist Dr. Michael F. Hirshfield in response to decisions made today in San Sebastian to manage shark fisheries worldwide.

"Oceana is encouraged by the language adopted today in San Sebastian concerning sharks and is pleased that fishing nations have included commitments for cooperative actions and concrete measures to regulate shark fisheries. These vulnerable species have suffered a lack of attention for far too long, and we now hope to see precautionary and ecosystem-based management implemented for sharks worldwide.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas seeks the cooperative management for 72 shark species, but today scientific advice only exists for two of them. Oceana shows that there is need to establish precautionary fishing limits for shark species caught in international waters.

Oceana would like to commend the United States delegation, with additional efforts by the European Union, for their persistence and commitment to ensuring that action-forcing language was adopted at the meeting,

Sharks are no longer ‘off the books' for the world's RFMOs. The world's regional tuna fishery management organizations are now on notice that they need to take specific, concrete steps to conserve sharks as soon as possible. We look forward to working with fishery managers to ensure that commitments made today result in true, in-the-water protections for sharks."

Good news but it will take continued vigilance to insure that their actions are sufficient and that there is the proper observance and enforcement to make it stick.

#6 in CO2 Emissions: cruising the seas out of the spotlight

When we consider the impact of global warming and climate change on the land, air, and sea, we often think of the combined CO2 emissions generated by different nations and their various commercial and/or public sources. But do you know what ranks as the 6th highest producer of carbon dioxide, just behind the 5 nations with the largest combined output of all sources?

Global shipping.

That's right. Right near the top of the list of major CO2 polluters. And it continues unregulated by any U.S. or Kyoto Protocol limitations. Why? Well, for one, it's a bit removed from the public spotlight, cruising the seas as it were, underneath the radar of public awareness. And for another, the shipping industry is both a fragmented and powerful commercial force that requires major international intervention to bring it under control.

What is there to regulate? Engine types, fuels, proper operational maintenance, emission standards - in many ways, what we do (or should be doing) regarding auto or factory pollution can be applied to shipping.

If we in the United States can get the EPA on board, this can be a major first step not only for the U.S. but for the world as it can set a new standard, particularly if the United States seriously considers getting back in lock step with the rest of the industrialized or developing world and considers aligning itself with the Kyoto Protocol or its possible future manifestations.

To that end, Earth Justice, Oceana, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity have petitioned the EPA and, due to a lack of response by the EPA, are preparing to take legal action. To learn more about this issue, click here.

Nature and the Seas: steps forward and challenges in 2009

Covering a range of conservation and environmental issues, here are a few success from 2008, compliments of the World Wildlife Fund:

• Sumatran elephant and tiger habitat protected in Indonesia, doubling the size of Sumatra's Tesso Nilo National Park.
• U.S. Congress extended tax incentives for individuals and businesses to install renewable energy systems and build energy-efficient buildings.
• United States became first country to prohibit import and sale of illegally-sourced woods - the loss of which has impacted forest animal habitats.
• U.S. House of Representatives passed the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, to protect lions, leopards, cheetahs and other imperiled species.
• The House also passed important legislation to protect tropical forests and coral reefs. Similar legislation passed a key senate committee.

Now, turning to our oceans, here are some challenges we face in 2009:

• Overfishing - We are still faced with losing most commercial fish species within 40 years (swordfish and tuna populations have already been reduced by a whopping 90%). The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be implemented. (Info on the M-S Act.)
  
• Bycatch - Commercial fishing still discards up to one million tons of fish each year, not to mention the countless numbers of marine mammals, turtles, and more. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Sea Turtles - Even though listed as endangered or threatened in U.S. waters, sea turtles are still exposed to harm from fisheries and loss of nesting and foraging habitat. (More info on sea turtles.)
  
• Sharks - The slaughter continues, up to 100 million sharks per year. While governments need to exercise greater effort in management and/or prohibition of species, continued efforts must be made to enhance public awareness and reduce demand for shark products. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Seafood Contamination - Mercury levels in many types of seafood is increasing. Government efforts must be increased to curb industry's use or disposal of this dangerous neurotoxin. (Mercury calculator for seafood.)
  
• Climate Change - We are continually learning more about the man-made effects of global warming, not only in terms of increased temperatures, but in its many byproducts like ocean acidification. And we are finding that the effects, like changes in Arctic, are accelerating faster than previous models predicted. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Offshore Drilling - Many moratoriums on offshore drilling are set to expire soon. Before billions of dollars are spent to extract a diminishing resource, governments need to pressure the energy industries in refocusing their efforts. The U.S. needs a coherent energy policy based on long-term, not short-term, goals. (Previous post on subject.)
  

Time to roll up our sleeves, everyone.

Moose in Peril: a vanishing victim of climate change

With large antlers, long legs, and a notoriously grumpy disposition, the moose has been to some a symbol of the cold rugged regions of North America, and a classic cartoon figure to others. In either case, it is an icon of the wilderness. And it is vanishing.

According to scientists, the culprit behind this loss is climate change. In areas like upper Minnesota and Michigan, over the last 40 years temperatures have risen 12 degrees in the winter and 4 degrees in the summer. This has been sufficient enough to reduce the populations of moose by 50% or more. Says John Vucetich, a population biologist at Michigan Technological University, "The trends for the past 20 years are pretty clear, and if they keep up there won't be any moose in 50 years."

Whereas deer, bears, and wolves have better adapted to changing temperature by moving northward, the moose is more sedentary. They require shade, water, and cool weather. Climate change impacts these requirements and the moose is unable to obtain enough food to generate fat in the summer that carries it through the winter. All this stress affects the immune system, leaving the animal more susceptible to parasites. In short, they stay put and die.

The moose is not currently on the U.S. endangered species list and with the Bush administration proposing last minute regulations that will prohibit federal agencies from evaluating the effects of global warming in regards to animal species, it will be up to the incoming administration to clear that political stumbling block so that environmental decisions and policies can be fashioned based on scientific truth.

"I don't see the temperature change we're seeing as cyclical," says Rolf Peterson, a research professor at Michigan Tech. "The trend is definitely in one direction." But unfortunately, it may be too late for the moose in the lower 48 states. "There's not a lot of opportunity to turn this around," said Mark Lenarz, a wildlife specialist at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Remember Bullwinkle once said to his cartoon pal, "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." Oh, if only he could.