The American Gray Wolf has made such a strong comeback under the protection laws, that they are now considering removing that protection. The way they are selling this is that it's good news that a species can come off the endangered list. Nonetheless it scares me a little to think that it opens them up to be shot by hobby hunters with their high-powered rifles, who we all know are dying for a bit of biffo with a top predator.
"This is a moment in which we can take great pride in achievement, both of people and in nature," Norton said at a wildlife science center in front of a pen containing six wolves, which watched their human audience with some curiosity.I've been a follower of the American Wolf cause since I was over there in the '70s, and this recent development just... irks me. Is it just me?
Norton announced a proposed rule that would lift protection under the Endangered Species Act for gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan — where the population has grown to 3,200 animals — as well as in at least 20 other states. The proposal calls for states to assume management of the gray wolf populations in those states.
The gray wolf nearly disappeared in the lower 48 states in the 1950s.
The rule change includes New England, where conservationists fear that loss of federal protection would hurt attempts to develop future wolf populations through migrations from Canada.
I can understand that for some years in Minnesota now, that the wolves have come back in such force that it is affecting the local ranching industry, so the voice to remove it from protection is understandable. I'd be pissed too if wolves just got a free pass to knock over my cattle. I always felt that there had to be a better way to compensate for these damages, but removing it from protection seems like a big step back.
To be frank, I'm not really a touchy feely hug the trees kind of conservationist, but for some bizarre reason I'm interested in the preservation of top predators like Killer Whales and Polar Bears and Lions and Tigers and Cheetahs and Eagles. It's a subject area within the conservation movement that fascinates me. Must go ask my analyst what that means. :)
"Go ahead chop down the trees but keep your hands off my angry feral top predator!"
- Art Neuro
3 comments:
I think it is important to preserve our top predators. We will need them for future uplift projects.
Latham's lacking in the crunch - Piers Akerman
July 18, 2004
OPPOSITION Leader Mark Latham's claim to financial credibility has been shot to pieces by international accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
The giant number-crunching organisation was forced to issue an unusual statement, spelling out its role in ALP's budgetary process after Mr Latham and shadow treasurer Simon Crean falsely said that Labor's election promises would be fully audited by PwC.
According to PwC, that is over-stating the terms of PwC's engagement with the ALP more than somewhat. It will not audit or verify Labor's election spending commitments.
Mr Latham had earlier claimed that the ALP had appointed PwC to "independently audit our funding and our commitments" but the statement released by the firm's chief executive, Tony Harrington, clearly says: "Procedures we will perform do not constitute either an audit or review in accordance with the Australian Auditing Standards and, accordingly we will not express any assurance or opinion on the financial impact of the ALP 2004 election commitments.
"We will express no opinion as to whether the actual costs and savings of any initiative will be consistent with the ALP's estimated costs and savings.
"Given that we will not have access to Treasury or departmental information in the conduct of this assignment, we will rely on the truth and accuracy of all information and material provided to us by or on behalf of the ALP.
"We will make no express or implied assurances, comment or evaluation of the appropriateness or feasibility of the ALP's election commitments or their impact in terms of social desirability, efficiency or equity; or the assumptions provided by or used by the ALP for costing purposes."
In essence, the ALP has hired PwC to add up the figures the ALP provides to the accounting firm – a task any clown with a computer could manage.
What the ALP attempted to do was use the PwC brand as a fig leaf to reassure voters that an analytical and ethical rule has been run over its costings. PwC however saw through Mr Latham's wheeze and didn't want to be party to the deception.
Labor's costings and commitments will not be "independently audited" as Mr Latham has claimed. Treasurer Peter Costello has offered Treasury and Department of Finance resources to Labor so that the two parties can compete on a level playing field.
But Mr Crean has refused that offer, claiming that it would force the ALP to abide by the Government's timetable. He said Labor costings would add up and PwC are checking that they do add up.
"We will submit (policies) in accordance to the charter of budget honesty, but we are not waiting for that, nor to be reliant on just the Treasurer's or Treasury's timetable. That's why we have engaged PwC," he said.
Under the charter of budget honesty, either party may request costings of their election programs from the Department of Finance and Treasury once the election is called and the bureaucracy enters the caretaker period.
Mr Latham is no stranger to jiggery pokery when it comes to numbers. He has long maintained that he left the Liverpool Council in surplus after his stint as mayor in the early 1990s, but he has never produced evidence to support this claim.
A recent analysis of the council's accounts during Mr Latham's mayoralty actually paints a very grim picture of his fiscal management skills.
It showed that the working funds balance was in surplus to the tune of $952,000 in 1991. By June 1994, just a few months before Mr Latham left, it was in deficit to $2.7 million.
According to The Daily Telegraph's local government roundsman Mark Skelsey, the figure bounced up to a $321,000 deficit by June 1995, but by June 1996 the deficit was $6.536 million. The council was insolvent, the local government department placed it on its "watch list" and a special levy had to imposed to get the budget back to pre-Latham levels.
The only individual who backs Mr Latham's unsupported claims is the council's former general manager, John Walker, a Latham appointee.
Those who know most about Mr Latham's mayoralty, the ratepayers of Liverpool, were hit with an average $40-a-year rate hike in 1997 to pay-off the Latham legacy, a $9 million deficit. No need to call in an international accounting firm to verify that number, just ask residents of Liverpool.
Now, Mr Latham is promising Australians he can deliver $9 billion of savings – unaudited and unverified savings.
The ALP's dream team consists of Mr Mark "Liverpool deficit" Latham, Mr Kim "Collins sub" Beazley and Mr Simon "ACTU" Crean and it's selling itself as an experienced team.
Outside the Liverpool council fiasco, Mr Latham'd had no experience except as a Labor hack, Mr Beazley's defence credentials are over-shadowed by the blow-out in costs of the submarine deal and the merest prospect of anyone with Mr Crean's close links to the trade union movement getting close to the levers of power is enough to send the Australian economy into a tailspin.
To that awesome mix, add Mr Latham's outrageous attempt to pass-off Labor's bodgie budget figures as fully audited and verified, and the real picture of this dream team emerges.
As PwC might say if it were able to run a proper audit of Labor's campaign: it just doesn't add up.
akermanp@sunday telegraph.com.au
The Sunday Telegraph
If things are meant to be so good under John howard, how come my life sucks so bad right now? :)
Post a Comment