drudgereport--2019-02-07--Killing of large species pushing towards extinction

Killing of large species pushing towards extinction...

The vast majority of the world’s largest species are being pushed towards extinction, with the killing of the heftiest animals for meat and body parts the leading cause of decline, according to a new study.  While habitat loss, pollution and other threats pose a significant menace to large species, also known as megafauna, intentional and unintentional trapping, poaching and slaughter is the single biggest factor in their decline, researchers found.  An analysis of 362 megafauna species found that 70% of them are in decline, with 59% classed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Direct killing by humans is the leading cause across all classes of animals, the study states. A range of maladies including intensive agriculture, toxins and invasive competitors are also helping to trigger these declines.  This situation adds to the “mounting evidence that humans are poised to cause a sixth mass extinction event”, according to the research, published in Conservation Letters. It adds that “minimizing the direct killing of the world’s largest vertebrates is a priority conservation strategy that might save many of these iconic species and the functions and services they provide.”  Humans cause the deaths of large creatures in a variety of ways, from snares that entangle mountain gorillas and the poaching of elephants for ivory to the killing of the Chinese giant salamander, which can grow up to 6ft long and is considered a delicacy in Asia.  “Sometimes the killing is legal, sometimes illegal and sometimes unintentional, such as by catch during fishing,” said William Ripple, lead author and a professor of ecology in the Oregon State University. “If this trend continues we will lose many of its megafauna species and the world will become an impoverished place. We are heading towards them dwindling away.”  Humans have hunted the largest animals for thousands of years but technology has allowed them to be targeted far more efficiently, the study notes, with nine megafauna species becoming extinct in the past 250 years, including two types of giant tortoise and two varieties of deer.  Besides the intrinsic value of imposing creatures such as rhinos, sharks and tigers, many of them perform an important ecological role as predators at the top of the food web or by spreading seeds throughout habitat.  The industrialized slaughter of livestock for food, along with well-regulated hunting, isn’t to blame for the loss of species, the research found, although other studies have illustrated the sweeping environmental harm caused by mass agriculture.  “It’s a complex issue. Sometimes large animals are killed for trophies, sometimes it’s subsistence hunting and fishing, sometimes its illegal poaching – it runs the gamut,” Ripple said. “Humans have become super predators who don’t even have to come into contact with the things we are killing. Many of these large animals have low reproduction rates so once you add in that pressure they become vulnerable.”  The crisis in the natural world has been laid bare by recent research, which illustrated that only 4% of the world’s mammals, by weight, are wild, with the other 96% made up of humans and livestock. Since 1970, populations of wild mammals, birds fish and amphibians have, on average, slumped by 60%.  Conservationists have called for a radical overhaul that would require an end to mass deforestation and the setting aside of a third, or maybe even half, of the world to nature. Looming challenges posed by climate change and a rapidly increasing human population will also have to be met if the losses are to be stemmed.  “We need international treaties that work, we need to take action together to save these species,” Ripple said. “We’ve made progress with some species, such as whales through the International Whaling Commission. We need governments to work together for other megafauna.”  The research is “another log on the fire and follows a known, disturbing narrative that we are killing species to extinction,” said Erle Ellis, an ecologist at the University of Maryland, who was not involved in the study.  “I’d be suspicious of just saying ‘stop eating them’ because while unregulated hunting is definitely a bad thing, there are species hunted like white-tailed deer that are doing just fine. Megafauna are the rock stars of the biodiversity world, so they get the money and fame. There are lots of other species that do a lot of important things that deserve some of that attention, too.”


eveningstandard--2019-07-24--South London Downs aposNational Nature Reserveapos status provides breath of fresh air for Londo

South London Downs 'National Nature Reserve' status provides breath of fresh air for Londoners

Want to catch some cleaner air in the city? London has just earned its third National Nature Reserve, the South London Downs.  Bordering Croydon and Surrey, the new reserve covers 417 hectares of land and incorporates Sites of Special Scientific Interest for nature, as well as the wildlife-friendly habitats of Coulsdon Common, Kenley Common and Hawkhirst.  Designed to preserve and protect the region's flora and fauna, it will also be used to connect Londoners with the natural environment.  The declaration comes as the Mayor’s new air quality monitors revealed quieter routes and parks have drastically lower pollution levels than main roads.  Air pollution in the form of nitrogen dioxide and particulates such as PM2.5 and PM10 cause at least 40,000 early deaths in the UK from lung and heart disease every year, with approximately 10,000 deaths in London alone.  It has also been linked to health problems for unborn babies.  However an iTree Eco Assessment for the Mayor of London demonstrated that London’s approximately eight million trees provide at least £133m of benefits a year by removing pollution, storing carbon and reducing surface water flooding.  Unveiled at the South London Down’s Discovery Day, part of the National Park City Festival, the new NNR is the second largest in London after Richmond Park, and includes the rare flower-rich chalk downland of Riddlesdown, Farthing Downs and Happy Valley.  Marian Spain, interim Chief Executive of Natural England, said: “The new National Nature Reserve will make a huge difference to South London’s wildlife and the lives of Londoners by giving them access to some of the country’s very best wildlife in beautiful open spaces right on their doorsteps, demonstrating why London is indeed a National Park City.”  Graeme Doshi-Smith, Chairman of the City of London Corporation’s Epping Forest & Commons Committee, which jointly manages the reserve with Croydon Council, said: “We are very proud to be part of London’s new National Nature Reserve - recognising the importance of these open spaces to nature and the environment.  “This site will be celebrated for years to come as an iconic natural sanctuary in South London, a haven for wildlife and a centre for learning.  “These precious sites are a natural resource for Londoners and visitors from across the UK. Together we are ensuring that they are protected and conserved for generations to come.”  England currently has 224 NNRs, 143 of which are managed by Natural England. NNR status ensures the protection of habitats, species and geology within the reserve's boundaries.


thedenverpost--2019-01-25--Bill to preserve 400000 acres of Colorado lands biggest effort in 25 years

Bill to preserve 400,000 acres of Colorado lands biggest effort in 25 years

The most ambitious effort in a quarter century to preserve mountain wilderness and historic landscapes in Colorado will launch Monday with the introduction of a bill in Congress that aims to protect 400,000 acres of public lands in the state and pay special homage to Camp Hale, home to the historic 10th Mountain Division.  The bill — dubbed the Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act — is spearheaded by U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and newly sworn U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, both Democrats.  “Public lands are really who we are in Colorado,” Neguse, who represents the 2nd Congressional District, told reporters on a conference call Friday morning. “We will be pushing hard in the 116th Congress to get this bill across the finish line.”  The bill, which goes by the shorthand CORE, is a compendium of four pieces of legislation that have been introduced over the past decade to preserve land along the Continental Divide in the White River National Forest, designate iconic peaks in the San Juan Mountains as wilderness, withdraw 200,000 acres from oil and gas leases on the Thompson Divide near Carbondale, and fix permanent boundaries around Curecanti National Recreation Area near Gunnison.  Bennet said the last time so much acreage was set aside for protection in Colorado was in 1993, when the Colorado Wilderness Act was passed by Congress.  “This covers a lot of places in our treasured state of Colorado,” Bennet said Friday of CORE.  One notable element of the bill would be the creation of the first-ever National Historic Landscape to preserve nearly 29,000 acres surrounding Camp Hale, which is located 17 miles north of Leadville. The high-altitude camp is where the Army’s 10th Mountain Division trained for combat in World War II.  Garett Reppenhagen, director of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Vet Voice Foundation, who served as an Army sniper in Iraq, said many Colorado veterans view undisturbed wilderness as a therapeutic antidote to the rigors of the battle field.  “The serenity of the natural world helped to heal my war trauma,” Reppenhagen said.  The CORE act dives into the nettlesome conflict between energy development and environmental preservation in Colorado by calling for the permanent withdrawal of approximately 200,000 acres in the Thompson Divide from oil and gas development while still preserving leaseholders’ and landowners’ private property rights.  The bill would also create a program to lease excess methane from coal mines along the Thompson Divide, which lies between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs.  Rancher Bill Fales  said the divide is in dire need of protection from energy development.  “What is on top of this land is much more valuable to us than any petroleum that may lay beneath it,” he said on the call. “Recreation and hunting are vitally important to our local economy.”  In southwest Colorado, the CORE act would protect nearly 61,000 acres of the San Juan range and would designate a number of the area’s highest peaks, including 14ers Mt. Sneffels and Wilson Peak, as wilderness. It also would designate as wilderness nearly 32,000 acres near Telluride, Norwood, Ouray, and Ridgway.  Asked how likely it would be for President Donald Trump to sign the CORE act into law if it made it through both chambers of Congress, Bennet said he had no definitive answer. But he said the legislation was too important to not push forward.  “What we know about President Trump is that he’s completely unpredictable, and in the meantime we need to do our work,” Bennet said.


thedenverpost--2019-07-05--Golden eagles survive amid suburbia of Highlands Ranch thanks to preservation of natural habitat

Golden eagles survive amid suburbia of Highlands Ranch, thanks to preservation of natural habitat

HIGHLANDS RANCH — Nesting on rocks within metro Denver’s widest expanse of suburban settlement, a pair of golden eagles recently produced two eaglets.  The eaglets just fledged, and this week were venturing away from their home made of sticks — honing skills in flying and picking off rabbits, snakes and prairie dogs.  Far more sensitive to disturbances than their bald eagle cousins, federal biologists say, golden eagles are facing habitat degradation along Colorado’s booming Front Range and increasingly are being forced out. Accelerating development surrounds these eagles’ Wildcat Mountain perch on a 150-foot cliff, a tenth of a mile from a busy road and a half mile from pastel-hued housing.  But the eagles have nested successfully for years because Douglas County officials and the developers who in the 1980s built Highlands Ranch — which now has a population of 105,000 — deliberately concentrated housing on relatively small lots. (The overall Highlands Ranch population density exceeded Denver’s before 2017.)  This configuration allowed preservation of 8,200 acres of natural habitat dubbed “backcountry wilderness,” where the eagles hunt. It adds to the 2,850 acres of green space near homes.  “People can go out on a trail, or go mountain biking, close to their homes. It makes Highlands Ranch unique. That uniqueness is going to increase as development continues to take over the Front Range,” said Mark Giebel, backcountry director for the Highlands Ranch Community Association.  The original developers wanted balance, committed to it in a 1988 open space agreement, and then completed construction.  In comparison, while Denver’s leaders traditionally platted out natural space in an effort to be “a city within a park,” they’ve failed in recent years to keep pace with population growth and now may give up some remaining open parcels for development. Mayor Michael Hancock has championed “pocket parks,” a quarter acre or smaller and partly paved to endure heavy use. A stormwater runoff burden caused by increasing “impervious” surfaces looms with costs in the billions.  Highlands Ranch residents, in contrast, can connect with nature near where they live with 46 percent of their overall 37.5 square-mile area preserved as green space. That’s five times the percentage of parkland within Denver’s 155 square miles.  “I would never not have green space — because of all the people living here,” said Libby Price, 73, a retired schoolteacher who works as a voluntary guide and protector of the golden eagles.  “It gives me such peace,” Price said. “It always gives me peace if I am sad or depressed. You just feel so much better.”  The clumped-together housing with bigger green space has led to coexistence with wildlife, including elk herds. Coyotes are common close to homes. Several bears and a few mountain lions are observed each year using 20 remote-controlled cameras.  The golden eagles survive largely because “they have a 13-square-mile healthy ecosystem where they can hunt,” Giebel said.  “If you would have had houses spread out across the 24,000 acres and had one-acre lots, you would not have this diversity of wildlife. You would not have these true conservation areas where wildlife can live unmolested by humans,” he said. “We have this huge open space. Wildlife is the priority. And there’s not the public access that leads to people loving it to death.”  A network of trails covering 26 miles — half open to the public and half for residents who pay an annual homeowner-association fee — enables strolling and cycling. Dogs aren’t allowed on the resident-only trails, and on the open county trails the rules require leashes.  “Dogs have an impact on wildlife, even when on a leash,” Giebel said, citing studies from the University of Colorado and Colorado State University.  There are challenges in this emerging coexistence.  Volunteers have spotted teenagers atop the cliff where the eagles nest. Trails to that area are closed between April and September. And volunteers say they face pushback when enforcing the dog prohibition.  Douglas County sheriff’s deputies can be called for backup. For the most part, diplomatic encouragement of compliance has worked out, Highlands Ranch officials said.  Conflicts arise as coyotes find they can thrive better by feeding on garbage near homes, drawing them into contact with domestic pets. And occasionally residents glimpse bears and mountain lions.  “We say, ‘This is the type of place animals are supposed to be,’ ” Giebel said. “When we get reports of animals, we do not say it is an emergency. We say, ‘It is very fortunate you were able to see those animals. You are visiting their home. We expect that residents from time to time will see animals.’ ”  As elsewhere around Colorado, residents increasingly demand recreation opportunities and seemingly prioritize recreation over preservation of natural processes.  “There’s always pressure to add more recreation,” Giebel said. “Trails would be an example. We may add more trails in the future, but we’ll always want to protect the areas where there is no public access. When you add trails, it changes the behavior of animals and how they use an area.”  Highlands Ranch residents said they’re glad to live in a place they’re not compelled to escape.  “Tax me for this. I will pay,” said Jennifer Letheby, 47, walking her leashed golden retriever mix on a county trail this week near the golden eagles.  Price, the volunteer, had just spotted an eaglet. “Great to know they’ve survived, but it’s not over yet.”  Relatives visiting from outside Colorado typically marvel at the options for hiking without having to drive up Interstate 70, said Annie Morse, 49, as she strolled this week.  Walking on unpaved trails feels better than walking in partially paved parks — “like you are hiking in nature,” she said.  And as housing, commercial, highway and other construction ramp up across south metro Denver, she and others in Highlands Ranch said they favored growth limits.  “It is depressing to me to see this growth sprawling,” Morse said. “At some point, you have to preserve a little of what drew people here.”


hitandrun--2019-11-18--Why Don't Environmentalists Just Buy the Land They Want To Protect? Because It's Against the Rules.

Stop me if you've heard this one before: An environmentalist walks into a federal auction and buys up the drilling rights to thousands of acres of public lands. But instead of developing the leases, he decides to keep the oil and gas in the ground, because to him the landscape is more valuable conserved than developed.  Anyone who follows environmental politics knows that environmentalists have a reputation for being more likely to lobby, litigate, or regulate than to simply pay for what they want to protect. Yet when Tim DeChristopher went to protest an energy lease auction by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2008, he tried the more direct approach. DeChristopher walked into the lease sale in Salt Lake City and ended up outbidding developers for more than 22,000 acres of drilling rights on public lands near Moab, Utah. His reward for winning: a prison sentence.  DeChristopher didn't exactly bid in good faith. As a college student at the time, he went to the auction expecting to join a group of other protesters. But when he arrived, the auctioneers asked if he was there to bid.  "They said, 'Are you here to be a bidder?'" DeChristopher later recounted. "And I said, 'Well, yes, I am.'" They handed him a bidder's paddle, and once the auction began, he started bidding for leases. The prices varied. One sold for $500, or just $2.25 per acre. Another for a mere $77. Others went for much more. Soon, DeChristopher won the drilling rights to 14 parcels for a total of $1.8 million—money he didn't have and had no intention of paying.  Auction officials eventually caught on to DeChristopher's bogus bids, and he was arrested and later sentenced to two years in prison for making false statements and interfering with a federal lease auction. And while DeChristopher became an environmental folk hero for monkey wrenching the process, the event raised a question: Why don't environmentalists just bid for leases on public land?  The answer, it turns out, is complicated. Technically, any U.S. citizen can bid for and hold leases for energy, grazing, or timber resources on public lands. But legal requirements often preclude environmentalists from participating in such markets. Federal and state rules typically require leaseholders to harvest, extract, or otherwise develop the resources, effectively shutting those who want to conserve resources out of the bidding process. Energy leasing regulations, for example, require leaseholders to extract the resources beneath their parcels. If they don't, the leases could be canceled.  What would happen if environmentalists did bid in good faith and paid for their leases? In 2016, the well-known author and environmental activist Terry Tempest Williams and her husband, Brooke, attempted something similar. But unlike DeChristopher, the pair paid for their leases and attempted to follow the leasing regulations. While attending a protest of a BLM auction in Utah, they learned that some of the leases that didn't sell could be purchased afterward directly from the agency.  "So we signed up and bought them," Brooke says. "We paid with our debit card." All it took was $1.50 an acre (plus an $820 processing fee) to secure the drilling rights to two leases comprising 1,120 acres near Arches National Park. The couple even created an "energy company," Tempest Exploration Co. LLC, and began paying the annual rental fees associated with the lease.  "We have every intention of complying with the law, even as we challenge it," Tempest Williams later wrote in a New York Times op-ed. "We will pay the annual rent for the duration of the 10-year lease and keep whatever oil and gas lies beneath these lands in the ground."  It didn't work. The BLM canceled the leases, alleging that Tempest Williams violated the "diligent development requirement" of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, which requires lessees to "exercise reasonable diligence in developing and producing" their energy resources. In an October 2016 letter, the BLM told Tempest Williams that "since you have stated publicly that you intend to keep the oil and gas resources in the ground," referring to her comments in the Times, "the lease offers are hereby rejected."  The bids by DeChristopher and the Williamses were widely viewed as gimmicks—and they were. The Williamses sought to promote the burgeoning "keep it in the ground" activist movement, which seeks to fight climate change by stopping fossil fuel extraction, while DeChristopher's bogus bidding was portrayed as an act of civil disobedience. But the examples also sparked a conversation about the core functions of the federal land leasing systems that determine the use of natural resources throughout much of the nation, and the extent to which they shut out other bidders from participating. After all, shouldn't preservationists be able to spend money on the things they value, just like anyone else?  Disputes between environmental activists and developers often have a predictable result: litigation. Environmental activists have perfected a zero-sum game of suing, suing, and then suing some more to halt development projects or other land-use activities they don't like. An alphabet soup of environmental laws—from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)—gives groups ample opportunities to stall projects with legal challenges or to thwart them entirely.  But increasingly, environmentalists are testing the strategy of bidding for the rights to natural resources instead. In recent years, activists have attempted to acquire oil and gas rights in Utah, buy out ranchers' public grazing permits in New Mexico, purchase hunting tags in Wyoming to stop grizzly bears from being killed, and bid against logging companies in Montana to keep trees standing.  "It's a market-based approach," says Judi Brawer of WildEarth Guardians, an environmental group that has negotiated several grazing permit buyouts from ranchers in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. "And it's way more effective at the end of the day."  Environmentalists paying to protect landscapes isn't itself new. Nonprofit organizations such as the Nature Conservancy do it all the time, raising millions of dollars in donations to buy land or easements to protect important landscapes from development. But the extent of these voluntary market-based exchanges is often limited to private lands. On federal and state property—which makes up most of the land in the American West—such deals are much more complicated, if not outright prohibited.  Environmentalists are often not allowed to acquire public land leases to conserve the land—at least not without considerable difficulty. And it's not due to a lack of financial resources. As Tempest Williams found out the hard way, federal and state laws typically prevent leaseholders from acquiring such rights for nonconsumptive purposes. For this reason, people who want to conserve lands often have no other option but to lobby for restrictive designations, regulate existing land practices, or file legal challenges to stop extractive activities on public lands they care about.  History helps explain why this is the case. The laws and institutions governing the use of most federal- and state-managed land emerged in the 19th and early 20th centuries for a narrow purpose: to promote the productive use of the nation's resources. Property rights were established and maintained by actively using the resources. Concepts such as "beneficial use," "use it or lose it," and "the rule of capture" undergird the legal history of U.S. land policy and still serve as the basis for many of the rules that determine the use of natural resources.  But nowadays, those institutions are often ill-equipped to accommodate new environmental demands. The typical response has been to add layers of environmental laws and regulations to these pre-existing institutions. Comprehensive land-use planning, environmental analysis, and other forms of red tape are now required for almost every federal land-use decision—all of it ostensibly designed to ensure that everyone's concerns, coupled with the best available science, are taken into account by agency experts, who will somehow divine the ideal outcome.  In reality, these layers of laws and regulations are more likely to lead to years of litigation and acrimony that leave everyone frustrated. That frustration has led some to look for other possible solutions.  "We've really gotten away from grazing litigation because it was a no-win for everyone," says Brawer of WildEarth Guardians. For decades, her group sued federal land agencies to reduce or rescind ranchers' grazing permits to protect endangered species and other wildlife. And while it still occasionally litigates, she says the overall approach has shifted to now simply trying to buy ranchers' permits.  "I think a buyout strategy is way more effective than the litigation approach," Brawer says, "because a litigation approach doesn't necessarily leave everyone happy. It probably leaves most people unhappy." Most of the time, she says, legal challenges result in small reductions in grazing on public lands, whereas a voluntary permit buyout could enable her group to remove cattle entirely from a public land allotment while also paying the rancher for the value of his permit.  That is, if the feds allow it. Like energy lease holders, federal grazing permit holders must meet certain criteria. They must, well, actually graze the land. In addition, permit holders must own a nearby "base property" that can serve as the basis for their ranching operation, and they must be "engaged in the livestock business"—an obvious impediment to any environmental group trying to acquire grazing permits.  Nonetheless, the activists at WildEarth Guardians have occasionally found ways to work around these requirements. The group has negotiated several deals to pay ranchers in New Mexico to relinquish their grazing permits while simultaneously petitioning the U.S. Forest Service to not reissue the unused permits to other ranchers. The process is tenuous—only Congress can retire a grazing allotment—and there is always the risk the agency could simply give the permit to another rancher who will put it to use.  No one understands this better than Jon Marvel, founder of the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project. Marvel made a name for himself by being the high bidder on state-owned grazing leases as a way to preserve the land for wildlife and recreation, only to repeatedly have his bids rejected by the state, which then granted the leases to ranchers instead.  Marvel says he got the idea while hiking on a small section of state-owned land in central Idaho in 1993. The land was degraded, and the nearby creek—a spawning stream for salmon and steelhead—was filled with sediment. "It was totally beat out by cattle," Marvel told me. "It was really ugly." He decided he wanted to do something about it. So he called the state agency and said he wanted to bid on the lease, which was soon to expire.  An auction was scheduled, and Marvel opened the bidding at $30. "That's too damn much, I'm not bidding," Marvel recalled the rancher who had previously held the permit saying. Marvel was the only bidder, but the rancher appealed the auction to the state land board.  The state awarded the lease to the rancher anyway, setting off a lengthy legal battle over who can bid for state grazing leases. Marvel, who recently retired, ended up devoting the rest of his career to challenging ranchers' monopoly on public grazing lands.  Marvel's focus on state-owned lands was, in retrospect, brilliant. State trust lands were granted to Western states by Congress at statehood for a singular purpose: to earn money for schools and other public institutions. States have a constitutional mandate to maximize revenues from trust lands, typically by leasing them for grazing, drilling, or logging. But "the Idaho Constitution does not give an ongoing birthright to public land grazing," Marvel told local newspapers after the state rejected his initial bids. "Other valuable uses exist on these lands."  Time and again, Marvel was the high bidder on state leases in Idaho, only to be denied the lease. (After a second auction was ordered for the initial lease, Marvel outbid the rancher $2,000 to $10, yet the state again awarded the lease to the rancher.) The state erected all sorts of barriers to disqualify Marvel, such as establishing "qualified bidder" criteria, designating "preferred" land uses, and requiring bidders to create "grazing plans." Only after such disputes came before the Idaho Supreme Court did Marvel's strategy prevail, thanks to the court's simple logic: If an environmentalist values the land more than ranchers do, then the environmentalist should get the lease.  You'd think that'd be a straightforward proposition. But opponents offer plenty of reasons to exclude environmental bidders. How would "non-use" rights work in practice, especially if agencies consider "use" as a form of necessary land management? If non-use bidders were allowed, would they prevent agencies from properly managing natural resources?  Those questions are at the forefront of several debates playing out in my backyard near Yellowstone National Park, which spans parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In one case earlier this year, a proposed timber sale on state trust lands in the Gallatin Valley near Bozeman, Montana, sparked organized opposition from a group of nearby residents. Since the state is required to generate revenue from its trust lands, the group took a page out of Marvel's playbook and attempted to bid against timber companies to keep the trees standing.  They did so under a little-known Montana law that allows non-use bidders to acquire a "timber conservation license" on state lands. The license amounts to a temporary deferment of the timber sale. To secure it, the group, known as Save Our Gallatin Front, had to first outbid loggers for the right to cut the trees.  In March, they did just that. The group outbid a logging company $400,000 to $376,000 to secure a conservation license that bars timber harvesting on the 443-acre area for the next 25 years. It marked the first time the license had been used to block an entire timber sale in Montana.  "Then we had to decide, how do we raise that much money?" says Brad Webb, a board member of Save Our Gallatin Front. The group set up a GoFundMe campaign, and the donors began pouring in. Within a few weeks, the residents had raised more than enough to pay for the license.  "I was surprised at how quickly it came in," Webb says. "People in Bozeman are attracted here for the natural amenities. So they were really teed up to support this, especially since it was preserving one of the last remaining unlogged areas near town."  But from the outset, many questions surrounded the conservation option: How long should the license last? Ten years? Or maybe 100 years—the estimated time it would take the forest to regrow? The law provided no guidance, but the state eventually settled on 25 years, at which point the timber could go back up for auction. There were also management concerns. The state argued that logging is necessary to reduce wildfire risk, and that the forest will be prone to insect infestation and disease if it isn't harvested soon. Would a conservation license prevent much-needed forest management?  Save Our Gallatin Front's victory rankled many Republicans in the state, who argued that it was a threat to the timber industry. Soon after the group won its bid, the GOP-controlled state legislature voted to repeal Montana's conservation license provision. In May, Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock signed the repeal into law, prohibiting any future use of conservation licenses on state lands in Montana.  Webb thinks the law's repeal was shortsighted and anti-competitive. "Some of the people that put this forward were less concerned about the state's fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenues," he says. "The state made more money from us than they did from the timber industry, because we won the bid. It was more, 'Let's subsidize the timber industry.'"  An ongoing debate over grizzly bear hunting near Yellowstone raises related concerns. Last year, Wyoming implemented a controversial lottery to issue licenses to hunt grizzlies, which had been recently removed from the endangered species list. Some environmentalists were outraged, and a campaign called "Shoot 'Em With a Camera—Not a Gun" emerged. The group enlisted nonhunters to pay to enter the lottery and, if awarded one of 22 bear hunting tags, to refrain from using it, thus preventing bears from being killed.  Thomas Mangelsen, a well-known wildlife photographer and outspoken critic of grizzly bear hunting, was one of the lucky few who drew a tag. His plan: "I'm going to go hunt bears with a camera," he told a local paper. "I'm going to try to get a few good pictures, and do what I applied for."  In the end, the hunt itself was shelved after a federal judge restored endangered species protections for the bears just days before hunting season began. But the idea of using hunting tags to prevent animals from being hunted had raised many concerns: If nonhunters could acquire hunting tags, would they thwart the state's ability to control wildlife populations, which is often done through managed hunting? Would allowing nonhunters to participate diminish hunters' longstanding influence over state fish and wildlife agencies?  There are other objections to non-use bidding. Public grazing leases are often interconnected with private ranchlands, and some fear opening those to environmentalist bidders would threaten the viability of rural ranching communities. And royalties derived from oil and gas extraction often provide lucrative revenue streams to federal, state, and local coffers, including public schools. Some are concerned that non-use bidders, to the extent they are allowed to prevail, could jeopardize those revenues.  The trouble is, no one is happy with the status quo either. Constant conflict and litigation are not exactly favorable to traditional land users. Livestock grazing on federal lands has declined more than 50 percent since the 1950s, in part due to environmental regulations that have weakened ranchers' grazing privileges and pitted them against environmentalists in zero-sum legal fights. Likewise, timber harvests on federal lands have fallen nearly 80 percent since the 1980s.  "The bottom line is that if a rancher gets all their cows kicked off the land [through litigation], he or she is screwed," says Brawer of WildEarth Guardians. "Buyouts provide an opportunity for ranchers."  They are also a pragmatic solution to today's grazing challenges, says Kit Fischer of the National Wildlife Federation, which has negotiated permit buyouts in the Yellowstone region using an approach similar to WildEarth Guardians'. Fischer's group, unlike some others, is not anti-livestock. It pursues buyouts in areas where ranchers frequently come into conflict with large carnivores such as grizzlies and wolves and aims to reduce the spread of disease from domestic sheep herds to wild ones.  "If we can shuffle the deck in terms of how and where grazing is done, then we're good with that," Fischer says. "We think there's plenty of room on the landscape for livestock grazing, but it takes a market solution to create those changes. Livestock producers likely won't make those changes themselves because they're invested in their allotments."  The current leasing system is not a clear win for taxpayers either. The federal government spends more money administering its grazing and timber programs than it earns from grazing leases and timber sales. And although energy development does often yield a net positive return, in some places it is likely that environmental bids could help generate even more revenue. A 2017 BLM oil and gas lease in Utah's West Desert, for instance, earned the feds less than $15,000 in revenue, with some parcels leasing for just $2 an acre. The leases occurred in prime habitat for sage grouse, a species of considerable conservation interest, leading many environmental groups to formally protest the sale.  What if those environmental groups could have directly bid on the leases instead? Surely they could have afforded it—they likely spent more in time and resources protesting the auction. Bidding would have generated more revenue while also giving environmentalists the protections they desired. But that wasn't an option.  There is widespread cynicism and skepticism about markets in environmentalist circles. And there may be legitimate concerns about how to best accommodate environmental bidding within current leasing structures. But much of the opposition is likely rooted in a desire to limit competition.  The lesson is not that energy development, logging, or livestock grazing is bad, or that every effort to stop such activities should prevail. Rather, it's that environmental values are real and legitimate, and they are best expressed in ways that acknowledge existing property rights, seek an honest bargain, and reflect the opportunity costs of the other forgone values associated with the land.  "I don't think most people are opposed to logging when it's done correctly," says Webb from Save Our Gallatin Front. "Most of us live in a house made of wood, and that wood has to come from somewhere." But Webb says there are places where other values—recreation, conservation, or natural amenities—may dominate. "If somebody loves something and wants to protect it," he says, "then let's put up the money. People value things like open space and are often willing to pay to support it."  He's right. It's clear that many people value conservation and are willing to spend money to get it—sometimes even their own money. The only question is whether those resources will be channeled through zero-sum political means or through positive-sum market mechanisms. In any case, if competing groups cannot directly acquire or trade rights through markets, whether for use or non-use purposes, the only option is to fight it out in the political and legal arenas.  So the next time you hear an environmental activist saying we need to save the trees or a Green New Dealer calling to abolish "farting cows," you might wonder what's preventing him from paying to do so right now. The answer, often, is not that he won't but that he can't.


theguardianuk--2019-04-24--From India to Ireland a week of Extinction Rebellion actions

From India to Ireland: a week of Extinction Rebellion actions

I am part of XR [Extinction Rebellion] Bhopal. The group is still in a very early phase and is working mostly on educating people about climate issues. On the evening of 15 April 2019 some school students and local activists gathered at Bhopal’s upper lake in solidarity with XR international rebellion week. There were speeches, dancing and music. A participant also read out a Hindi translation of Greta Thunberg’s speech to a large crowd.  According to some scientific reports, we might already have crossed major planetary tipping points and are already on the verge of imminent collapse by the end of the century. A more conservative assessment places that threshold 10 to 20 years away. Meanwhile, the impacts of warming and ecological collapse will continue to escalate. In India, natural gas extraction and coal-based power plants are expanding and there has been a massive increase in internal aviation transport. We need to transform or move beyond these suicidal institutions and many individuals and groups are already working on it, including our small group in XR Bhopal. I hope we will be able to sow the seeds of new institutions to support or replace the collapsing ones – without which there is no chance of maintaining a zero-emission world and no chance of avoiding extinction.  What XR has achieved would have been almost impossible to imagine this time last year. It has brought people on to the streets for the first time and in large numbers. It has done so because of the clarity of its message. I hope many more people continue to join in and for this to continue and grow, both in size and political imagination, nationally in India and internationally.   Sarthak Tomar, law student and activist, Bhopal, India  For the past six years we have been resisting environmental damage locally and trying to compel the government to act. We have been doing this single-handedly – there’s been no international support. We have been looking for solidarity. Luckily we linked with Extinction Rebellion in October 2018 and started the west Africa group covering Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Togo almost immediately after XR launched in the UK.  We started holding placards at the lorry stations. Then we went to churches. Then we went to market squares. We also go to schools. On 27 February 2018 an honourable chief of Kwashieman township, just outside Accra, declared a pan-African state of climate change emergency at an event and asked us to all join hands together in one love of ubuntunkonso, which means peaceful grassroots resistance.  We had a huge rally on 20 April in Agormanya market, near Accra, for market women. The women spoke about environmental issues – such as the pollution of Lake Volta [one of the world’s largest man-made lakes], which provides drinking water and livelihoods. Environmental issues affect women and children the most here and the market women are especially vulnerable as they can sell affected produce and rely on it to make a living. The area is quite environmentally friendly so people want to resist and air their grievances because they feel the government is not doing anything about it.  Because of the reactionary violence here, we cannot hit the streets like you are doing in the UK. It is risky and dangerous. If we did the same thing the government could clamp down on us, so we have to limit the size of our XR group and do smaller activities like holding placards at the lorry stations. We are calling on the international community to rally support for us. Our experience of XR is so far, so good! Our counterparts in London are doing their best to ensure that we are supported.  As part of the international rebellion week we served the parliamentary committee on science and technology in Ghana with a letter, asking to meet them. We want them to account for the state of the carbon footprint of Ghana. They haven’t responded yet. We also approached the UN office in Accra – they also did not respond. We asked our counterparts in London to put pressure on the Ghana government and some XR activists in London went to the Ghana high commission there to ask them to pay attention to what we are doing.  We want the president of Ghana to ensure a peaceful environment for activists to hit the streets. We want a dialogue. That is all we are seeking, we want them to act now and tell our people the truth about the climate. The majority of people don’t know about the problem and we want them to see the looming danger of climate change. It’s about time that the government educated the people on this and did something before it gets worse.  We have a huge community support base across west Africa, but because of the reactionary atmosphere we have to approach the situation carefully. Which is why not many people are involved – the number is small. But I can assure you that when we can hit the streets peacefully, we will be a bigger number than in London.  Mawuse Yao Agorkor, 39, grassroots social activist, Accra, Ghana  I was born and raised in Tokyo, but I lived in the UK for three years while I went to university where I studied conservation biology and ecology. I saw pictures of the rebellion day in London in November 2018 on social media and wished I could have been there to share the anger and passion with the protesters.  Conversations around topics such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and human rights are almost non-existent in Japan. People who talk about such topics are considered ishiki takai, which means something along the lines of “highly conscious” but with a negative connotation. It saddens me that many people, especially my age, are unaware of what is happening to our environment and in our social system. Our future depends on these things, yet we are passive.  Our group is still in its infancy – we have not had much action so far. From 15–19 April we had two to five people gather in the Shibuya district, the centre of youth culture in Tokyo, to hold some signs and try to get talking to the Japanese public (massive shout out to Peter and Jessica, who were there every day with me!). We stood behind a famous statue in the hope of photobombing tourists (both Japanese and foreign). A few people got extremely annoyed at us, but we were also able to have conversations with a couple of Japanese people.  Our Facebook group was created in December and has reached 116 members, of which 70 have joined this past week. It is obvious that the strikes in London are sparking emotion and making people want to take action here in Japan too. We are rapidly trying to get an organised system so that we can plan actions efficiently.  However, our major issue is that we are mostly foreigners living in Japan and we have almost no Japanese members. In order for XR Japan to work in Japan, we need to turn it into a movement run by Japanese people for Japanese people. In the future, I hope XR Japan can normalise speaking up and demanding change and action.   Emma Suzuki, 23, intern at an NGO in Tokyo, Japan  I live on a farm near Medellín with my wife. There I take care of my patients and we keep an orchard and take care of a goat.As lifelong environmental activists, my wife and I have worked with groups to defend the jungle and rivers in my country against the threat of large mining companies, the predatory action of the dams, the logging of forests and the constant cover-up of politicians.  When the Extinction Rebellion collective emerged in London in November 2018, we decided to join the international cause with a group of environmentalist friends. Our programme of action is inscribed within the framework of the struggles of the Latin American peoples against the neoliberal system that, by stimulating an irrational and excessive consumption, has been destroying the natural resources indispensable for the survival of our species. Meanwhile, a small group of politicians, managers and bankers accumulates exorbitant profits manifested in an offensive ostentation of wealth.  Social and environmental activities in Latin America are high-risk. Only this year, so many leaders have been killed in Colombia by paramilitary forces, who protect the unpunished actions of politicians, landowners and mining companies.  So far, the work carried out by Extinction Rebellion Colombia has involved workshops on direct non-violent action, participation in marches and protests by other social and environmental groups, a symbolic action of planting trees in a forest reserve near Medellín, and supporting the FridaysForFuture protests in Medellín and Cali.  We think that the scarce mobilisation of the public in Colombia around the climate crisis is due to the phenomenon of “the frog in the boiling pot”. When you put a frog in boiling water, the animal rages furiously to escape a fiery end. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly increase the temperature of the water, the frog will cook almost without realising it. The Colombian people – terrified by the criminalisation of social protest, anaesthetised by the media and managed by economic groups that dominate the country – ignore the crisis.  We joined the global XR movement with the conviction that only a global mass movement can stop the unhealthy actions of the capitalist system against life on the planet.   Roberto Arias, 62, physician and surgeon, Medellín, Colombia  I’ve been an environmental scientist for 20 years, living on Wellington’s beautiful south coast, and am the Wellington XR spokesperson.  We have actions planned almost every day during the rebellion week. Out of respect to the victims of the Christchurch shooting, most of our actions will be minimally disruptive yet poignant and engaging nonetheless.  On 17 April we poured sour milk on the steps of the parliament building here in Wellington while dressed as cows. In New Zealand we call milk “white gold” because it is our biggest export, but intensive dairy farming has a sour side – it has led to us having some of the world’s worst rates of extinction, water quality and habitat and biodiversity loss. Another report on the state of our environment has just come out, and it is worse than ever before. It is like reading a Stephen King novel. Us Kiwis love our country and our natural environment and we are insanely proud of it, yet we seem to be largely oblivious that multi-corporates have laid waste to our Shire just like Saruman did to Hobbiton.  Our style is typically Kiwi – it’s about having fun, while being poignant. We have our own approach: what works for Extinction Rebellion in the UK may not work in exactly the same way here. It’s of utmost importance, for example, that we honour the Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the agreement between Māori chiefs and the crown signed in 1840 – and draw on the Māori concept of kaitiakitanga, the idea of guardianship and conservation of the natural world.  I run a global research collaboration helping organisations change the behaviour of hard-to-reach energy users. It’s not about making individuals feel guilty or scared, but effecting systematic change. It’s a social justice issue as well as an environmental issue – a lot of the current language around solutions is very white middle-class so my work is about making sure no one feels forgotten or excluded.  As a coral reef ecologist, everything I love and have studied and wanted to protect all my life is dying in front of our very eyes. I can barely cope with the grief of the Great Barrier Reef – which I was so privileged to research – going extinct in my lifetime.  Extinction Rebellion is the last hope for this dying planet. That is why we are involved, because we know that science and facts did not save the Great Barrier Reef, nor the majority of our rivers here in New Zealand. Only a huge number of people willing to hold their governments, corporations and media accountable can create the system change we so desperately need. This is why I am a “rebel for life” and this is what I want Extinction Rebellion to achieve: a new eco-socialist way of life where all people and other species have the same right to live peacefully, to have clean water, land and air, and where the short-term greed of the few does not dictate the survival of all.  Dr Sea, 43, environmental scientist, Wellington, New Zealand  I’m a member of the steering committee that set up the Extinction Rebellion Ireland group at a public meeting in November 2018.  We organised our first major event to mark World Wildlife Day on 3 March 2019. We carried a coffin through Dublin city centre and gave it a mock funeral outside St Stephen’s Green shopping centre. The weather was appalling but around 300 people still turned out.  We held a day of rebellion on 19 April where we occupied a bridge in central Dublin and demanded the Irish government take urgent steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ireland has missed all of its legally binding EU emission targets and it’s time to fight back.  I was arrested this week in London while protesting in Oxford Circus and spent the day in custody. The police treated us very well – most of them are as concerned about climate change as we are. I had a conversation with one of them for about an hour, he’d studied climate change at uni and was sympathetic to our aims.  During my PhD I travelled the world hearing from scientists about the latest climate science and how we were headed for catastrophe. As a result, I travelled to the 15th UN conference of the parties in Copenhagen to urge world leaders to take effective action while there is still time. While peacefully protesting we were kettled and arrested. I felt like nothing was ever going to change. Then 10 years later I saw Extinction Rebellion occupy the bridges in London and thought “Finally! We’re rising up!” and I simply had to join in.  Extinction Rebellion uses non-violent civil disobedience, which history shows to be the most effective way to achieve change. They are using the tactics most likely to make a difference.   Ciarán Ó Carroll, 31, works for a financial services company in Dublin, Ireland  I’m an active member of Extinction Rebellion South Australia, predominately in the arts group, and initiated the #climateactionrocks action.  On 14 April we placed approximately 400 rocks painted in bright colours with non-toxic paint around the Adelaide central business district. The rocks had the Extinction Rebellion logo and the hashtag #climateactionrocks on them. We painted climate change facts on the larger rocks. This was done in the hopes of raising awareness, and generating conversation and interest around climate change issues.  I hope people may start looking into the threats of climate change and perhaps start taking action to let our governments and politicians know that even if they are not taking climate change seriously, we are.  Fear moved me to action – a fear for every living thing on this extraordinarily intricate and amazing planet we call home. Fear for all the animal and plant species that are facing extinction (or have already succumbed to it) at the hands of “human progression”. Fear that my children and their children may not even have a future to look forward to at all. The loss of our natural world terrifies me and saddens me immensely. We must change our future to a regenerative and sustainable one for the human race to survive. It’s not a “hippie” thing, it’s a survival thing!  My hopes are that Extinction Rebellion gains the momentum and people power required to force governments worldwide to take climate change seriously and start telling the truth about how scary the consequences of climate change will be if we continue with business as usual and do nothing. I believe that because XR is a global movement with new groups forming all over the world and joining forces, world leaders will have to address our demands and make the changes required to save our planet and all its inhabitants.   Ness Snedden, 49, farm worker, the Fleurieu, Australia  I’m part of the communication group of Extinction Rebellion, Belgium. We planned a few different events during the week. The kick-off action took place on 15 April: a group of people gathered in front of the European commission building in Brussels at 8am to form the Extinction Rebellion logo and read a declaration of climate and ecological emergency. A second group swarmed the Schuman roundabout near the commission building and disturbed traffic. They laid down on the street until the police arrived and took them away. During this action we were targeting the European Union in particular and its decarbonisation plan, which we find insufficient. We want Europe to put in place a truly ambitious policy, respecting the Paris agreements.  In Belgium, the mobilisation for ambitious climate measures has reached an historic level, yet many politicians continue to deny our movement and some even despise us. The mobilisation of young people has been incredible, we have never seen so many people take part in climate marches. But again, we have not yet achieved anything. Personally, I think we absolutely must move on to more disruptive modes of action in order to change things.  XR goes beyond simply criticising the existing economic and political system. The movement also wants to propose a new model of society: a more egalitarian, more horizontal, less alienating society. The preservation of biodiversity and the limitation of global warming can only be achieved through a radical overhaul of the economy. What I find relevant and realistic in the Extinction Rebellion demands is that members are well aware that this radical change in the economic system can only happen with a change in the political system towards a more direct democracy. This allows for a convergence of struggles: the members of Extinction Rebellion have clearly understood that climate justice goes hand in hand with social justice.   Jean Sobczak, 24, sociology master’s graduate, Brussels  A number of people in South Africa joined XR on the international portal in October last year, many of us after reading a George Monbiot article in the Guardian – none of us knew each other beforehand. The group have remained in close contact since, although actions in Cape Town and Johannesburg/Pretoria have been independent thus far. Through the national XR website I was contacted by Otti Neser in Pretoria. The two of us opened an XR stall at a large market in February which drew other isolated XR enthusiasts in and a network quickly started growing. We hosted the school strike for climate in Pretoria in front of the Union Buildings, the seat of national government, on 15 March, giving the children all the limelight. This enjoyed coverage by a dozen media groups, national and international. On the same day, the Cape Town XR group plus fridaysforfuture.org.za and various NGOs like 350 and Greenpeace hosted the school strike for climate as well – 2,000 children took part.  On 15 April the Cape Town branch of XR South Africa handed a document with its demands to the premier of the Western Cape province, Helen Zille. The Gauteng branch (incorporating Johannesburg and Pretoria, now known as Tshwane) assembled in front of the Gauteng provincial legislature in Johannesburg and publicly declared rebellion against inaction on the climate crisis by national and local governments.  A huge public awareness drive is necessary to build the movement in South Africa. We plan to organise flash mobs in shopping malls as well as other actions to raise public awareness and are engaging with our media in South Africa to encourage them to cover the climate crisis. Once we have sufficient numbers, we will start more direct actions until local and national governments start responding appropriately. My hope for the world is that we will unite across all boundaries, like never before, and start healing the web of life on a scale that will see us through this crisis.   Chris Engelbrecht, 60, university professor, Johannesburg, South Africa


theguardianuk--2019-09-25--Rewilding will make Britain a rainforest nation again George Monbiot

Rewilding will make Britain a rainforest nation again | George Monbiot

The forests still burn, but the world now looks away. In both [the Amazon basin](http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal-static/situacao-atual/) and the [rainforests of Indonesia](https://news.mongabay.com/2019/09 /indonesia-haze-fire-forest-jokowi-negligent/), the world-scorching inferno rages on, already forgotten by most of the media. Intricate living systems, species that took millions of years to evolve, are being incinerated in moments, then replaced with monocultures. Giant plumes of carbon tip us further into climate breakdown. And we’re not even talking about it.  But underneath the grief and frustration, I also feel disquiet. We rightly call on other nations to protect their stunning places. But where are our rainforests? I mean this both metaphorically and literally. Out of 218 nations, the [UK ranks 189th for the intactness of its living systems](https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents /conservation-projects/state-of-nature/state-of-nature-uk-report-2016.pdf). Having trashed our own wildlife, our excessive demand for meat, animal feed, timber, minerals and fossil fuels helps lay waste the rest of the world.  Among our missing ecosystems are rainforests. Rainforests are not confined to the tropics: a good definition is forest wet enough to support epiphytes – plants that grow on other plants. Particularly in the west of Britain, where tiny fragments persist, you can find trees covered in rich growths of a fern called polypody, mosses and lichens, and flowering plants climbing the lower trunks. Learning that Britain is a rainforest nation astounds us only because we have so little left.  We now know that, alongside keeping fossil fuels in the ground, natural climate solutions – using the mass restoration of nature to [draw down carbon from the air](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/19/greta- thunberg-we-are-ignoring-natural-climate-solutions) – offer perhaps the last remaining chance to prevent [more than 1.5C, or even 2C](https://www.naturalclimate.solutions/the-science), of global heating. Saving the remaining rainforests and other rich ecosystems, while restoring those we have lost, is not just a nice idea: our lives may depend on it. But in countries like the UK, we urge others to act while overlooking our own disasters.  Foreigners I meet are often flabbergasted by the state of our national parks. They see the sheepwrecked deserts and grousetrashed moors and ask: “What are you protecting here?” In the name of “cultural heritage” we allow harsh commercial interests, embedded in the modern economy but dependent on public money, to complete the kind of [ecological cleansing we lament in the Amazon](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/28/britain- national-parks-reclaim-rewild). Sheep farming has done for our rainforests what cattle ranching is doing to Brazil’s. Then we glorify these monocultures – the scoured, treeless hills – as “wild” and “unspoilt”.  When the [International Union for Conservation of Nature](https://www.iucn.org/) sought to classify our national parks, it had to invent a new category. Most of the world’s national parks are category I or II: set aside principally for nature. But all of [ours are category V](https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas- categories/category-v-protected-landscapeseascape): places where, in practice, business comes first and nature last. Much of the land in our national parks is systematically burned. In the northern parks, this destruction is [wreaked by grouse estates](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/24/grouse- estates-investigated-over-heather-burning), and in Snowdonia by farmers. But on Dartmoor and Exmoor, the [park authorities do it themselves](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2016/jan/14 /swaling-is-causing-an-environmental-disaster-on-britains-moors), torching wildlife, roasting the soil, pouring carbon into the skies: everything we condemn elsewhere.  The government’s new [Landscapes Review](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833163 /landscapes-review-final-report.pdf) is better than I expected, but its positive proposals are in no way commensurate with our ecological and climate crises. It suggests that England’s national parks and other protected landscapes should “have a renewed mission to recover and enhance nature … simply sustaining what we have is not nearly good enough”. But it does not argue that any of our parks should aim for something better than category V. Nor does it recommend that burning should cease, or that farming should withdraw from some places to allow rainforests and other rich habitats to recover. Where is the ambition our emergencies demand?  We urgently need more trees, but we appear to believe that the only means of restoring them is planting. We have [a national obsession with tree planting](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/23/call-for-1m- people-join-uk-biggest-mass-tree-planting-campaign), which is in danger of becoming as tokenistic as bamboo toothbrushes and cotton tote bags. In many places rewilding, or natural regeneration – allowing trees to seed and spread themselves – is much faster and more effective, and tends to produce far richer habitats.  Burning gorse on Dartmoor. Photograph: Marc Hill/Alamy  All over the country, I see “conservation woodlands” that look nothing like ecological restoration and everything like commercial forestry: the ground blasted with glyphosate (a herbicide that kills everything), trees planted in straight rows, in plastic tree guards attached with cable ties to treated posts. It looks hideous, it takes decades to begin to resemble a natural forest and, in remote parts of the nation, it is often the primary cause of plastic litter, much of which is never recovered. There are no woodland creation grants in this country supporting natural regeneration: public money is pegged exclusively to the number of trees planted. This is one of the reasons for the [shocking failure to meet the UK’s targets](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/13/tree-planting-in- england-falls-72-short-of-government-target) for new woodlands.  The government should follow the [hierarchical approach ](https://naturalareasblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/28/tree-planting-and-natural- regeneration/)suggested by the conservationist Steve Jones. It should fund natural regeneration wherever possible. Where trees struggle to establish themselves, it should finance assisted regeneration (clearing competing vegetation). Only where those options won’t work should it offer grants for tree planting. But while nature loves a mess, officialdom abhors one: instead of natural exuberance it seeks neat industrial rows.  Don’t expect much help from politicians. Michael Gove’s successor as environment secretary, Theresa Villiers, seems tongue-tied, apparently terrified of offending vested interests. Labour’s vote for a Green New Deal, with a 2030 deadline for decarbonisation (20 years before the government’s) is exciting. But we now need to see its commitments on industrial emissions matched by ambitious proposals for ecological restoration.  Nor are the big conservation groups filling the void. Ours is an extraordinary situation: a nation of nature lovers, obsessed by wildlife programmes, represented by gigantic NGOs, but apparently incapable of preventing the precipitous decline of wildlife and habitats. The conservation groups have manifestly failed to translate our love of nature into action.  They betray their radical roots. The National Trust [arose from the Commons Preservation Society](https://www.monbiot.com/1995/09/27/whose-nation-whose- trust/), that tore down fences to return land to the people. Now it allows the forces it once contested to ride roughshod over its land, [allowing trail hunts](https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/our-position-on-trail- hunting) and exclusive grouse shoots to erode the sense of national ownership. On its Exmoor estate, in the resource book it publishes for school teachers, it celebrates burning the land. The RSPB was founded by women seeking to ban the import of birds’ plumage for hats – they eventually succeeded. Now, as independent ecologists raise massive petitions to [ban driven grouse shooting](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/266770), the RSPB undermines their campaigns by calling for this [devastating practice to be, er, licensed](https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/martinharper/posts/why- we-need-a-review-of-driven-grouse-moor-management-in-england). Hesitation and appeasement reign.  We should continue to mobilise against the destruction of the world’s great habitats, and its terrifying implications. But the most persuasive argument we can make is to show we mean it, by restoring our own lost wonders.  • George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist


thetelegraph--2019-05-30--The eco-resort thats taking on the government to save Americas wild mustangs

The eco-resort that's taking on the government to save America's wild mustangs

Velvet and I breathed in the dry, dusty heat of the Nevada desert and the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. Surrounding us were around 200 wild mustangs – some grazing contentedly, some with fiery eyes, gambolling, prancing and kicking up the dirt. I leant forward to stroke my horse’s arched neck, whispering her name to keep her calm, and wondered if she might be sensing that visceral call of the wild, a call from her past when she, like the other mustangs all around us, would have galloped freely across the vast, open ranges of the Wild West.  Wild mustangs were introduced to America by the conquistadors in the 16th century. By the 19th century, they were playing a vital role in the country’s history, carrying intrepid pioneers and California gold rush miners to their fortunes. As recently as 100 years ago, some two million mustangs roamed these lands. Now they are viewed as destructive pests damaging the environment and depleting the prairies, with the US government asserting that today’s population is around 70,000, is rising unsustainably, and must be controlled to protect the range.  Velvet is one of the lucky ones. Along with 600 other horses, her home is Mustang Monument in north-eastern Nevada, a luxury eco-resort on a ranch which, at 900 square miles, is around the size of the Lake District National Park. It is owned by ardent animal lover and philanthropist Madeleine Pickens, who seeks to preserve equine heritage through her foundation Saving America’s Mustangs. She hotly disputes the government figures, believing they are greatly exaggerated to justify mass killings.  Pickens has had a rough ride. Mustang Monument opened in 2014 in the heart of cattle-ranch country where livestock roams on public ranges, sharing them with wild mustangs: the debate around the conservation of mustangs is entrenched and bitter. Campaigners believe the relationship between influential ranchers, their lobbyists and the government’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is too cosy and the survival of wild mustangs is at stake.  In 2016, trespassers sabotaged a remote area of Pickens’s ranch, cutting the fences, destroying the water supply and causing the deaths of several horses. This, and bureaucratic battles with the authorities, affected her deeply. Feeling the need to step back a while, she closed Mustang Monument – but this year she is back: her not-for-profit eco-resort reopens on June 1, though I was lucky enough to stay there ahead of the launch.  My first sighting of the mustangs was all it took to understand Pickens’s passion. We rode on an open wagon piled with hay, pulled by two chunky black and white draught horses, and soon found ourselves encircled by around 150 wild mustangs. Palomino, grey, roan, bay, dun, paint, chestnut, white, buckskin, brown and black – a mesmerising, rich palette of horse colours scampered around us. Some were feisty, wild-eyed, biting or kicking would-be infiltrators to their groups, with ears back and manes so long they looked like dreadlocks. Others were calm, serene almost, waiting patiently for their food.  “They were rags and bones when we first got them,” said Clay Nannini, Pickens’s ranch manager. “But they’re looking pretty healthy now.”  Using helicopters, the BLM regularly rounds up wild mustangs on the ranges, causing terror and injury, then keeps the horses captive in publicly funded corrals or holding stations. Some 46,000 mustangs are currently being held this way, waiting to be adopted or to die. Many are eventually sold on to slaughterhouses in Canada or Mexico and the adoption process has struggled.  “After [the financial crash of] 2008 people couldn’t pay their mortgages, so they sure as hell weren’t going to adopt a mustang,” Nannini explained. Pickens’s sanctuary, with tourism at its heart, is one solution.  “Americans don’t think of mustangs as their heritage,” Pickens told me. “They have this habit of picking up a new toy and running with it, abandoning the old ones. I’m doing what I can to change that, to save this heritage and tell the story, even if it’s just one small piece of it. But tourists will spread the story and make it work. They will be the messengers.”  If Pickens brings passion to the wild mustangs’ plight, Nannini brings pragmatism. A rodeo champion, he is everything you imagine a cowboy to be, with wry humour, entertaining tales and an easy manner. “Ranchers don’t like change, I don’t begrudge them that,” he stated matter-of-factly of their difficult neighbours. “The horses affect their livelihood.”  Nothing gives a sense of these horses better than riding them and the following morning, with some trepidation, I embarked on my first hack. I’m no expert, having grown up pony-trekking on Welsh cobs but barely ridden since. I’d heard mustangs were feisty, and assumed I’d be riding a quieter quarter horse.  Instead, I was introduced to Velvet, a brown and white “paint” mustang as soft as her name implies with endearing chocolatey eyes. Her huge Western saddle engulfed me: with its intricately embossed leather, vast stirrups and a horn to hold on to at the front, I began to believe I might just make it as a cowgirl.  With six other guests, I rode up Spruce Mountain along winding sandy tracks, stunned at how responsive, gentle and forgiving of my inexperience Velvet was, despite having once been wild. The distant haze from wildfires and dust gradually gave way to clear vistas of the Ruby Mountains, named after the red glow of sunrise on their snow-covered slopes in wintertime. We passed Sprucemont, a tumbledown ghost town where miners lived from the 1880s to the 1940s, with narrow, rickety shafts descending 100ft or more and piles of stones that once were homes. An eerie silence seeped from the relics, evoking a sadness of times gone by, of hopes abandoned in mounds of rubble untouched for years.  After a picnic lunch on the mountain, I rode back and was introduced to some of the other mustangs. Mary was a bit of a glutton, grabbing mouthfuls of grass at every opportunity; The Methodist was an imposing, grandiose guy; Marvin was sprightly and easily agitated, always restless; and the unfortunately named Pantyhose, so-called because of his four white socks, was playful and boisterous like a naughty toddler. Velvet, thankfully, stayed calm and unperturbed throughout.  “You see, these were wild – they’re mustangs,” said Pickens, “and yet they are the sweetest horses you could ever get.” Savvy and sassy, she is regularly interviewed on TV and radio as a campaigner for the mustangs’ cause. Born in Iraq, educated in England and France and now a US citizen, she looks younger than her 60-something years and does cowgirl chic with effortless style.  Her ranch, too, brims with Wild West vibe. The 10 cottages and a new exclusive-use homestead are styled in rustic luxury with exposed wood walls, sumptuous beds, and terraces looking out to the prairies where horses graze. Spacious, funky tepees with leather and wood furnishings and what look like merry-go-rounds of mustangs painted on the canvas will be available again from 2020. A chic dining room has recently been built and the saloon, once an old tractor shed, is furnished with bar stools made from saddles. Elegant candlelit dinners are served on the terrace under the stars, and we went to bed to a distant soundtrack of howling coyotes and a hooting owl.  The following morning, mesmerised by its raw beauty, we drove for two hours to Goshute Valley, which lies within Pickens’s property.  “This valley is so big, I always say you could watch your dog run away for three whole days and he still wouldn’t be out of sight,” Nannini said. A distant trail of golden dust revealed not dogs but wild horses coursing through the valley, as integral to the landscape as the cedar trees, the aromatic white sagebrush and juniper, and the rugged mountain ranges.  Aside from riding, Mustang Monument offers activities such as off-road driving, archery, hiking and abseiling. But, smitten by Velvet, I chose one last ride for my final day.  We headed to the prairie where the mustangs are fed, planning to drive them passively towards the hay wagon. They didn’t need much driving. Seeing us in the distance, 80 horses galloped off in clouds of dust, manes and tails flying in the breeze. “When one wild horse runs, they all run,” Nannini explained. “Then they ask questions later...”  Ranch cowboy Ken Barry gave me some advice: “As we get closer to the wild ones, our horses could get a bit arsey, so be careful.” His horse, a beautiful dapple called Dove, seemed wilder than the rest, dancing on the spot, ears forward, sensing the freedom of the wild ones, longing to run.  Velvet, too, was keen to go. As we approached some water channels, Barry shouted: “Hold on to your saddle horn, Sue. Velvet likes jumping these.” Right on cue, seemingly in slow motion, we flew over the water, with me clinging on and grinning like an exhilarated child.  Eventually, around 200 mustangs surrounded the wagon where the hay had been scattered. We moved closer, quietly watching them feed. Suddenly, something spooked a wild one. He bolted. Whinnying like crazy, others bolted, too, and a thundering drumroll of hooves in their hundreds stampeded, into clouds of dust and a blur of beauty and power. Our horses started neighing, too, scraping the ground and shifting around, sensing the tension but thankfully staying put.  Gradually, the horses and the dust settled. Now completely encircled by mustangs, we stood in spine-tingling silence, feeling their innate spirit and energy, moved by their sense of freedom. These horses are the very soul of this land, the essence of its dramatic beauty and wildness. Not quite believing I was right in among them on my own mustang, I’d never felt more alive. Quietly, I stroked Velvet’s neck and thanked her for staying so calm and gracious, and for letting me share this moment.  Mustang Monument (001 888 979 1422; mustangmonument.com) is open from June 1 until mid-September. The ranch is a not-for-profit foundation, supporting the care and preservation of the wild mustangs. Rates are $900 (£710) per person per night, based on two people sharing with full board and including all drinks. Activities are charged separately. A two-hour excursion on the wagon to feed the horses costs $250 per person. A day ride up Spruce Mountain costs $475 per person. Guests usually stay for three nights, arriving on Thursday and departing on Sunday. Delta Air Lines (delta.com) flies direct from London Heathrow to Salt Lake City, with fares from £925 return.


eveningstandard--2019-02-18--How to see lemurs in the wild and help save them from extinction

"You awwwww-riiiiiiiight?” The Cockney-esque wail of the indri lemur rings through the trees. It’s a hauntingly beautiful sound. Fellow indri respond, their cries echoing through the rainforest. They sound all right to us. You can’t always see them  — but you sure can hear them.  At the risk of neckache, you look high up for a glimpse. And when you do, it’s borderline magical. When a lemur makes eye contact, you see how extraordinary they are: wide-eyed, monkey-esque in their manner, teddy bear-esque in their charm. Unique to Madagascar, an island mass separated from the African continent 165 million years ago while attached to India, lemurs have evolved in their own way (some were the size of gorillas).  But it’s not all fun and games. A report from 2018 says almost all 100 species are at risk of extinction, with the goblin-like, nocturnal aye-aye lemur on the brink of it. Habitat loss from logging and zebu cattle farming, and hunting are the greatest menace. Conversely, lemur “parks” have increased, though they’re not a long-term solution.  It’s lemurs in the wild, though, that will sustain Madagascar’s tourism. Visitors travel four hours from the capital Antananarivo (Tana for short)  to see indri, found only in the eastern rainforests of Andasibe-Mantadia National Park, alongside other species including diademed sifakas, a majestic lemur known for its comical, dancing-and-jumping style on hind legs. Baby lemurs are plentiful in November and Mantadia’s dense primary rainforest is a reassuring sight — my travel companion and photographer can’t change his lenses fast enough.  Our driver Toky says: “There are more protected areas, some privately run, and that’s good for wildlife. But threats remain: illegal logging of prized rosewood trees, for example. There’s a long way to go.”  It’s a sentiment echoed by Florent, our guide at Analamazaotra forest and Mitsinjo’s community-run reserve within Andasibe-Mantadia. “More than 90 per cent of Madagascar’s original forests no longer exist. Some loss was inevitable,” he explains, “but much was avoidable.”  Hope comes by way of community and eco-tourism — although if not executed well, those can be dirty words. In theory, local people look after natural resources; tourist numbers rise and all benefit. “Madagascar’s conservation, however, isn’t always high on the national agenda, corruption is rife and development rushed. Responsibility often falls to NGOs, donors and wildlife charities.  Some 400km south of Tana is Ranomafana National Park, by the Namorona river. Here, Professor Jonah Ratsimbazafy is adviser for the Lemur Conservation Network at ValBio primate research centre. “Communities must feel they’re the owners of their natural resources,” he says. “But more than 50 per cent of Malagasy are illiterate. Conservation is difficult when there’s little access to education, food and healthcare.  “Madagascar is one of the world’s poorest countries — but the lemurs are our geese laying the golden eggs.”  Ranomafana has been a protected area since 1991, after Dr Patricia Wright discovered endangered golden bamboo lemurs in 1986. Its towering ferns, ancient trees and plant life are home to 12 lemur species. It’s here where we spot the two greater bamboo lemurs, a father and daughter; golden bamboo lemurs; and, by night, mouse (the smallest) and dwarf lemurs. It’s astonishing how close you can get — with few predators, there’s little to fear on home turf.  “There’s a Womble in the tree,” I whisper to my guide, Stefan. He looks puzzled. Wombles are endemic to Wimbledon, I tell him, and later, when I show him a photo on my phone, he gets it. Part-Womble, part-panda, part-dog, this black-and-white ruffed lemur is attempting a siesta, draped over a branch, legs dangling. Occasionally, he lifts his head and stares (“you still here? I’m trying to sleep”). His companion is upside-down in a neighbouring tree.  The action isn’t all in the branches. Madagascar, just 0.4 per cent of the planet’s landmass, has five per cent of the world’s biodiversity, of which more than 80 per cent is endemic. Brilliant red millipedes, painted Mantella frogs, comet moths, giant snails, tree snakes, bright-green geckos, multicoloured chameleons, teeming birdlife, a thousand species of orchid... With so many natural sightings, it’s easy to forget their predicament. And the solutions don’t come easy. “Many feel tourism money goes to people in the capital Tana,” Stefan says. “Local people don’t always get the benefits.”  In Anja reserve, along the scenic RN7 between Ranomafana’s rainforests and the semi-desert of Isalo National Park in southern Madagascar, community tourism is working well.  The reserve is home to around 400 ring-tailed lemurs, and guides, restaurants and lodges have benefited, with visitors staying in nearby Betsileo or stopping en route to Isalo — close to our hotel, Le Relais de la Reine. “It’s like Hamleys released all its soft toys,” says my partner, snapping away. Ring-taileds and their babies are on the ground, in the trees, everywhere. But for how much longer? “Tell people to go now,” Toky says. “While everything’s still here.”  Ten days, a thousand kilometres and eight parks later, I understand this “carpe diem”. The research and initiatives are positive but nothing’s guaranteed. Madagascar’s lemurs (and reptiles, frogs, butterflies, birds, flora) must be seen: by as many as possible and as soon as possible.  Rainbow Tours’ “Classic Madagascar Overland: the RN7 Route and Andasibe” trip costs from £4,575pp for 15 nights half-board including transfers, internal flight, driver and park fees. rainbowtours.co.uk  Ethiopian Airlines flies daily to Antananarivo via Addis Ababa from £512pp. ethiopianairlines.com


france24--2019-10-16--Kenyan farmer saves thirsty wildlife from drought

I started doing this in March 2016. There was a very big drought and it killed a huge number of animals [editor’s note: the entire country was experiencing a drought at this time].    I found a buffalo sniffing at an empty water hole; it was clearly very thirsty. Then it just clicked in my mind. When thirsty animals try to find water, they often go to where humans live. This creates conflict between humans and animals, who sometimes kill or injure one another, and property gets destroyed. So rather than them come to us, I wanted to bring water to them.        I rented a truck from a town called Voi, and started making the 140-kilometre round trip from the town to the watering hole up to five times a day. By the time I got home in the evening, it was dark. Initially, I used my own money to rent the truck and buy water from the local water authority [at around €27 per 10,000 litres], but eventually people started chipping and I was able to buy a vehicle.  At first, a lot of people told me, “Let nature take its course.” But I said, “This is not nature, it’s global warming. It’s the fault of what human beings are doing, and we’re supposed to be responsible for our actions.”


activistpost--2019-01-16--Police Seized My Clients Children Because They Homeschooled Last Week a Court Ruled It Was OK

Police Seized My Clients’ Children Because They Homeschooled. Last Week a Court Ruled It Was OK

The Wunderlich family wanted to do what thousands of families in America do with no questions asked: educate their children at home.  But homeschooling is not allowed in Germany, and the state has relentlessly pursued the Wunderlichs and even seized their children. One morning in August 2013, 33 police officers and seven social workers showed up at their front door, threatening to open it with a battering ram. The parents cried as their children were carried screaming out of their home.  The children were later returned but were ordered to attend public school. Since then, the Wunderlichs have continued their fight in court, ultimately reaching the European Court of Human Rights.  Last week, they lost their case. The court sided with Germany, reaffirming that Germany’s ban on homeschooling does not violate the family’s rights under international law.  I represent the Wunderlich parents. The question I most commonly get from people when I explain their case is, “But what’s so bad about school?”  I understand where they’re coming from. I went through a state school system and, generally speaking, didn’t mind it. But the fact that I did not “mind” school and the fact that the person asking the question doesn’t see any problems with state-run school, misses what this case is about.  The Wunderlichs’ case was never about whether state-run schools are good or bad but about who has the right and the responsibility to raise children.  Parents are the natural nurturers of children. They create children, provide for them, and make a whole host of judgments about how they will raise them. Education is just one of those areas of parental judgment.  It’s hard to imagine many decisions bigger than where your child will go to school. Indeed, in my country, parents literally sell homes and move to the other side of the same street to get into a particular school’s zone in order to make the educational choice they want.  Dirk and Petra Wunderlich wanted that same freedom. For a combination of religious, philosophical, and practical reasons, they decided they wanted to educate their children at home.  And they are not alone. Millions of other parents have decided to homeschool their children, too. In fact, homeschooling is growing in many parts of the world, and statistics from the US estimate that more than two million American children are homeschooled. This right is protected by every major human rights treaty that exists. Major documents like the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.  Germany has agreed to be bound by these documents and yet is one of the very few countries that do not allow homeschooling, going so far in some states as to criminalize parents who try.  The German rationale is to prevent “parallel societies” from emerging. Lawyers representing the state presented this rationale to the European court without any evidence to support it as a theory.  We presented evidence to the contrary, showing that in countries with the longest history with homeschooling and the highest number of homeschoolers, the practice is tested, credible, and continues to grow.  Yet the court sided with Germany.  We should all be worried when the state overrides a parent’s decision based on the vague notion that it will be “better for society.”  Even the German government’s early findings show that this case should never have been brought.  Prior to the children’s removal, the Wunderlichs met with an official from the Youth Welfare Office who reported positively about their homeschooling situation: “We had the impression that all children were developing according to their age. On the part of the Youth Welfare Office there is currently no need for action.” But the schooling authority disagreed. In a response we have now obtained, this official—who had not visited the home and had not met with the children—wrote, “I am certainly of the opinion that there is a danger to the children, because they are systematically withdrawn from all social aspects of society and live in a so-called parallel society.” That is raw ideology, not concern for the children. And that’s what is really at issue in this case. The people who have consistently shown the most concern for these children through proceedings are the parents, who have fought for justice ever since their children were seized. From the beginning, they chose to live a more frugal life so they could be at home with their children as they grew up. In its decision last week, the European Court of Human Rights has undermined its claim to being the “conscience of Europe” and pitted parents against children. The court was set up to adjudicate disputes between individuals and the state, and yet it misframes this case as one in which the courts must mediate between parent and child: “[International law] requires that a fair balance must be struck between the interests of the child and those of the parent.” The overt assumptions here—that parents do not have their children’s best interests at heart and that the state knows better—should trouble any parent, whether your children are educated at home or at school. This article was reprinted from The Daily Signal and was sourced from FEE.org