Category Archives: Environmental Security

TV Ads From Defenders of Wildlife Thrown Out: Group Called False and Misleading by Gregory Hilton

KOAT-TV in New Mexico has removed an ad sponsored by the liberal environmental group Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The ad began airing last Thursday, and similar to 2008, its target is former Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM). The TV station acted after receiving documentation that many accusations in the ad were false. According to the group New Mexico Watchdog: “The ad cited a report by CREW, which later admitted it botched its investigation. Continue reading

Advertisements

In Court Today: Environmentalists Sue Obama Administration by Gregory Hilton

Do sheep deserve protection? The environmentalists don't think so.

Do sheep deserve protection? The environmentalists don't think so.


In Court Today: Environmentalists Sue Obama Administration by Gregory Hilton —
The major environmental groups howled when George W. Bush removed more than 1,650 gray wolves in Montana and Idaho from the endangered species list in May 2008. They said Bush wanted to eradicate all wolves, was cruel to animals and “the decision demonstrates why he is the worst environmental president in history.”
The Bush action was prominently featured in literature last year advocating the election of Barack Obama. It was not surprising when Bush’s decision was suspended during Obama’s first week in office under a broad directive by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
The radical environmentalists cheered their victory, but what they did not realize was that Obama would appoint former Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) as Secretary of the Interior. He is a rancher and a lifetime member of the Cattlemen’s Association who is familiar with the damage caused by wolves.
On March 6th of this year Secretary Salazar supported the Bush Administration’s edict regarding wolves. Salazar supported the unanimous recommendation of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists in backing the Bush policy, and said “This was a decision based on science.” Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) preferred a decision based on politics. He organized a Congressional letter of protest that was sent to the White House. Dicks said “I just don’t see what this does for us. Here we are alienating people who did the most — who did a lot to help us in the last election.”
Management of the animals now lies with the states, and for the first time in three decades both Montana and Idaho have planned wolf hunts this fall. The Fish and Games Departments in both states had previous written to the other 48 states asking if they would be able to manage wolves. Idaho and Montana offered to capture and transport the wolves free of charge, but no one has expressed an interest.
A coalition of 13 environmental groups has asked U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy to stop the hunts and put wolves back on the endangered species list. The groups include the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, PETA and the Natural Resources Defense Council. A hearing is scheduled today – the same day wolf hunting permits go on sale in Montana.
Montana’s wolf season calls for a harvest of 75 animals, while Idaho is allowing 220. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park some 15 years ago, and their numbers grow by about 20 percent a year. Several years ago wolves reached the population threshold and other milestones federal officials set as requirements to remove them from the federal endangered species list.
For the past 14 years the residents of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have stood by as deer, elk and moose populations have been decimated. Ranchers could not do anything when their lively hood was eaten before their eyes. As usual, the environmental lobby is completely distorting the situation. The Defenders of Wildlife have established a http://www.savewolves.org website with a video narrated by Ashley Judd. Wolves are portrayed a cute and cuddly creatures similar to dogs. Of course they do not mention the reasons for the Bush/Obama policy and they offer no management program of their own. They want you to believe that the only reason for the policy is to allow innocent wolves to be used as target practice by aggressive hunters.
No one is trying to eradicate wolves. These states have monitored hunting seasons, and they do not allow wolves to be killed out of season. For some reason the environmentalists have made a poster child out of the wolf, but once again, they are completely ignoring other species such as elk, moose, deer, sheep and cows.
The environmental groups claim wolves are beneficial to the elk population but the statistics do not support that claim. A 2008 study conducted by Montana State University of Yellowstone’s Northern Range demonstrates wolves are responsible for a 67% decline in the elk population. The highlights are as follows:
The Elk population in 1993 –1995 averaged between 17,000 and 19,000
•Wolves were re-introduced in 1995
•Elk numbers 2005 –2007 Averaged between 6,300 and 6,700
Ed Bangs, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf recovery coordinator for the northwestern United States, told the Associated Press last week that gray wolves will be able to withstand regulated hunting in Idaho and Montana because the states have pledged to maintain a strong wolf population, and the animals will be able to migrate and interbreed with thousands of gray wolves in Canada. “Right now the wolf population is highly diverse. We’ve done as much as we can,” Bangs said. “The science is absolutely rock-solid.”
The voice of many frustrated ranchers was expressed in this letter to the Department of the Interior.
“Dear Secretary Salazar:
Thank you for making the right decision on wolves, and I am so pleased a western rancher such as your self is now in office. As you well know, wolves kill cows, sheep, coyotes, elk, deer, moose and other animals that are otherwise healthy, without need. They will kill whatever they can, and then move on, making a new kill every chance they get.
These environmental groups would have a different attitude if they spent time working, eating, sleeping and breathing with a herd of cattle or a band of sheep.
“I wish they would spend a year feeding the mothers, and bringing the babies into this world during the cold days and dark nights. We then spend our days keeping them fed and healthy. It is very frustrating to see them not killed for food, but torn to bits and left to slowly die just so a pack of wolf pups can play and learn to hunt. If one of these environmentalists was a western rancher they would have a different attitude. I don’t hunt much anymore, but I do help put food on the tables of the world.”

Cap and Trade Appears to be Dead by Gregory Hilton

The August recess has had a major impact and 15 Democratic Senators are now on record against cap and trade. 60 votes are needed for passage but they only have 45. The deadline set by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is September 28th, and while the White House will not admit it is over, there is now no way the Senate will accept the economy killing measure which has been passed by the House.
Senator Reid reaffirmed today that a vote will be held in September. The Senate is likely to pass legislation requiring the use of renewable energy, but not cap and trade. Now our electrical bills will not be increased 80%. Cap and trade would have been a great issue to use in the 2010 campaign, but none of us would have wanted to see the economic damage when we are still in a recession. The Republicans stayed united and the victory would not have been possible without the moderate Democrats.
It is always good to be cautious and many Democrats are saying the energy bill should be split with cap and trade being addressed in the next session. The liberals appear to know cap and trade is already dead in this session.
Josh Nelson wrote in the Huffington Post, “President Obama is well on his way to squandering the best political environment we have ever had, without using an ounce of political capital to improve the legislation.” Joe Klein in Time said, “the Waxman-Markey energy bill passed by the House is an excellent candidate for euthanasia. It is a demonstration of all that’s wrong with the legislative process.”

Where is the Environmental Lobby? By Gregory Hilton

Gov. Sarah Palin is shown wearing a polar bear pin.

Gov. Sarah Palin is shown wearing a polar bear pin.


Where is the Environmental Lobby? By Gregory Hilton–
A strange silence has descended over the nation’s environmental lobby. Their conduct is similar to what has already happened to the anti-war lobby. Two years ago “peace activists” were livid when a 21,000 troop surge for Iraq was announced, and massive demonstrations were held in all major cities. They said the surge would lead to the death of innocent civilians.
Two months ago President Obama initiated a 21,000 troop surge in Afghanistan, and a week ago today over 120 innocent civilians were killed in a U.S. drone attack. Hardly anyone has made a comment.
The environmental lobby is also silent. They had a major role in the 2008 campaign, and they have an effective grassroots network. These activists were out in force last year and they were expressing outrage about the plight of the polar bear.
There favorite target was Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) who did not want polar bears listed under the Endangered Species Act. Greenpeace said Palin’s position was “putting the polar bear at risk of extinction.” MSNBC said the GOP candidate was “covering up evidence that polar bears are endangered.” The Defenders of Wildlife spent $300,000 on TV commercials denouncing Palin’s attitude toward the bears.
On September 26, 2008, 61 Nobel laureates announced their endorsement of Barack Obama, and many of the questions they received concerned Palin and polar bears. They said the Governor’s position would “lead to more polar bears dying of starvation and drowning, and more being killed by wealthy trophy hunters. As governor, she has been a disaster for polar bears and other wildlife.” It was interesting that many of the people leading the campaign for the polar bears had never visited Alaska.
Now the Obama Administration agrees with Palin. Last week Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the former Democratic Senator from Colorado, said “the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions.” That is the exact same position as the Bush administration and Governor Palin.
Palin responded to the announcement by saying “This is a clear victory for Alaska. We all want to preserve and protect the polar bear using the best possible tools, but there is absolutely no need to change the rule to accomplish this purpose. I want to thank Secretary Salazar for his careful review of the science and the administrative record that led to this decision.”
Former White House press secretary Dana Perino also noted the absence of the environmental lobby. She noted the Obama administration has:
“decided to keep President Bush’s policy on polar bears. Well now. I remember what happened when we made our announcement after all of the thoughtful consideration that was given to the decision. But if you read the clips today, you’d think we had announced two completely different things.
“For example, where is the outrage and the letters from Senator Boxer and Congressman Waxman decrying the Friday afternoon release, calling for investigations and alleging manipulation of the science and the law? Where are the press releases and lawsuits from the environmental groups? Where are the two people who dressed up as polar bears and crashed Sen. Kempthorne’s press conference?
“Where are the breathless and indignant above-the-fold, page one newspaper stories? And the cute photos of the polar bears standing on floating ice floes? Where are the pointed allegations of “rollback” on the cable news scrolls? Where is the bluster and the cynical barbs from the talking heads?
“And where is former Vice President Al Gore unleashing his caricature of righteous indignation and moral condemnation of this offense against nature? Barring all that, where is the explicit acknowledgment that President Bush must have gotten the policy right?”

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted — With a Commentary by Gregory Hilton

With ice levels back the polar bear appears safe.

With ice levels back the polar bear appears safe.

Commentary By Gregory Hilton
Many articles have questioned the scientific data used to promote the global warming theory. Respected experts are on both sides of this debate, but it is still surprising to see such a strong anti-global warming article on the premier liberal website Huffington Post (below). Also surprising are the significant number of Huffington Post readers who agreed with the author. It will be very difficult for the Obama Administration to deal with a global economic crisis as well as an expensive program to combat global warming. My guess is that global warming proposals will be pushed to the back burner.

One reason for this is because global sea ice levels are now the same as in 1979. Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing. The bears have been increasing in population during the past few years and are now at optimum levels. Polar bear numbers are much higher than they were 30 years ago.
Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined. World governments are being asked to spend trillions of dollars to combat global warming when there is still serious scientific debate about its causes.  We are told that we must do this for the safety of the planet.  Well what exactly is “safe”? There were over 34,000 automobile fatalities in the U.S. last year.  It would be much safer if we got rid of all automobiles.  This saving of 34,000 lives a year in America alone would be significant. Many people say that if we only save one life the effort is worth it.   Do we really want to go back to walk or riding horses?  It is also true that horses killed more people than cars.
“Safe” is a red herring. Safe is not disrupting the economies of the industrialized world to solve a problem that may not exist. Sea levels were hundreds of feet above where they are now millions of years before humans existed. Why do we insist that they must not rise above where they are now?

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted