click through photos in Summitpost.Get excited.Arrange babysitter.trip to REI.Taxi. Airplane. Rental Car. Cheap Hotel.Long hike in.Camping for Days.Time.Money.Lots of money.This dried food sucks.Finally it happens.I see you.I'm stunned.Snap photo.Glow for hours.Laughter.Almost giddiness.Hike out.Cheap Hotel. Rental Car. Airplane ride.Taxi.Wash the mud off clothes.Post photo.Tell friends.It was the highlight of our trip. We talk about it for years later. The Bear we saw. The wolf we saw. The moose we saw. The eagle we saw.

Then when I read things like this, I wonder... when will I speak up for them?

http://www.adn.com/2010/03/18/1189910/c ... dator.html

I know what you mean.

I am consoled only by the fact that some hunters will advocate wolf habitat protection if they are also allowed to "harvest" them.

Of course we wouldn't say, "I'll help out at the orphanage if you let me shoot a couple of kids."

There have been similar initiatives out here, primarily aimed at increasing the bighorn sheep populations. In our case, the state wildlife services propose hunting mountain lions (10 were to be killed around Lake Mead).

I frankly don't know who is right. Arizona Fish and Wildlife (or whatever it is called!) has results for the number of collared animals killed by mountain lions; lion predation is supposedly the main cause of death. However, it isn't clear if those sheep were near death anyway, and merely taken as easy pickings. I sometimes suspect that the main reason to keep bighorn populations large, is so human hunters can kill the sheep more easily.

I would agree with 1000pk's comments in this way; it used to be that if you wanted to get unmercifully spammed, you would donate money and give your e-mail address to the Sierra Club. I think there is now an opt-out available.

It's easy to look up the share of any charity's budget that goes to fund-raising. It's low for Defenders, higher for Sierra Club.

Probably embarrassingly high for the MLC SC.

I get paper solicitations from Defenders, email from SC. I don't know why that would be true.

Well, I guess I need to jump in.

** I used to work at Defenders and (edit) I'd go back in a heartbeat ***

It was my job to make sure your name was NOT on the mailing lists, if you didn't want it to be there. Believe me, they do not want to waste the money. They do not want to piss you off. They do not want to send you paper that ends up in the trash.

In their defense, they were the best run organization that I've ever worked for. They are extremely careful and spend your money wisely.

A simple phone call or email or note will stop the mailings.

Here's some depressing wolf-related news from Utah, which you may or may not have already heard about:

During the 2010 legislative session the state of Utah passed a "Wolf Management" bill. This bill requires that in any portion of the state where wolves are listed as endangered under Federal laws, if a wolf is found it is to be removed from the state. In portions of the state where it is not listed as endangered, the wolf is to be killed.

This is a "downgrade" from the original bill, which directly violated the Endangered Species Act and called for any wolf that was found in the state be killed.

Nevermind the fact that most of us who live in the state didn't support the bill. It's really sad that it passed, and I guess we just have to hope that it gets repealed sometime down the line. Just one of the many "great" laws coming out of Utah.

How much CO2 does an additional letter (2 pages or so) generate? Some trees get cut presumably, but I'm not sure it adds a whole lot in terms of transport-related CO2 emission, since the postman is already coming to your house (now carrying an extra few grams of paper) and the plane carrying it will already be doing that (also now a few grams heavier). Of course, there are other sources along the supply chain of paper and ink and what not.....

I worked for a local chapter of the Sierra Club and I believe the only thing that donors to that chapter recieved were a thank you card and perhaps a newsletter from time to time.

While thank you cards might be considered junk mail (though they were personally hand-written), there would certainly be those that would be upset if they didn't recieve one. Simply put, you can't please everyone.

And the entire idea of junk mail flooding your mailbox is something of a misperception in my experience. I donated to the National Parks Conservation Association a few years ago and subsequently recieved mail only from the NRDC. That's not exactly rampant sale of my information. I recieve a mailer about once a month from NRDC and rarely hear anything from NPCA. I occasionally (less than monthly) get a mailer from the Sierra Club, but that's because I worked for them, which is fine with me.

I used to be a member of Defenders, SC, Wilderness Society, and NPCA. The problem wasn't so much mail from other organizations, though I did get that, but rather the constant mailings from the ones I did support. Every one of those mailings wanted money and made whatever the issue was sound like the end of the world. All the doom-and-gloom appeals were simply overwhelming, and every donation prompted only more mailings and more calls asking for ever-higher amounts. It went from depressing to annoying very quickly, and I let my memberships expire and stopped contributing.

Although I consider myself an environmentalist, I no longer belong to any advocacy groups because I simply felt harassed for money. My efforts now mostly go into Leave No Trace and Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, and supporting politicians and bills that protect the environment and foster conservation.

Isn't there a well established process here?

Man virtually wipes out a species that has existed in a location for centuries or longer for a variety of reasons. No one gives a toss until the species is almost extinct, then a few get saved for zoos etc.





Gap of quite a few years.





Man starts to re-introduce that species under protection of legislation etc.

We're ahead of you guys and girls I guess. We've got Red Kites on large numbers back flying not far from here. We have a pair of Buzzards locally now.

Otters are being re-introduced in a number of parts of the UK.

And we are very close to re-introducing wolves to the north of the UK.

This time around I reckon we've learned to respect them and have the will to live alongside them.

BryanBenn, it's great to hear that wolves (among other species) are being re-introduced to the UK! Are people in the UK generally favorable to their reintroduction?

I'd say that in general the U.S. does a fairly good job when it comes to protecting and reintroducing animal species, but there are definitely certain states (e.g. Utah) that have it out for wolves. Some people here really buy into the idea that a wolf pack can decimate an entire elk herd.

jackstraw0083 wrote:BryanBenn, it's great to hear that wolves (among other species) are being re-introduced to the UK! Are people in the UK generally favorable to their reintroduction?

I'd say that in general the U.S. does a fairly good job when it comes to protecting and reintroducing animal species, but there are definitely certain states (e.g. Utah) that have it out for wolves. Some people here really buy into the idea that a wolf pack can decimate an entire elk herd.

Just checked this. Wolves are still being worked on because of the need to get the habitat right etc. I would also guess there is some local opposition to the process!

It was beavers I thought we were on the verge of re-introducing, but for the moment that has stalled.

But much else is being done.

1000Pks wrote:
That was John Muir, the founder of the SC. "Everything is attached to everything," the first precept of ecology.

Though when it came to the CA condor, the largest bird as far as wingspan, the SC decision/vote was to have them go extinct. "Let them die in peace."

Gratefully the people of CA disagreed, and I and everyone can now see these magnificent animals in their natural habitat, growing in numbers thanks to the efforts of dedicated workers and volunteers to bring them back.

I just saw my first (and second and third) condor this past weekend in Zion. What a magnificent bird! Good call, CA voters.

Bryan Benn wrote:Isn't there a well established process here?

Man virtually wipes out a species that has existed in a location for centuries or longer for a variety of reasons. No one gives a toss until the species is almost extinct, then a few get saved for zoos etc.

Gap of quite a few years.

Man starts to re-introduce that species under protection of legislation etc.

Right there is the best reason to draw lines around places and habitats now.

The lower 48 is probably using about 85-90% of its total land area now; most national parks, wilderness areas in national forests and BLM lands, and some wildlife refuges are not being used. (We're using a lower percentage in Alaska, of course.)

We could keep exploring and extracting the last 10-15% but then we'd run out of whatever stuff we're seeking, and we'd be in the place Bryan describes: trying to save stuff when it's too late.

Best to draw some lines now. Really, 85-90% of the land for human habitation and extraction is enough, isn't it? We can still recreate on the rest.

Defending the animals...? Just stop eating meat...