We Don't Only Want You To Support WWOW, WWOW Wants To Support You Too! Tell Us Your Thoughts, Cares, Worries... What You Think Needs The Most Help. Email Us!
You can support WWOW without even making a donation! Shop our affiliates and WWOW gets a portion of your total purchase price. We have hundreds of popular affiliates to choose from including Walmart. Tell your friends and help WWOW save precious land and animals!Shop NOW!!
Global Concerns
Stop Canadian Seal Hunting!
March 27, 2006
It is extremely disturbing to know that something like this still goes on. It is a disgusting display of needless, brutal murder in the animals own natural habitat. These are helpless, feeling, thinking beings. They feel fear and pain...terror. Hunting them is cruel and inhumane. Beating their heads in as if they are nothing and deserve no better...as if they are not living, breathing creatures who deserve to be on this planet and have earned the basic right to live. This is a terrible disgrace and an appalling display of mans ability to brutally abuse and mindlessly destroy. Please see what you can do to stop this horrifying hunt! Don't wait until we see these animals on the endangered species list because the hunters don't adhear to the number killed set by the state.
Sign AS MANY Petitions And Write AS MANY Letters AS POSSIBLE! Do All You Can, Visit As Many Sites As You Can And Learn As Much As You Can, Because These SEALS NEED As Much HELP As They Can Get!
Animal Cruelty By Dog Food Manufacturers - Iams, makers of Eukanuba, are top on the list!
March 27, 2006
If you can believe it, the people who are supposed to care about the well being of dogs are the ones abusing the animals! Is your dog food company on the list? Take a look at the following site for more information, for petitions and other ways you can help. This is very important! Please see what you can do!
Sally
Sally is extremely timid. She was born on April 10, 1996, and has spent the last six years trying to sleep and walk on cold wide-slatted floors. Many dogs injure themselves when their legs become stuck in between the slats.
See this and more by visiting the website listed on the left.
East Africa People and Wildlife Struggle to Share Precious Land and Water
February 13, 2006 — By Rodrique Ngowi, Associated Press
AMBOSELI NATIONAL PARK, Kenya — Elephants, buffaloes and other wild animals drink water on one side of a swamp. On the other, Maasai warriors watch hundreds of cattle graze as the tropical sun sears the parched land of this wildlife sanctuary.
Balancing the needs of both sides is becoming more complex, and environmentalists fear the wildlife are gradually losing out.
Kenyan officials recently bent stringent conservation regulations to allow cattle into the Amboseli National Park -- the only permanent source of water in the region -- to help the Maasai save their precious livestock from a punishing drought.
Conservation workers warn that Amboseli's delicate swamps and streams are threatened by a government plan to hand over management of the park to the local county council. They say the move will likely result in Maasai being allowed to gather firewood and use water in the sanctuary and to regularly graze cattle.
Read more about this problem. Animals and humans have problems living together all over the world. It's time to plan for a peaceful future!
January 02, 2006
Click Here, for the NESARC link,for information on the H.R. 3824, the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005,"
which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 29, 2005.
Protect the Endangered Species Act
Jan. 1, 2006 12:00 AM Regarding "McCain must save Endangered Species Act" (Viewpoints, Sunday):
Thanks to The Republic's Linda Valdez for highlighting this important issue and U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo's bill, HR 3824.
Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed concerns about the bill. New Mexico Congressman Tom Udall calls it "an entitlement program for landowners who want to gut the Endangered Species Act."
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 1,268 threatened and endangered species of plants and animals in the United States. Since the act, 12 species have gone off the list after they were regarded as recovered, and nine have gone extinct. One success of the act is saving our American bald eagle from extinction.
In order to save a species you must save its home, and HR 3824 would repeal critical habitat. The bill also sets a dangerous precedent: Individuals must be paid for not killing species and complying with an environmental law.
Additionally, a political appointee has the job of determining what constitutes appropriate scientific data for decision-making under the law. Congress in 1973 drafted the Endangered Species Act to protect our natural legacy for us and future generations, and this U.S. Senate must show the same forethought. - Lesley Hammond, Phoenix
November 26, 2005 - 11 New species added to the Endangered Species List. "The 11 species will join a listing of around 107 migratory animals which are considered endangered and thereby given special status by all member states," Marco Barbieri, CMS scientific officer, told journalists.
What Environmentalists Do Not Want You to Know About Endangered Species By Justin Darr
MichNews.com
Oct 24, 2005
Did you know that if all the endangered species in the world were made safe, hurricanes would no longer hit the Gulf Coast? This is just one example of the tortured logic liberal environmentalists would like you to believe in regard to Humanity’s affect on the environment.
You have to remember that liberals do not think like you and me. We live in a world we believe to be basically good, and where doing what is right an end unto itself. If we stick to our values, look out for ourselves, and try to help those around us along the way, the world will be a better place. Why? Because we believe in God and that we will be held accountable for whatever havoc we might cause. We should not destroy the environment because it is a gift from God, and marring it a grievous sin.
However, liberals, in the absence of what we call faith and values, are forced to concoct bizarre justifications for their actions to create the same sense of urgency to do the right thing and lend intellectual consistency to their otherwise contradictory stands on the issues. This desire to create justifications often leads to the fudging and actual manufacture of facts. Unfortunately, it is often not the environmentalists, but regular people left paying the price for the liberals’ blind pursuit of their agenda at the expense of the truth.
In few areas is this tendency to stretch facts and create crises where there are none as apparent than with liberal environmentalists.
If you believe what the liberals say, human beings are exterminating all life on Earth. If it is not global warming, then it is roads blocking game trails, windmills killing birds along migration routes, or tourists in our national parks aggressively looking at the fauna. They try to back these claims up with statistics showing thousands upon thousands of species of life are at risk of extinction.
On the surface, the facts look convincing. There are, indeed, many species that have gone extinct due to human interaction over the past 500 years, and many more who might soon become so. However, the numbers are not quite as bad you might believe.
The reason is something called “taxonomic inflation,” a concept first explained by James Mallet, Nick Isaac, and Georgina Mace of the Zoological Society of London and University College London, in late 2004.
Taxonomy is the science of classifying of things into hierarchical structures. In relation to living things, this is best know as “Linnaean Taxonomy,” or in other words, the “kingdoms,” “classes,” “orders,” and down to the “genus” and “species” that designate the scientific names for all species (i.e. people = homo sapiens.)
For centuries, scientists used a relatively simple system to determine what was or was not a separate species. The “broad brush scientific concept,” or “BSC,” basically states that a species is a population that breeds together, producing viable offspring, and does not breed outside of their group. However, in recent decades, as the environmentalist movement has developed, this has changed. Now, many scientists have abandoned the “BSC” in favor of the “phylogenetic species concept,” or “PSC.” To oversimplify, using the “PSC” can enable a scientist to name just about any population of animals a unique species, even if there is no significant visible behavioral or genetic variation between populations, and viable breeding readily occurs when the separate populations come into contact. Or, as Lee M. Silver stated in his book, “Mouse Genetics, Concepts and Applications,” “there is no clear solution to the one species versus multiple species debate and it comes down to a matter of taste.”
This “matter of taste” has led to the doubling of the known number of primate species in the world since 1985, despite the fact that there have only been 30 actual discoveries of new animals. And, not surprisingly, almost all of these have been immediately listed as “endangered.”
In 1999, the Fraser Institute found that of the 339 endangered species in Canada only 91 where actually endangered, with many species being listed two or three times based on their geographic locations. For example, the grizzly bear was listed as two separate species, one for those that live in the mountains, another for those that live in the prairies. What is the difference between the two? Nothing. They are the same species simply living in separate habitats. By this reasoning, Americans and Europeans would be separate species of human beings. The Institute found in many cases, endangered species where not endangered at all, but just smaller populations of otherwise nonendangered species.
The implications of taxonomic inflation can be devastating for the general public. In 2001, 1400 farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon, lost their farms and life savings to drought because U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that two species of suckerfish had first rights to all the fresh water in the area. In 1991, Margaret Rector was told she would not be able to use 15 acres of land she bought for development in Austin, Texas, because, even though there were no endangered species present on the land, there might be some in the future (her property value dropped from $831,000 to $30,000 in less than a year.) And, thousands of Americans have been forced assume responsibility for protecting alleged endangered species on their property at their own expense without compensation.
All the money wasted, all the lives disrupted, all for 10 species to be removed from the endangered species list over the past 30 years. In the end, we must ask ourselves, are the liberal environmentalists trying to actually trying to get species off the “endangered list,” or add a new one: The Feral Free American?
2. Will no piece of natural untouched land be spared?
3. Why aren't there more incentives to fix up old houses and run down areas rather than destroying precious habitat to build houses that are on top of each other and all look the same?
4. What will the long term environmental effects be of all these huge apartment complexes, holding thousands of people in one small area?
5. Is there really any difference in quality between the $150K houses and the $650K houses being built with the same materials?
6. Why do contractors have to clear the entire lot rather than working around some of the established trees and plants?
7. Why isn't solar energy being incorporated into all new developement?
8. What do developers give back to the environment considering all they take?
9. Why aren't more apartment and commercial complexes built with roof gardens to not only beautify our skylines, but to give a little back to our ozone as well?
10. Is everything in this industry driven by greed?
-Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, faces proposals for oil drilling that could threaten polar bears, caribou and birds.
-Browns Park NWR, Colo., livestock grazing harmed elk, deer and bird habitat on the refuge which also protects wetlands along the Green River.
-Buenos Aires NWR, Ariz., Illegal border crossers, and guards pursing them, pushed into the desert tromp through fragile desert habitat for endangered quail.
-Florida Panther NWR, Fla., Development is squeezing the refuge and threatening Florida panthers, one of the most endangered species on Earth.
-McFadden NWR, Texas, High oil prices have energy developers again eyeing oil fields close to Texas' largest freshwater marsh and an important bird wintering area.
-Mingo NWR, Missouri, A proposed power plant could pollute a pristine hardwood forest.
-Moapa NWR, Nev., Proposals to pump water for Las Vegas threaten the future of desert springs that support endangered species.
-Oyster Bay NWR, New York, This estuary near the home of Theodore Roosevelt, father of the refuge system, is threatened by storm runoff and sewage discharge.
-Pocosin Lakes NWR, North Carolina, The Navy has a proposal to build a landing field in the home of 100,000 swans, geese and ducks, a threat to fowl and also pilots.
-Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR, Calif., If not managed properly the shrinking Salton Sea could leave the refuge high and dry, exposing it to dust, salt and other air pollution.Source: Defenders of Wildlife
Climate Change May Threaten More Than One Million Species With Extinction
New Cover Story Published In "Nature" Represents Most Comprehensive
Analysis To Date
( Washington , DC ) - Climate change could drive more than a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to a major new study published in tomorrow's edition of the journal Nature.
The study estimates that climate change projected to take place between now and the year 2050 will place 15 to 37 percent of all species in several biodiversity-rich regions at risk of extinction. The scientists believe there is a high likelihood of extinctions due to climate change in other regions, as well.
Endangered Species Posted by Henry Meyerding on Oct 1, 2005, 21:25
This past week has been disheartening for environmentalists and conservationists. The US House of Representatives passed HR 3824, a bill that substantially re-writes the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). For those of you unfamiliar with HR 3824, here is a brief synopsis of some of its more interesting passages:
Eliminate Critical Habitat Protections: The old ESA mandated the identification and regulation of specific critical habitats that were in most danger of being destroyed. In these critical habitats, environmental regulations were more strict and severe because in those areas there were species in imminent threat of extinction: see Spotted Owls. Without critical habitats, the government can't keep you from logging off this particular hillside unless it prevents everyone from logging any hillside anywhere.
Politicize scientific decision-making: The wording of the bill encourages government agencies to define "the best science available." This is like using the "best data available" to prove that Stumpy brand toothpaste results in fewer cavities.
Make it harder to protect distinct populations of endangered species:Right now, if a species is endangered in the US, it is considered endangered. Under the new regulations, if there is another population of a species anywhere else in the world, even if that population would be considered endangered by our laws, it may be impossible to get that species classified as endangered here. The same thing goes of similar species in different parts of the US.
Eliminate Consultation: Today, government agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before they take any actions that could undermine the survival or recovery of protected species. The new regulations would allow the administration to categorically exempt agencies from this provision. This will make it highly unlikely that federal agencies will be required to do anything to protect listed wildlife.
And my personal favorite:
Require taxpayers to subsidize developers and private companies for complying with the Law: In the unlikely event that the government did step in to prevent a private interest from causing environmental damage, the government would be liable for compensating said private interest for the "loss" they sustain by not being able to go ahead with their project. Talk about a program that encourages the very thing it is supposed to prevent - and at considerable taxpayer expense! If I have two projects in mind: one has negligible environmental consequence and the other has a tremendous amount of potential damage, which would I seek to get permits for? If I pick the second one, I may get paid millions of dollars for not doing the work.
The argument in favor of personal property rights just confuses me. If you were engaged in a business that made some awful poison that was making children sick in my community, I could get evidence of this and get the government to stop you from doing this. When the government did this, it would prevent you from doing what you wanted to do with your stuff on your personal property. It would prevent you from making a profit. It is very unlikely that you would be compensated for having to stop poisoning children. The government has the right and the responsibility to act to prevent harm to people and that supersedes your personal property rights.
It is scientifically agreed that the condition of wildlife and the preservation of habitat is critical to the long-term survival of human beings on the planet. The preservation of threatened or endangered species is one of the best ways of quantifying the degree to which the government is acting to protect human survival here on earth. How can anyone make a case that their personal property rights and right to turn a profit should take precedence over the continued survival of the human race on earth?
They do it by saying that their pet profit is insignificant to the broader question and so they ought to be allowed to make their personal millions. By all means, keep all those other people just like me from following my example, but in my case, I want to be made the exception. How many acres of old growth forest is enough? How many miles of undeveloped coastline is enough? In my mind, the government has a duty to be pessimistic and err on the side of caution.
Sometimes I think it is too bad that we don't elect people for 20 years at a pop. They might be less inclined to think that what they did would be somebody else's problem. There's far too many short-term profits made at the expense of tomorrow
Tiger, tiger, losing fight Another 15 years, and the big cat could be extinct. Vibha Sharma talks to experts and wildlife conservationists on the tiger crisis
IN Sariska, there have been no reassuring tiger pugmarks to indicate the presence of the majestic cats in the prestigious Project Tiger reserve since quite some time now. And a Sariska-type situation could be just waiting to happen elsewhere too.
The last tiger sighting in Sariska was reported in November 2004 by a tourist, but there is no official confirmation. When the jungle fell silent to the roar of the tigerin March, a special investigating team of the CBI reported to the Prime Minister that there were no tigers left in Sariska, and that poaching was the main reason behind the disappearance of tigers from the reserve.
While conservationists and media reports had sounded alarm bells much earlier, saying much the same, it was only after the Sariska report that findings of missing tigers started pouring in from elsewhere too — such as Ranthambore in Rajasthan and Panna in Madhya Pradesh. And, activists began pointing out the grave situation in several Project Tiger reserves in the country.
The news that gorillas and chimpanzees are in grave danger of extinction is profoundly disturbing (''Gorillas and Chimps in Peril, Report Says,'' news article, April 7). But this is just the tip of the iceberg. A majority of biologists now believe that humans are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species of life on earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
According to the most recent United Nations Global Environment Outlook Report, if current trends continue, one quarter of all mammal species will be extinct in 30 years, and E. O. Wilson of Harvard, the world's most esteemed biologist, estimates that one half of all species on earth will be extinct by the end of this century. It is long past time for us to stop wasting our resources killing each other and to start using them to rescue the planet we are rapidly devastating.
DAVID ULANSEY Berkeley , Calif. , April 7, 2003
Published: 04 - 11 - 2003 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 4 , Page 24
Being a fairly new charitable organization, we have limited workers and need to keep our focus in the most important areas for now. Keeping up on Gloabl Concerns is extremely important. Making your voice heard is extremely important, but in order to survive, we need to focus on fundraising. Our main goal is environmental protection, including habitat restoration, wildlife preservation, conservation of natural resources and more. We raise money to purchase land in endangered species territory in order to protect and give back to the threatened plants and animals. Our actions also help with the global warming problem, pollution, logging, drilling and land development on land that needs to be preserved for species that have a right to live. Please help us with your continued support. We need to maintain a balanced ecosystem in order to have a healthy planet. You can help today!
Write to us about Global Concerns or causes you want to see on our site. We will listen and promote the issues that are important to you!
