As the Amazon burns, wars loom, and climate change accelerates, the media continues its grand betrayal

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Collated and annotated by Patrice Greanville
SNAPSHOPTS FROM THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF COMMUNICATIONS IN HISTORY. ONE THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE. EITHER WE WIN, OR WE DIE. AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIVING DIES ALONG WITH US.


BETRAYERS: The BBC
"Something Drastic Has To Happen" Roger Hallam | BBC HardTalk | Extinction Rebellion


Here's the BBC, world icon of establishment mass communications, represented by Stephen Sackur, an overpaid stuffed shirt of a presstitute that reminds us of our Charlie Rose, imperturbably trying to punch holes and denigrate what XE's Roger Hallam is trying to say. As a YT commenter eloquently says, "The media is not our friend." While Hallam is quite clear that our way of life—read, ruthless capitalism and faux democracy—have to go if we are to stand a chance at turning things around, the BBC host tries his devious best to poo poo the idea of rapid changes, let alone changes that would involve a deep disruption "of the economy" and the West's pioneered consumerist way of life (capitalism).—PG



Extinction Rebellion
Published on 17 Aug 2019

Roger Hallam talks with Stephen Sackur from BBC HardTalk about the need to ACT NOW.
The questions the interviewer asked and the way he asked then were plain embarrassing. What a joke. Not sure how Hallam held his temper. Fair play to the man.
Sackur speaks that way to everyone. That's why it's called HardTalk. Hallam handled it well.
XR need to sharpen their hostility. The media is not their friend. Give them hell.
Mne Nadoelo

@Brian Smith he did. This prevalent style of interviewing pisses me right off. What's the point, just prodding around with sneers and personal attacks - ignoring the actual hard facts of the science. What do they expect people to learn?

BETRAYERS: The "impartial" academic


Amazon forest fire: What it tells us about deforestation

shrinking of consumption.  Obviously that is impossible within the framework of global capitalism, in a planet dominated by puny, obscenely rich and sociopathic elites (0.0001% of the population) who will put up a fierce resistance to any tweaking, let alone major restructuring, of the malignant system that made them into modenr royalty. In sum, when it cmes to the Mato Grosso, what we all need is not a "balanced" approach between the needs of the environment and economic development, as the good professor recommends, but a policy of no development of the Amazon, period. Especially when we speak of logging and other highly pernicious extractive industries, or the extension of ranching and animal farming to supply international meat markets.—PG

BETRAYERS: The Liberaloid Media
Reporting the effects of capitalism and imperialism, but hiding them from criticism.


Liberals are famous for being excellent at describing a social problem caused by capitalism, but also notorious for their woefully inadequate prescriptions. It's the "diagnose cancer and recommend aspirin" maneuver.  (Conservatives, of course, rarely recognise there is even a problem).  In this case, CNN's correspondent Nick Paton provides gripping proof of the Amazon's wanton destruction, but he fails completely to identify the actual culprits: a savage capitalism that sees the Amazon as simply another "resource" to be exploited to the bitter end; a new leader—Jair Bolsonaro—who is s brutal fascist deliberately encouraging "the economic development" of the Amazon—read: massive deforestation, pleasing his ranching, logging, and mining cronies—and, last but not least,  the tacit support given Bolsonaro by the international media and the US, of course, which applauded and actually facilitated Bolsonaro's coming to power via a "judicial coup". Paton is also silent about the ludicrous—insulting is a better word—sum pledged by the rich European Union to combat the crisis, a piddling USD22 million, which is cigarette money around the Pentagon, and a pittance by the income standards of just one billionaire, Jeff Bezos, whose firm, Amazon, is valued at over 1 trillion dollars. (On this topic, see Umir Haque's Saving The Amazon’s Only Worth $20 Million — But Amazon, Inc is “Worth” $1 Trillion. What The? Amazing how these people always manage to avoid saying the obvious. —PG


Flying above the Amazon fires: 'All you can see is death'

Published on Aug 26, 2019

France and the UK have pledged emergency funds to help countries affected by the fires in the Amazon rainforest. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh flew over the devastated area in Rodonia, the Amazon's worst afflicted state, and filed this report.

Truthtellers: The Grayzone/ Aaron Maté/ Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald on the Amazon fires and the fight for Brazil's future

The Grayzone

Published on Aug 27, 2019

https://thegrayzone.com )


The Notre Dame Fire Was Reported In Minutes The Amazon Rainforest Has Been On Fire For 3 Weeks


Published on Aug 21, 2019

The Notre Dame fire was reported in minutes, the Amazon rainforest has been on fire for 3 weeks. We take a look at why it took so long to report the Amazon rainforest fires. Officials have said theAmazon rainforest is burning at a record rate and not only that but it's been happening for over 3 weeks. When this news was announced many people started to ask the same question, why wasn't it reported. When other fires have happened in the past, for example the Notre Dame fire, it has been on the news within minutes.

The Amazon isn't "Burning" - It's Being Burned

vlogbrothers
Premiered on 23 Aug 2019

This is a thing that is happening right now, and (taking a page from the global warming playbook) a think I've been hearing from Bolsonaro's supporters is, "Who even knows how bad it is...deforestation is actually down."


This post is part of our Orphaned Truths series with leading cultural and political analysts.

 




 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 

black-horizontal




Lies, Damned Lies, and Sustainable Development

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Bill Willers



[W]hy do so many assume that a ‘Green New Deal’ won’t just empower those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half century and just cause more death and starvation than has already been suffered under Globalization?
Matthew Ehret, 2019

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ustainable development, the concept, was advanced in 1987 by the United Nations in “Our Common Future,” aka The Bruntland Report, in which it was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In truth, the Report, intended for “those who shape policy and make decisions that affect the course of development and the condition of the environment”, has served as justification for sustained growth: “A five to tenfold increase in manufacturing output will be needed”; “Painful choices have to be made.” In an alarming display of ecological ignorance, there was admission of guaranteed biological destruction: “Efforts to save particular species will be possible for only relatively few of the more spectacular and important ones.”

Not long thereafter, the concept of sustainable development was boosted by organizations with clout. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) produced in 1991 “Caring For The Earth: A Strategy For Sustainable Living,” a declaration of principles by a coalition of conservation organizations, supported by “sponsors” and “collaborators” that included national development agencies, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The IUCN therein defined sustainable development as “improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.” In the same year, the Trilateral Commission published a book, Beyond Interdependence, in which, in a chapter titled “The Growth Imperative and Sustainable Development”, the authors declared that “The maxim of sustainable development is not ‘limits to growth’; it is ’the growth of limits’,” a direct attack on the Club of Rome’s 1972 “The Limits To Growth.”

Sustainable development was quickly introduced into the educational system. In 1992, educators all over the U.S. were receiving a slick promotional brochure for a book, “World Resources 1992-93: A Guide to the Global Environment.” A few weeks later, the book was sent gratis to key educators. A publication of the World Resources Institute (WRI), it was promoted as “the overpowering challenger in the contest for primacy among environmental almanacs”. WRI described its goal as an organization “to help….. grapple with one of our time’s most pressing questions: How can societies meet human needs and nurture economic growth without destroying the natural resources and environmental integrity that make prosperity possible (emphasis added). WRI was supported financially by Corporate Property Investors, Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation, and foundations for Weyerhaeuser, Amoco and Shell Oil. A category “Corporate Associates” included Waste Management, Inc., Monsanto, Chevron and E. I. duPont de Nemours, with “cooperating organizations” including the World Bank, the Overseas Development Association, and other organizations devoted to growth and resource exploitation (current WRI support here).

The Federal Government championed sustainable development from the beginning. In 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a report (230-R-93-005) to Congress with “EPA is … assisting regional, state, and local efforts to promote sustainable development … The Nation can only achieve and maintain sustainable development when its citizens understand the concept and embrace it as a national priority.” President Clinton’s 25-person Council on Sustainable Development was co-chaired by Dow Chemical vice president David Buzzelli. Eight representatives had corporate ties (e.g., Chemical Manufacturer’s Association, the Committee for Economic Development, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Business Council for Economic Development), whereas the five environmentalists were administrators for “Big 10″ environmental organizations, themselves recipients of corporate largesse. And why be surprised? The Council just mirrored Clinton and his Vice President, as they expressed the view that “We will renew America’s commitment to leave our children a better nation … whose leadership for sustainable global growth is unsurpassed” (emphasis added).

In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits To Growth” grounded on a study of five factors: resource depletion, industrial output, pollution, agriculture, and population growth, and the dynamics of their interactions. Conclusions of the study were a harsh warning regarding limitations that our beautiful home planet places on human activities, because system collapse was predicted for the middle of the current Century if a “business-as-usual” model were to be maintained, which, despite much political posturing, has been the case. There have been periodic updates of the study. Such “doomsday” talk has not been what industrial and financial interests have wanted to hear, and since publication there has been much criticism of “The Limits To Growth” from economists and the business community. However, a recent “40 year update”, a 2014 study released by the University of Melbourne, reveals that the business-as-usual scenario of The Limits To Growth “… aligns well with historical data that has been updated for this paper.” Data came from the UN and federal sources. That the gravity of this global situation is not front-and-center news is itself a reflection of media ownership.

Sustainable development, in sum, was captured early on by global financial forces the life blood of which is unending growth. As history confirms, it has proven to be a highly manipulable concept for a corporate/political/media network to normalize in the public mind. The suggestion of sustainability indicates things are going to be just fine, so it has been employed as a kind of mass tranquilizer. As the sustainability idea has advanced over the decades, discussions surrounding it have shifted easily, as required, between ‘development’ and ‘growth.’ Among the UN’s many laudable Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as peace and the eradication of poverty, one also finds the advancement of “inclusive and sustained economic growth” in which “business and the private sector” are to play a key role, this expressed in its Agenda 2030. The admittedly “supremely ambitious” Agenda 2030 looks like 15,000 words of wishful thinking considering the profit-driven interests that have been — and that are intent on remaining — at the helm. The banking world certainly has lost no time in the creation of “green financial instruments” for the Green New Deal.

The prospect of the Green New Deal becoming morphed into Sustainable Development by another name is real, given the powerful forces so adept at co-opting and repackaging things to serve their own ends. The development/growth debate has long been dominated by business interests, economists, advertisers and corporate journalists, with biologists neglectfully absent. And yet, it all boils down to biology, for when species “overshoot” the capacities of their environments to support them, collapse is the result. Our species is certainly unique in the ability to modify ecosystems (typically at the expense of other life forms) as a means of staving off the impacts of our having exceeded — as we know we have — earth’s ability to support our resource-hungry billions. But we are not immune to natural laws, and this party cannot last forever. It’s not clear, exactly, how it will play out in the long run, but one thing is certain: Ultimately, we shall find out.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Bill Willers is an emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. He is founder of the Superior Wilderness Action Network and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land, and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press. He can be contacted at willers@uwosh.edu. Read other articles by Bill.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal




Trump’s War on Children now extends to defenseless animals

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Wayne Madsen


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Trump administration is currently lifting restrictions on the importing of parts of African lions and elephants killed by "trophy hunters." Not only are restrictions being lifted on such trophies but the Interior Department is hampering public access to the records of permits being granted to hunters to import carcass parts of endangered species.

::::::::


Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid trophy hunters as are a number of Trump's wealthier supporters and campaign donors A 2010 photo shows the two proudly posing with a leopard they killed in Zimbabwe.
(Public Radio International)

Further pushing his cruelty from caged migrant children separated from their families at the southern border to yet other children coming home from school in Mississippi to find their parents having been hauled off by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detention centers, Donald Trump has now turned his attention to needlessly harming animals. Trump is a well-known critic of pet owners, including his own vice president, referring to them as "low class."

In May of this year, a United Nations report concluded that 1 million animals and plants face imminent extinction due to climate change and overdevelopment. The UN also stated that the rate of extinctions is increasing at a record percentage.

In sweeping action meant to gut America's commitment to protecting endangered species at home and abroad, Trump is scaling back two important statutes that protect animals: the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the U.S. adherence to the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The Trump administration is currently lifting restrictions on the importing of parts of African lions and elephants killed by "trophy hunters." Not only are restrictions being lifted on such trophies, but the Interior Department is hampering public access to the records of permits being granted to hunters to import carcass parts of endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists lions and elephants as among many endangered species. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid trophy hunters, as are a number of Trump's wealthier supporters and campaign donors. A 2010 photo shows the two proudly posing with a leopard they killed in Zimbabw.

The Trump administration is planning to end blanket protections for animals recently declared endangered. It will also require a cost-benefit analysis to be completed prior to a determination being made to protect a particular species of animal or plant.  The changes in the Endangered Species Act may affect 1,600 protected species in the United States and its territories. In May of this year, a United Nations report concluded that 1 million animals and plants face imminent extinction due to climate change and overdevelopment. The UN also stated that the rate of extinctions is increasing at a record percentage.

There are currently moves by conservation groups and at least 10 state attorneys general to launch lawsuits to block Trump's war on endangered animals and plants.

Trump's blood lust for animals does not end with scaling back domestic and international protections for endangered species. The Trump administration is also giving authorization to the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Service to use M-44 spring-loaded traps filled with sodium cyanide to kill bears, foxes, wolves, coyotes, birds, mountain lions and other animals that ranchers and farmers consider to be pests. Grizzly bears have recently been re-added to the federal endangered species list.

Environmental scientists warn that "cyanide bombs" can kill non-targeted species, including pet dogs and cats, as well as harm humans. In 2017, the USDA imposed a moratorium on the use of M-44s in Idaho after a Pocatello boy walking with his dog triggered one of the devices, causing the family dog "Casey" to die a very violent death [left]. The boy suffered from nausea, vomiting, and coughing with doctors unsure about the long-term effect of the sodium cyanide. The Trump administration's order removes all moratoriums on the use of M-44s, including in Idaho.

Submitters Website: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com


ABOUT WAYNE MADSEN
Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal




Felicia’s Fate: The Trials of a Grizzly Bear Mom

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


David Mattson


[dropcap]G[/dropcap]rizzly bears reside at a symbolic nexus that seems to relentlessly spawn conflict. Almost invariably, this conflict organizes around incidents that catalyze a mix of fear, anger, grief, and empathy—all inescapably configured by peoples’ mental constructs. There is the reality of bears, and then there are our contested inventions of who they are, what they should be, and what it all means. More complicating yet, grizzly bear-centric conflicts often arise from different ideas about how we should treat them and what that means for the institutions we create to manage ourselves.

Such seems to be the case with an incident unfolding around a grizzly bear called Felicia by her admirers, and #863 by those captive to the instrumentalizing impulses of wildlife management.

Who is Felicia?


Felicia is a tragic figure who could have easily been a character in classic Greek literature or a Victorian novel. She is a bear’s version of the young woman who got in trouble with the law and ended up a single mom in a rough neighborhood trying to scrape together a living while fending off predatory males. If that isn’t cause for Freudian psychological projection, I’m not sure what is.

Insofar as the facts of Felicia’s life are concerned, we know a few, but with ample scope for imaginative invention. We know nothing about her cub-hood, whether nurturing, traumatic, or indifferent. She first shows up in our human records as a (probably) newly-independent 2-year-old on the Shoshone National Forest wandering near human habitations eating human foods in an area with a long history of negligence on the part of human residents. In response, Wyoming Game & Fish (WGF) managers trapped her and a sibling, and then hauled them 75 miles as the crow flies to a location east of Grand Teton National Park. A year later she was trapped yet again by researchers roughly 20 miles east of where she was released the year before. So, by the time she was 3-years-old she had already been trapped, drugged, and handled by humans twice, and was probably not only tolerant of people, but also inclined to seek us out as a source of food. Not an auspicious start.

Felicia apparently lived out her remaining two adolescent years in or near the Blackrock Creek drainage on the Bridger-Teton National Forest below Togwotee Pass, probably never too far from Highway 26, the main connector between Moran Junction and points east. During winter of 2019 she gave birth as a 6-year-old to her first litter of cubs in the confines of a den, after which she emerged to face the considerable challenges confronting a first-time mom trying to keep two cubs alive in a neighborhood teeming with humans and other bears. By May she had lost her first cub. By early June she was being hounded by at least one male bear intent on breeding. For the boar, her surviving cub was at best an impediment to his purposes. By late June, she had apparently abandoned her last cub in the midst of on-going pursuit by these one or more males. When last seen, the cub was frantically trying to reunite with its mom—destined to starve or be killed by a predator if unsuccessful.

Enter Humans

Felicia has probably never been very far from people most of her life. She has been observed by a number of people on a number of occasions, which axiomatically means she’s been near people more often than she’s been seen. More important to this story, she has been near and even on Highway 26 since leaving her den this spring with cubs—literally walking down the highway centerline at times. As described by many, she has seemed “frantic” and “inexperienced.” Among other things, she has predictably incurred substantial risk of being killed by vehicles travelling at 65 mph along Highway 26, and may have even been hit by a car mid-June.

As predictably, she and her cubs have attracted great crowds of tourists, gawkers, photographers, and fans intent on seeing a grizzly bear, getting a killer photo of a grizzly, keeping track of her well-being, or just simply being part of the scene. The result has been emerging roadside mayhem—in the midst of cars and semis intent on making time between Dubois and Moran Junction.

Hence, with the certitude of a Greek drama, managers from Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGF) arrived trying to “get on top of the situation.” The first apparent intervention by WGF was what, at best, could charitably be described as an ad hoc effort to haze her away from the highway. More helpfully, and thanks largely to the efforts of her advocates, Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT) rapidly deployed temporary signs that reduced the speed limit near where she was active to 40 mph—which could have saved her life if she was indeed hit by a car.

Since then, the crowds have grown, not diminished, at the same time that the comparative absence of people with authority to manage the situation, notably from WGF or the US Forest Service, has raised questions about motives, resources, and competence on the part of involved bureaus. Rumors have also surfaced about impromptu efforts by private individuals with suspect motives to haze Felicia and her surviving cub, while tensions mount along with odds of some additional tragic outcomes, not only for Felicia, but also for an over-aggressive photographer.

And, off stage, the passion, stridency, and even vitriol have mounted. Felicia’s partisans have promulgated passionate pleas for some sort of remedy. In response, Trumpian thugs have responded with profanity, video clips featuring their middle finger, and the message that most or all grizzlies should be killed. In some bizarre quadrant of it all, one of WGF’s putative public servants, an out-of-control Brian DeBolt, likewise accosts a photographer at a service station saying “f..k you photographers.” Little if any of this is about Felicia or her cub. Most is about human emotions and root symbolic stakes.

Sound like a Greek tragedy? Probably should.

A Classic Profile


Felicia fits a classic profile that typifies a non-trivial number of female grizzlies I’ve either personally known or have been acquainted with from afar. These females take up residence near people, probably as early as their adolescent years, largely because it is a space safe from the hazards and harassments of other bears, especially large potentially violent boars. This attraction to people, highways, and homes only strengthens with birth of their first cubs. Adult male grizzlies will kill cubs as means of triggering estrus in females that would otherwise be available for breeding only once every three years. Moreover, with prerogative to any resources they want, these males tend to preempt backcountry habitats and avoid annoying and potentially lethal humans.

The upshot is that areas near people become a figurative shield against predatory boars for females trying to find food and keep their offspring alive. These females then perversely incur the perhaps less obvious hazards of living near people and, in the process, become the centerpiece of a roadside circus, with unpredictable consequences for everybody involved, although predictable mounting exasperation for wildlife managers.

Roadside grizzly bear moms end up being between the proverbial rock and hard place, hemmed in by lethal boars and mobs of people. No wonder these mother bears often seem frantic, especially when tending their first cubs.

Variations on the Theme

Given this basic profile, there are variations on the theme, including the famous roadside dame of Grand Teton National Park—bear #399. Number 399 stands out as an individual who has figured out how to negotiate the human niche with considerable aplomb and minimal related hazards to the crowds of people who gather to collect photographic trophies or just simply stand awestruck. As a result, #399 has more-or-less successfully raised four litters of cubs, with a fifth currently in the nursery.

However, there are important differences between Felicia and #399. For one, #399 seems to be a much more grounded individual. And, yes, for those who resist the idea that animals are sentient beings with personalities, there are, in fact, enormous differences among individual grizzly bears, as between Felicia and #399. For another, #399 roams Grand Teton National Park where managers have a more benevolent mandate compared to the Forest Service, WGF, and WODT—all of which hold sway to some extent over the fate of Felicia and her remaining cub. Number 399 often has Park Service attendants focused on controlling traffic and crowds. Felicia does not.

And then there is the tragic tale of Bear #59, a roadside denizen of Yellowstone National Park with whom I worked closely during 1984-1986. Notably, # 59 and Felicia have some remarkable similarities. Number 59 could likewise have been called “frantic,” if not desperate. She likewise lost her first litter of cubs, followed by the loss of her second. She was likewise hounded by hordes of sight-seers and photographers who were, at that time, not closely tended by managers. Roadside viewing of grizzly bears was an emerging, even novel, phenomenon that Park managers were still scrambling to deal with. Of particular relevance to the developing situation with Felicia, #59 ended up killing a photographer named William Tesinsky. Tesinsky relentlessly pursued her while she was frantically digging roots in an attempt to remedy a profound deficit of body fat—with only a month to go until denning. Needless to say, she was subsequently killed by managers, despite the fact that all of the blame lay on Tesinsky’s shoulders.

A cautionary tale indeed.

What to Do?

All of this begs the question of what to do about Felicia and, more importantly, her surviving cub. Indeed, this question is on a lot of peoples’ minds. Perhaps more importantly, though, this challenge broaches the broader issue of what to do about increasing numbers of similar bears in similar situations—but where ultimate authority is held by dysfunctional and undemocratic state wildlife management agencies in a world overrun by humans.

Felicia ended up in a niche that includes private land residences and a major US highway funneling virtually all of the east-west traffic from a swath 100 miles wide. Given the imperatives of commerce and communication, there are few options for affecting traffic speeds and volumes—unlike in a National Park. And it is an inescapable fact that bears are being increasingly killed by collisions with vehicles traveling at high speeds along heavily-trafficked highways.

Likewise, odds are high that someone will be injured under circumstances where mobs containing unknowledgeable, inexperienced people—or even people greedy for the next best photograph—have more-or-less unrestrained access to a roadside grizzly, especially one accompanied by cubs. No matter how judicious or habituated the bear may be, someone is guaranteed to cross a boundary out of rudeness, stupidity, or avarice.

Some Improbable Prospects

Perhaps most urgently, Felicia’s surviving cub requires attention. Yet, as one of a species protected by the US Endangered Species Act, the cub is subject to the authority of the US Fish & Wildland Service in the form of a person sitting at a desk in Missoula, Montana, 300 miles away, which de facto results in deferral of authority to WGF managers on the scene. Yet these officials as a matter of culture and policy are loathe to intervene in something deemed “natural,” especially when there is uncertainty about whether Felicia has completely abandoned the cub, and even more so when to do so would be tacitly at the behest of “bleeding hearts” they despise.

Indeed, most WGF officials seem to harbor unabashed animosity towards not only people who emotionally identify with individual bears, but also the roadside bears themselves. As Dan Thompson, Wyoming’s Large Carnivore Specialist, said: “Habituation towards people and the roadside bear situation, it’s not something that we’re supportive of…” Despite recent soothing sounds to the contrary, it seems unlikely that WGF officials will scoop up Felicia’s cub and send it to a sanctuary. More likely it will just simply disappear.

Hazing Felicia away from the highway and perhaps conditioning her to avoid humans likewise has very limited prospects of success. As someone who has been involved in and closely privy to research on and applications of aversive conditioning, the contingencies of success are so numerous and stringent as to debar practical application in a situation such as this one. Felicia does not have—nor does she probably perceive herself as having—any good options. The least bad option from her perspective would probably be to endure any pain or discomfort meted out in predictably haphazard ways by WGF officials rather than confront the more certain threat posed by bigger badder bears in the backcountry. I have seen bears in a similar plight literally allow themselves to be beaten to death at the hands of aversive conditioners rather than abandon a putative roadside sanctuary.

More Promising Possibilities

Which, again, begs the question of what can be done? WGF almost certainly considers bears such as Felicia and her cubs to be readily expendable, and so are probably not highly motivated. Setting such attitudes aside for the moment, there are at least two measures that could be taken with prospects of yielding future benefits, perhaps not for Felicia, but for bears in future similar plights.

Nearer-term, agencies with authority over roadsides and highways could institutionalize remedial measures. WDOT could reduce speed limits on a seasonal rather than ad hoc temporary basis for stretches of highway likely to be frequented by grizzlies. The US Forest Service and WGF could create teams of Bear Rangers on call to deal with roadside situations as they emerge, and trained to manage and educate the entailed crowds. The National Park Service in both Yellowstone and Grand Teton Parks has perfected this method, based largely on employment of relatively low-cost volunteers. Given the passionate interest, considerable resources, and evident expertise of Grand Teton National Park personnel and nearby Jackson Hole residents, teams of bear rangers would seem an easy fix.

Longer-term, a comprehensive infrastructure of fencing and crossing structures could be installed with prospects of yielding considerable benefits for bears and other wildlife. Research in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park and along Highway 93 in the Mission Valley of Montana has demonstrated the efficacies of such measures. On the down side, this kind of infrastructure is expensive, needs to be comprehensive, and would, moreover, create an obvious visual and psychological barrier between people and the bears that are the object of their affection, interest, and perhaps avarice.

Tragedy But with a Future

Felicia’s prospects seem bleak captive as she is to a hazardous near-human niche and prey to the apathy and even outright hostility of Wyoming’s wildlife managers. Prospects for Felicia’s surviving cub seem bleaker yet. This young inexperienced bear has little buffer against lack of sustenance or vagaries of the world, and is likewise prey to indifference and platitudes on the part of those with authority over its fate. And none of this is likely to change any time soon given the politics of Wyoming and a culture of willful blindness in the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Yet there is hope in the long game. Bear Rangers can be assembled, trained, and effectively deployed. A comprehensive infrastructure of highway crossings and diversions can be built. Even more ambitious yet, state wildlife management can be reformed to better represent who we are becoming, and to even pioneer a more compassionate vision of how to treat wildlife.

But achieving such long-term and prospectively resource-intensive outcomes is contingent on a fundamental reorientation. Advocates for bears such as Felicia need to do what might seem unthinkable and shift focus from a perhaps unredeemable near-term situation to higher-order and longer-term goals. Energy and even outrage is often found in the moment, but meaningful gains predictably require sustained and strategic political engagement.

Even more fundamental yet, accommodation and care for bears such as Felicia will necessarily be rooted in a foundational reordering and realignment of societal priorities—away from the self-gratification of a local culture organized around thrill sports and entertainment of elites; away from a national obsession with the distractions of digital media and related indifference to the plight of other sentient beings; instead to a committed, humble, and deeply-felt obligation to help others without power or voice.

 

This essay is part of a series on cultural, scientific and esoteric matters.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Mattson worked for the grizzly study team for 2 decades. He retired from the US Geological Survey two years ago. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal




Facebook Has a New Shareholder: PETA

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

We thought this news was noteworthy not only because, whatever one may think of PETA, the animal cause deserves attention and support and its messages cannot and should not be throttled to the convenience of animal exploiters. PETA's new strategy (which may probably end up being tested in courts) is one of the ways in which organisations representing "improper speech" according to the rules enforced by the custodians of the present corporate order can push back against outright bans of their right to use mass communications platforms like Facebook, which in any case should be treated as public utilities.

Stock Purchase Made in Response to Increased Video Censorship

For Immediate Release:
July 1, 2019  Contact:
Moira Colley 202-483-7382

Menlo Park, Calif. – Today, PETA purchased shares in Facebook, enabling the group to submit a shareholder resolution, attend the company’s annual meetings, and ask questions of executives there. The move comes after the social media platform upped its use of warning screens on PETA videos showing real-life incidents of routine cruelty to animals, significantly limiting the group’s ability to expose animal suffering to a wide audience.

“People deserve to see what animals endure in laboratories, on factory farms and in slaughterhouses, when they’re skinned or plucked alive for clothing, and when they’re beaten so that they’ll perform tricks,” says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. “PETA urges Facebook to follow Twitter’s lead by allowing users to decide for themselves whether they want to opt in or out of warning covers.”

Sharing eyewitness video footage directly with the public through social media has played a vital role in many of PETA’s victories in behalf of animals—including leading major companies to end appallingly cruel experiments on animals, forcing many circuses that use animals to shut down or stop using wild animals, and persuading hundreds of retailers to ban fur, angora, and mohair.

PETA’s motto reads, “Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” The group opposes speciesism, which is a human-supremacist worldview. For more information, please visit PETA.org.

This essay is part of a series on cultural, scientific and esoteric matters.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal