Cecil the Lion Thoughts

It saddens me that such a magnificent animal was killed in such a terrible fashion.

Now before anyone flies off the handle, let me clear about some things. In general I support hunters and hunting, but I do so based on some principles hunters in my family have had for generations:

  1. Hunt only what you need. Do not overhunt
  2. You eat what you kill and not let go to waste the rest of the remains.
  3. Respect the animal you hunt. Do not let an animal suffer.
  4. Do not hunt endangered or near endangered animal species.
  5. No trophy hunting.

The final two principles came about in more recent years as a result of endangered species populations and a general disgust for those who hunt solely for trophies. That said, we’ll move…

I know some question the outrage over a lion’s death. Even with my opposition to trophy hunting and the hunting of endangered species in general, I too would question the outrage over killing a lion. What makes this one different for many is  what information we have at this point: Cecil was apparently lured from the preserve, by all accounts made to suffer for 40 hours from a man obviously not skilled enough to track and kill a lion properly, and the fact the hunters then attempted to destroy the collar Cecil war as part of ongoing study.

In my opinion, the group of hunters actions before, during, and after the hunt and subsequent uproar are those of poachers, not legitimate hunters and guides. So I can understand the outrage quite plainly.

My hope is those involved are prosecuted by the Zimbabwean government and that this incident inspires more people to look into ways to end trophy hunting, protect and help repopulate endangered and near endangered species, and in general look for ways to preserve our planet’s wildlife and habitats for the enjoyment of all.

Advertisements

Obama Bans Uranium Mining in Arizona For 20 Years

550 KFYI – THE VALLEY’S MOST TRUSTED NEWS

In a statement issued by Senator John McCain, he said the move “is a devastating blow to job creation in northern Arizona, particularly in Mojave County.” McCain went on to say that the decision made by the administration was impacted by a campaign that placed the love of the Grand Canyon in direct opposition with a form of mining that occurs several miles from the walls of the Grand Canyon and in no way affects the quality of drinking water.

My only question is this: was the 20 year ban based on genuine environmental concerns or politics? I’m suspicious given the current administrations oft abusive and over reaching claims to authority over the business and people of the United States in recent years including interfering with legitimate business practices (i.e. interfering with Boeing opening a new facility) and private property rights (i.e. EPA threatening owners of property with fines for building homes of their private land).

While I am concerned about preserving Arizona’s natural heritage (far more so than the arrogant and ignorant President and Congress whom regularly try to undermine Arizona and Arizonan’s independent inclinations) I question the ban given the poor economy and the administrations active efforts to drive up the cost of energy in order to push a biased green agenda that is already leading to investigations such as Solyndra. I also have to question that if the uranium mining is as dangerous to the environment as they say, then why not have all the mining shut down? It just smacks of political pandering, especially given the administrations hostility towards certain forms of energy generations such as nuclear power.

As noted in IER’s Tom Pyle issues statement on Arizona mining ban | Institute for Energy Research

“Today’s announcement further compounds a man-made energy crisis that has been planned and executed in Washington D.C. To push back uranium exploration in Arizona until 2032 greatly hinders our ability to meet the challenges of our energy future with clean, safe nuclear technologies. It also appears to fundamentally undercut the administration’s own goal of reducing carbon emissions.

To meet our nation’s need for energy we must employ all sources, including nuclear. This ban appears to be in direct opposition to the administrations claims that it wants to solve America’s energy woes.

For now I’ll try to ignore my inherent distrust of the Obama administration and give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but there is no way you can convince me that this was done for anything but political purposes for an election year in which the incumbent President could lose re-election.

Regime Change 2012
Vote All The Bums Out!

EPA: Pass Cap-And-Trade or Else

“I’m tired of people trying to destroy progress in the name of progressivism.” — Unknown

The Associated Press: EPA chief: US will regulate CO2 with common sense

EPA declared Monday that carbon emission could endanger human health and would be subject to federal regulation.

This is just a blatant attempt to blackmail the Congress and the U.S. public with threats of higher energy prices, greater unemployment, and further taxing American business, citizens, and industry into oblivion via cap-and-trade, which has already proven ineffective and expensive in Europe. These unelected corrupt bureaucrats in the EPA are just another group of out of control thugs working at the behest of the neo-socialists to take away Americans freedoms, business, and quality of life using what is now questionable science with regards to climate change and global warming. Anyone thinking the EPA can act responsibly or with common sense has missed tha last century of American government where government agencies have repeatedly shown a distinct inability to act responsibility or with anything resembling common sense: record deficits, trade imbalance, refusal to reform and enforce immigration laws, bankrupting Medicare, bankrupting Medicaid, bankrupting Social Security, failure to regulate banks, tax payer bailouts of the rich, tax payer bailouts of the car comapnies, tax payer bailouts of banks, tax cheaters in congress and administration posts, pork barrel spending, stopping development of solar farms because a pair of rare lizards was found with in a dozen square miles of land, closing of public park lands to preserve endagered animals even when said animals don’t even live there, etc., etc.

Besides these people do remember carbon dioxide is what is needed by plants for photosynthesis? So why not order more plants be added to our cities? The city of Phoenix has made an effort to denude itself of all useful shade and oxygen producing trees in the past three decades which is certainly counter productive to good air quality. Yes, I’m being partially sarcastic given carbon dioxide from manufacturing differs in sheer quanity from respired carbon dioxide but it it a valid point. How can you claim to want a better environment but do things in such an opposing manner?

So what’s after CO2, water? After all it’s a greenhouse gas as well. In fact water, in the form of water vapor, comprises the largest portion of greenhouse gases. Interesting, no? So I guess that means we have to somehow ban the oceans, lakes, river, streams, and rainfall if greenhouse gases are bad. /sarcasm

Start Regime Change: 11/2010
Vote People, Not Parties!

Carbongate

CARBONGATE – Global Warming Study Censored by EPA « Watts Up With That? (via Watts Up With That?) If this is true, and it appears that it is, then this is what’s wrong with the debate over the environment in this country and through out the world. Scientific reports suppressed by government agencies to push political agendas of the administrations.

Censored report can be read here.

Earth Day

OK, I’ll be a sheeple and post something on Earth Day.

So another Earth Day has come around again. I don’t know too many people that are actually doing anything this year as far as going to any events or what not. Instead most seem intent on little things: planting a tree, starting a garden,and so on. I’m personally doing nothing since I don’t believe in single day environmentalism (e.g. turning off lights for an hour) but lifetime solutions that balance quality of life, the environment, and business based on responsible and scientific evidence and not fear mongering as some greens have done. (I applaud those who follow the former rather than the latter when deciding what to do for the environment.)

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, you’ve got all the companies claiming their products are green. Sadly, most are not truly environmentally friendly or disingenuous in their claims, like a certain power company (who I won’t name) urging everyone to go solar powered through their service. Problem is their solar power system does not come close to powering any number significant of homes and businesses in Arizona. But then I personally think all homes and businesses in Arizona should have photovoltaic panels installed.

Anyway, happy Earth Day to those partaking in events or just doing things around the house.

Burris to take Senate seat

Burris Expected to Take Senate Seat

I feel sorry for Burris in some ways for all the hullabaloo over his selection as the junior senator of Illinois. I’m sure he is qualified for the position, but he really should have known not to accept the toxic seat until Blago was dealt with.

Well the Democrats pretty much just handed over Congress to the Republicans in 2010. You don’t start off the administration of “Change” by giving any sort of credibility to a corrupt governor’s appointment. That’s a message the GOP is going to hammer the DP with, especially if the DP Congress pushes the leftist plans so many Americans are against: card check, auto industry bailout, massive increased budget deficit under the dubious notion of spending into prosperity, et. al., as well as pushes the “only government can solve this problem” hooey,  while the economy continues to flounder as a result of failed government oversight of both the Bush Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress over the past two years (if not longer given concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

In any case, both parties are corrupt and have no intention of doing what is the best for America. They’ll only do what’s best for their political careers, their petty agendas, and their own pocketbooks. Even Obama is already turning into another poll watching President (elect), more concerned about people’s opinions rather than reasonable and viable solutions.

Now, something that concerns me is Mr. Obama’s selection of a known socialist, Carol Browner, as the so called Global Warming Czar. She may be perfectly qualified for the position but I do not trust an individual that was part of a socialist organization (Socialist International) that call for “global governance” of all countries as well as allowed rampant discrimination while head of the EPA. Discrimination it should be noted that was so severe that new protections were put into law as a result.

More curious (and suspicious in my book) is the sudden disappearance of her name from the SI web site’s list of leaders. Also suspicious is this supposed socialist and environmentalist’s membership as a board member of an environmental commodities market firm as well as previously being a lobbyist. (Sounds suspicious since it allows for profiting off questionable cap-and-trade programs being touted.)

I only trust environmentalists and environmental policy based on objectivity and science not ones based on personal profit and political agendas. Ms. Browner, given her past, is one I definitely do not trust and will be keeping an eye on. I suspect she’s just another political and corporate highjacker of the environmental movement.

Obama’s Agriculture, Interior Picks

Obama announces agriculture, interior picks | Politics | Reuters

So long as they don’t push GM food on the public or back policies that favor so called biofuel production over consumable food products these two picks appear to be acceptable. Until the concerns related to GM foods (transgenic modification, cross-contamination, hidden allergens, etc.) is further examined their use should be approached cautiously. The same caution needs to be applied to biofuels to avoid ballooning food prices and starvation rates as was seen previously worldwide as food production was cut in favor of creating “fuel”.

There are some problems with Salazar though when it comes to being concerned about the environment. Among these concerns is Salazar’s previous vote against increased fuel efficiency for automobiles and fighting against efforts to increase protection for some endangered species, including trying to stop scientists from determining whether some species were endangered. Mr. Salazar needs to remember that the environment is not just about air and water quality but biodiversity and ecology as well.

I also have concerns over Vilsack’s ties to GM food manufacturer, Monsanto. I’ve heard rumors that Monsanto bans GM foods in their own cafeterias. I hope that’s not true but if it is true what does that say about the safety of GM foods?

It’s especially annoying for those of us who chose to try and eat non-GM, local, organic foods as it is increasingly difficult to avoid GM foods even as an increasing number of independent scientific studies are showing some serious problems may be tied directly to GM crops.