The War on Wolves,American Public Wilderness Lands,Climate Change,Global Environment, Special Interest Groups,and The U.S.A. Congress
What is the Deep Root that Connects All of Them?
The Endangered Species Act~E.S.A.~Gray Wolves~Mexican Gray Wolves~Wolverines~Grizzly Bears~Sage Grouse,
and the The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
and the The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
It would appear that our endangered wildlife have a few problems with the current administration granting them protections under the Endangered Species Act. There isn’t enough room here to list every single endangered or threatened species.
The Red List of 2012 was released 19 July 2012 at Rio+20 Earth Summit; nearly 2,000 species were added, with 4 species to the extinct list, 2 to the rediscovered list. The IUCN assessed a total of 63,837 species which revealed 19,817 are threatened with extinction. With 3,947 described as "critically endangered" and 5,766 as "endangered", while more than 10,000 species are listed as "vulnerable". At threat are 41% of amphibian species, 33% of reef-building corals, 30% of conifers, 25% of mammals, and 13% of birds. The IUCN Red List has listed 132 species of plants and animals from India as "Critically Endangered".
They are all included here:
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (also known as the IUCN Red List or Red Data List), founded in 1964, is the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of biological species. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the world's main authority on the conservation status of species. A series of Regional Red Lists are produced by countries or organizations, which assess the risk of extinction to species within a political management unit.
For our concerns about endangered species, we are including the animals that have been at the forefront of conflict in the U.S.A., between advocacy groups, the USFWS, and special interest lobbying. As you will read, these conflicts are rarely easily resolved, with litigation to protect species occurring frequently.
We’ve been in a prolonged dispute concerning the Gray Wolves and Mexican Gray Wolves set to lose their endangered status due to a delisting proposal set forth for consideration by the USFWS. ( United States Fish and Wildlife Service )
The information we have is here : http://keepwolveslisted.blogspot.com/p/talking-points-to-use-for.html
This delisting proposal set about by Secretary Sally Jewell, and Director Dan Ashe as administrators of the USFWS is the reason we have been incessantly requesting to #keepwolveslisted.
Mexican Gray Wolves.
Feds Propose Roadmap for Mexican Gray Wolf's Future in Arizona, New Mexico
Wolves Would Get More Room to Roam But Face Increased Risk of Shootings
Wolverines Need Federal Protection Now!
Who Will Save the Wolverine? Not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The top 10 (or 15) Reasons to Oppose Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting
And now we meet one little bird.
The Sage Grouse.
This little bird is at the center of a divide in ideology between conservationists, politicians, ranching business owners, and energy companies in the U.S.A. This little bird is the fulcrum of the vitriolic battle between environmental activists, who see the need to protect our western American lands under Federal jurisdiction, and the folks invested in oil and shale energy resources who see the western USA as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Everyone uses energy, but this approach of eradicating species protections, in order to have access to that protected land, in my opinion, is not worth the risk to our environment. We have other options to fuel our energy needs without blasting the USA western treasure of land.
Sage Grouse Rebellion
Will Obama use two small birds to limit oil drilling in the West?
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Sage Grouse Rebellion
Will Obama use two small birds to limit oil drilling in the West?
Greater sage grouse in Mansfield, Washington. Getty Images
Updated March 11, 2014 7:33 p.m. ET
Almost half the land west of the Mississippi belongs to the federal government, including 48% of California, 62% of Idaho and 81% of Nevada. No surprise that the Obama Administration wants to control more. But the result could be to suppress the country's booming oil and gas development.
In partnership with green activists, the Department of Interior may attempt one of the largest federal land grabs in modern times, using a familiar vehicle—the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A record 757 new species could be added to the protected list by 2018. The two species with the greatest impact on private development are range birds—the greater sage grouse and the lesser prairie chicken, both about the size of a barnyard chicken. The economic stakes are high because of the birds' vast habitat.
Interior is expected to decide sometime this month whether to list the lesser prairie chicken, which inhabits five western prairie states, as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Meantime, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are considering land-use amendments to protect the greater sage grouse, which would lay the groundwork for an ESA listing next year.
The sage grouse is found in 11 western states—California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Most of the areas affected are federal lands routinely used for farming, ranching, mining, road building, water projects and oil and gas drilling.
However, much of the prairie chicken population and some sage grouse are on private property that could become subject to some of the most invasive private land-use rules and property acquisitions in the history of the protected-species law. The birds' habitat includes an estimated 50 million to 100 million acres of federal and private land, according to the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Environmental groups have won victories by using a strategy called "sue and settle" under which groups propose species for protected status and then sue the federal government, which settles the lawsuit on terms favorable to the greens rather than fight. These settlements typically bypass a thorough review of the scientific evidence and exclude affected parties, such as industry and local communities.
According to Kent Holsinger, a natural resources attorney in Denver heavily involved in these cases, "Wildlife Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity have been party to more than 1,000 lawsuits between 1990 and the present." The Center for Biological Diversity has made no secret of wanting to end fossil-fuel production in the U.S.
Interior's proposed "land use" amendments are draconian. They require a four-mile "buffer zone" whenever a sage-grouse mating ground is discovered on federal land. The American Petroleum Institute calls the proposed rules a "de facto ban on drilling." It fears that compliance could cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and cause years of drilling delays.
Huge swaths of land that would go off limits to development are some of the nation's most productive oil and gas fields. The prairie chicken sits atop Texas's Permian Basin oil bonanza, and the sage grouse is near the Bakken Shale in North Dakota. An Interior Department report describes the impact on the sage grouse of oil and gas operations as "universally negative and typically severe," even though modern horizontal drilling leaves a much smaller footprint than in the past.
Most western states have conservation efforts underway to head off federal listings. No less a liberal than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in December that an ESA listing for the grouse "will have major ramifications on rural life and the economies in Nevada and throughout the west." Mr. Reid has proposed alternative grouse restoration measures in Nevada with fellow Senator Dean Heller.
In November, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper asked the Obama Administration not to list the greater sage grouse because of the potential economic harm. The Democrat earlier this year also sent a letter to the Bureau of Land Management challenging its proposed protections as unscientific and offering a more flexible approach. West Texas energy developers and farmers have contributed $15 million to a prairie chicken protection fund. However, green groups say anything short of an ESA listing is insufficient.
Colorado Senator Mark Udall has been pushing Interior to delay the sage grouse decision, perhaps with his difficult re-election campaign in mind. The Administration may oblige to keep the Senate, but Democrats ought to declare themselves on the larger green strategy of using lawsuits and regulation to kill jobs and economic development.
It was probably inevitable that the Obama Administration's alliance with greens would come into direct conflict with the economic boon the West is enjoying from shale gas and oil development. The Interior Department may say the ESA requires protection for the sage grouse and prairie chicken, but the damage to human beings would be enormous.
WHAT WE MUST NOT ACCEPT
July 17. 2014
Posted by: Defenders of Wildlife
Ronald Pulliam is a former professor of environment and ecology at the University of Georgia in Athens. He was the director of the National Biological Service under Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, and later served as science advisor to the interior secretary. He is the former president of the Ecological Society of America, and currently serves on the board of the National Council for Science and Technology, the Odum School of Ecology at the University of Georgia, NatureServe and Defenders of Wildlife. Pulliam has a B.S. in biology from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. in zoology from Duke University.
July 14, 2014 - Missoula, Montana
I just stepped out of a small roundtable discussion with, among others, Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Director Ashe told the small group that he sees a “giant clash” between those who favor conservation and those who favor economic development and that he believes that conservationists “must accept a world with fewer wolves, salmon, and spotted owls.” The Director of the very agency most responsible for protecting the nation’s biodiversity went on to say that, in the name of compromise, we must accept “a world with less biodiversity.”
Unlike Director Ashe, I believe that the very fact that we now have only a small fraction of the wolves, salmon, and spotted owls that we once had provides an opportunity for the forces of economic development and those of conservation to join together and foster new economic growth by restoring the biodiversity that we have already lost.
I live in southeastern Arizona where, over the past 100 years, our rivers have dried up, our wildlife has declined precipitously, and now even ‘our wide open spaces’ are at risk of disappearing. As these resources become scarcer, they also become more valuable. At the same time that we are losing our biological heritage, we are witnessing the largest land transfer in the history of the American West. As ranchland is drying up and becoming less productive, the children of ranching families are leaving the land to become lawyers and doctors. These trends are creating “the perfect storm” and, ironically, are providing an opportunity to create a new “restoration economy” premised on restoring the land and its biological diversity.
Patagonia mountains, © Matt Clark
Patagonia Mountains – rich habitat for wildlife in the southwest
Valer and Josiah Austin and their Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation have brought back tens of thousands of acres of degraded, shrub invaded grassland and at least 7 miles of the Rio San Bernardino River in northern Sonora. Over 2,000 acres of new riparian forest along the banks of the restored river are providing renewed habitat for hundreds of species of plants and animals, including coati mundi, ring-tailed cat, and ocelot. Restored grasslands are providing both habitat for wildlife and better forage for cattle. The restored river is once again providing water and nutrients to ejido farmers downstream from the restoration project.
Sixty miles northwest of the Rio San Bernardino River, the abandoned mines and flood-prone, dry creek beds around the town of Patagonia, AZ, are reminders of an economy that no longer exists. Still, thousands of visitors flock to Patagonia to watch birds in what remains of Sonoita Creek and to observe, study, and collect butterflies, moths and bees in one of the most biologically diverse corners of the U.S. The newly renovated hotel is full of birders, naturalists, and scientists and at the “Gathering Ground’ coffee shop and the local restaurants, one overhears excited talk of the rare species seen.
The second largest employer in Patagonia is Borderlands Restoration, L3C, a limited profit company dedicated to restoring streams and food chains, and reconnecting people to the places where they live. Every day, 8 -10 Borderlands employees head to the Babocomari River, fifteen miles away where they are using the same simple water harvesting methods pioneered by the Austin’s and Cuenca los Ojos to restore the river. Another dozen Borderlands staff grow native plants for restoration projects, restore wildlife habitat on local ranches, or engage teams of Patagonia school children in local restoration projects. Last year alone, citizens of Patagonia, a small town of 800 residents, volunteered over 10,000 hours of their time to help Borderlands Restoration restore the “places where we live and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
Jaguar, © Gary Stolz/FWS
The lure of rare animals like jaguar and ocelot are part of what brings visitors to the southwest.
Patagonia is becoming a living example of the Restoration Economy, a place where people both appreciate biological diversity and derive income from it. Borderlands Restoration has supported local organic food production, sponsored “Grand Slam” Quail hunts (in one of the few places where three species of quail can be found living together), and conducted a small-scale, post-fire timber harvest. Patagonia’s gift shops, cafes, two grocery stores, and one gas station are frequented by birders, hikers, bikers, hunters, and others who come to breathe the fresh area and view the wildlife. In celebration of its 400 species of native bees, 14 species of hummingbirds, and an unusually rich butterfly and moth diversity, the town council has declared Patagonia the “Pollinator Capital of the US.” The rumor of a new “eco-lodge” to be built close to the 3 Canyons wildlife corridor, home to the only resident jaguar now in the US, adds to the prospects of new jobs in one of the poorest counties in the U.S.
Patagonia is a town not heeding Director Ashe’s call to accept the “fact that we have to live in a world with fewer species.” Instead, Patagonia, and other villages in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, are realizing that, in the long run, their biological wealth is their greatest asset and rather than acquiescing to its continued decline, they are actively participating in and celebrating its recovery.
Defenders of Wildlife works across the southwest to ensure that this region’s unique landscapes and spectacular diversity of life are restored and protected. Like many of you, we disagree vehemently with Director Ashe’s statement that we should simply “accept a world with fewer wolves, salmon, and spotted owls,” or be resigned to the loss of a species. Join us in speaking out to remind Director Ashe that our nation’s wildlife and habitats are the natural legacy of every American – they belong to each of us, and it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s mission to protect them.
twittericoncTweet to Director Dan Ashe:
@DirectorDanAshe I refuse to accept a world with fewer species. We’re trusting you to protect our nation’s wildlife. Are you up to it?
33 RESPONSES TO “WHAT WE MUST NOT ACCEPT”
Sharon Toscano July 17th, 2014
Please help wildlife. There seem to be potential partners in Patagonia, AZ and the Borderlands Restoration company for some eco-tourism and help for people and wildlife. Please protect this fragile system and it’s interesting wildlife. I think we have lost enough species and honestly the beauty, serenity of these wild spaces is also good for the environment and our water, air supplies.
Valer Austin July 21st, 2014
Much of the Southwest remains in open space but that does not necessarily mean the spaces are wildlife friendly and as Dan Ashe suggests we cannot enforce upon landowners the onerous task of allowing wildlife to jeopardize their livelihood; however our wildlife is one of our nation’s greatest assets and needs to be protected. Wildlife has disappeared from many parts of the world. The U.S. is one of the few places that still has diverse populations of mammals and habitat to sustain them. Some of these lands are in the hands of private landowners who realize the value of what they have and would like to see the animals protected but cannot afford to sacrifice indefinitely to keep large predators on their land. Therefore Dan Ashe in his position should do everything in his power financially and technically to help these landowners to continue to host bears, pumas, wolves, the jaguar, and other predators. I am one such landowner.
Jean Ossorio July 18th, 2014
Would that the person appointed to oversee the protection of our country’s wildlife heritage had the breadth of vision of the citizens of Patagonia, AZ and the author of this commentary. The USFWS has lost its way and Director Ashe is doing little to help the agency find it.
Rick Dow July 18th, 2014
Rather than accepting a world with less bio-diversity, we would be far better off with a more enlightened Director of US Fish and Wildlife. He seems to be on his knees bowing to special interests, and not strong enough to stand up to the serial killers of wildlife. Rick Dow, MS Zoology
Bruce Rickett July 18th, 2014
The only species we need fewer of are humans. Seven billion and counting? This is the real problem.
Joy doogan July 18th, 2014
Joy doogan July 18th, 2014
The human race have a lot to answer for
Kelly Swing July 18th, 2014
It is a shame for anyone to have this perspective but absolutely shameful for a person in a position of leadership to broadcast. Undoubtedly, Director Ashe is trying to present what he considers a realistic view so as to help soften the blow for those who wish to hold out some hope. Considering the defeatist implications, however, this severely undercuts many valuable impassioned efforts. May the example set in Patagonia shine like a lighthouse of success to prod others onward. If our leaders are giving up, we should see that as a dare to prove them wrong.
Vivian Kiene July 18th, 2014
How disheartening that the director of the agency which should be working to protect our wildlife apparently is willing to bow to economic interests to the detriment of our wild lands and wildlife. This approach has solidified my decision to forgo political contributions and financially support only organizations working to protect the environment.
Judy anderson July 18th, 2014
We need Defenders to get the conservation community to fight for, advocate for, renewable energy and slow down climate change. In a big way. Knowing that some birds and bats will be lost but that the species and others has a better chance of being saved.
We need leadership. And move away from traditional responses that include it is mission drift or that adaption is the job of conservation.
George Fenwick July 18th, 2014
Who knows what the future holds, but the great minority of us who care about the natural world should not accept compromise. That is what everyone else does and everyone expects us to do. Never quit, never give in. You might be surprised at what you can accomplish.
P. Dyer July 18th, 2014
Ashe should be kicked out of his job-immediately!
Randy Bata July 18th, 2014
What qualifications did this man have for his appointment?
Elke July 18th, 2014
It sounds to me as if Mr. Ashe should not be leading the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I would expect that the director of the USFAWS wants to protect the environment and the wildlife, believe in the value of diverse ecosystems and fight the encroaching of big business on this beautiful country.
Zig Pope July 19th, 2014
A pox upon Dan Ashe for his overt fascism. We pay his salary, and we can get him removed from this position that he is unqualified to have.
If he wants to lobby for his special interest cronies, he needs to man up and quit. He is nothing put another massive embarrassment and proof Obama will be regarded as the worst president ever.
Patricia Stock July 19th, 2014
I think the USFWS need to find another line of work. Their attitude really stinks. We the people who pay your wages want you to stop the massive slaughter of our wildlife.
Helen July 19th, 2014
How dare you???! How did you get your job and who’s paying you off?
Ann watkins July 20th, 2014
Dan Asher, if this is the way you feel , maybe its time for you to find a new job!!!!!!
You and the agency the you lead have lost your way,which , is to protect the our country’s wildlfe. Everytime we loss a species we hurt all other species . Its basic biology.we as humans are in the web,so it hurts the human population. Stand up and enlighted the American people about conservation. Because we have not done a good job so far.that is why they are not on board. Stop using scare tatics and making wolves ,bears and cougar monsters. The only species that is mean and heartless are humans. This is not are land its mother earths and we have doone so many bad things to her in the name of progress that we don’t have to we need to start doing the right things.
Paul Collins July 20th, 2014
Anyone still believe that our President is a “Progressive?” Has there been an more anti-environment/wildlife administration in modern times? Was the shrub even this bad? I don’t think so.
Karen McGuigan-Lafountain July 20th, 2014
Mr. Ashe, did you bump your head? Or did you, head of USFWA say we must “accept a world with fewer wolves, salmon, and spotted owls” to favor ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT!
I thought you people that ESA put you in charge to protect and perpetuate wildlife, under its heading, “The Science of Intolerance”?
Are you just another cronies that has sold your soul to the special interest groups like sportmens, or cattlemen’s association.? Or did you just think your job actually working for Economic Development?
No, I will never allow myself to live in a wilderness/wildlife free world. I believe we as people have done enough harm to our world, and putting you and people like you in charge of our wilderness animals was a misdeed in deed
Perhaps it is time to abolish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services altogether. As you appear to be some rogue agency that is essentially the wildlife killing arm of the federal government.
I compel you to rethink your position sir, or I know that the American people, once educated through our advocating voices will turn on you and we the people will demand our rights to the 13th Amendment. And I can think of no better way to persue Life, Liberty, and happiness than by being out in the wilderness hearing a wolf howl, a salmon splash, or a spotted owl hoot, thinking how proud I am to be an American!
Brian Turner July 20th, 2014
US Fish and Wildlife needs to think big for a change. Conservation is at least as much about codifying appropriate land uses as it is about managing species and habitat. This is not, contrary to Director Ashe’s petty assertion, about one side getting over its unrealistic ideals, but rather about an agency whose job must embrace conservation in order to determine the potential value of one land use vs another and advocate accordingly.
Michael Guest July 21st, 2014
That Service is not doing the right thing. The future of wildlife and habitats are at risk. We must continue to help and save them. Enough is enough.
John Phillips July 21st, 2014
The solution lies in assigning economic value to whole and functioning ecosystems, which means, among other things, to highly value systems with high indices of biological diversity. As Odum observed, such systems provide services of immense value. Indeed, functioning ecosystems allow humans to exist and to thrive, and are the underlying basis for all economic activity. Mining and other economic activities must now take a backseat to the need to preserve and expand functioning ecosystems. There is no economic benefit from extraction activities if the basis for human life, the biosphere, is destroyed in the process. Therefore, we need to assign dollars and sense to these equations. The tremendous biodiversity of the Patagonia Region as a biological corridor and a natural reserve for rare and endangered species needs to be assigned appropriate economic value. If we do so, it is apparent on face value, we need to exclude disruptive activities, such as open-pit mining. It just makes sense.
Michelle Roberts July 21st, 2014
Thank you, Sir, for the great article and sharing these programs with us. I am very disappointed, to say the least, about the comments from Director Ashe. I feel that they are unacceptable for a man in his position. He is caving to special interest groups & not what most Americans want. I am a wolf advocate and am appalled at what is being done to them right now in this country & it must be stopped. I hope you & other intelligent people can have some influence on Mr. Ashe or help get him removed from his position, as clearly from his comments & what I am seeing happening to our wolves & wildlife, he is not the person for that job. Wolves are needed for a healthy ecosystem and also bring in millions of dollars annually to national parks like Yellowstone where people come from all over the world to watch them. I just returned from there for that very reason & was sorry to hear about & see far fewer wolves than used to be there due to hunters, ranchers & politicians. There are many non-lethal ways to coexist with wolves & wildlife. The killing must stop! Please do what you can to help! Very sincerely.
Charlene July 21st, 2014
I’d like to see the quote in context–is there a place where one can do so? Without seeing the full context, I find it impossible to legitimize the quote. I’m 100% wildlife, but as a scientist I need “the rest of the story”.
mike dennis July 22nd, 2014
Dan Ashe has dedicated his life to conservation as has Ron Pulliam…but what separates Dan from all of us conservationists is that he faces huge environmental conflicts on a daily basis in the public headlights. Dan does not want a world with less biodiversity but he is stating the unfortunate truth. I have known all of the USFWS directors during my 40 year conservation career and Dan is the best of this talented group.
Richard Pritzlaff July 24th, 2014
Very sad to me that you, Peter Kareiva, and Dan Ashe believe what you term an “unfortunate truth.” What happened to you guys? Easier to capitulate than undertake the hard work Ron and many others have succeeded in founding change to more sustainability through creation of restoration economies? Yes, its hard work, and TNC could be a valued partner, instead of sucking the oxygen (and money) away with your “unfortunate truth.”
Greta Anderson July 23rd, 2014
I already live in a world, “With fewer wolves, salmon, and spotted owls,” that there were even a century ago, and my line in the sand is here, and now. Conservationists have already accepted too much, leaving us with highly depleted ecosystems and depauperate floras and faunas with which to share our lovely planet. Why not tell industry that they are just going to have to accept some limits on growth? Dan Ashe just wants us to cut him some slack and make his job easier. No way!
David Parsons July 23rd, 2014
Here is the official mission and vision of the USFWS that Dan Ashe is sworn to uphold:
Mission: The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
Vision: We will continue to be a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service.
The buck stops with Director Ashe. Surely Dan is eligible to retire. Here is my advice to Dan: Be a bold advocate for the wildlife and ecosystems you are charged with protecting; buck the politics; make a splash; get your ass fired. You will be a much happier man.
Kirk Robinson July 23rd, 2014
I attended the round table at the NACCB and heard and watched Dan Ashe speak. I don’t know his qualifications as a biologist, but as Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which is in charge of implementing and upholding the Endangered Species Act, his remarks came off as those of a man who had sold his soul and was trying his best to live with it. Here was the man in charge of conserving our nation’s wildlife saying that on his watch we would do well to lower our expectations. I know that he is under tremendous pressure, but I find that I cannot respect the man.
Adrienne Seltz July 23rd, 2014
Oh, what a sad and dismal outlook Dan Ashe! Shame on YOU! The American people are not interested in losing any more of their natural resources including wildlife than we already have! The greed and selfishness of the corporate machine that you all are dancing to is going to drive us ALL to extinction! I agree with Mr Parsons…do your job right and go out in a blaze of glory…I DARE YOU!
Rose Chilcoat July 23rd, 2014
We already live in a world with “fewer wolves, salmon and spotted owls!” Humans used to be able to live in balance with nature, as part of nature. We’ve allowed ourselves to behave in ways that suggest we are above nature where we get to decide which species “deserve” to survive. What hubris! It is time to stop, honestly assess, recalibrate and do whatever it takes for all species to have a chance to survive and even thrive. Dan Ashe, you are a sell out if “economic development” trumps protection of ALL species. The Endangered Species Act is clear as to what your job is supposed to be. Time to step up, take the heat, and do the job you know in your heart you are supposed to be doing…”conserving fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” I don’t want to have to explain to my grandchildren how we knew we had screwed things up and we had this great law that was supposed to keep us from doing so again but we, the American people, didn’t have the will or desire to insist that our government DO ITS JOB to protect our endangered and diminishing biodiversity even if that means some people and some corporations (not the same thing at all) are unhappy with the result.
LORRAINE LAHUE July 23rd, 2014
Leave our wild life alone it needs to be saved wolves, loggerhead turtles, spotted owls, to name a few,enough is enough sea cows if their not saved the will all be gone forever don’t allow this.