 |
|
CASH Courier > 2003
Fall / Winter 2004 Issue
Selected Articles from our
newsletter
The C.A.S.H. Courier
BUSH WANTS WILDLIFE TO PAY THEIR OWN WAY
By Kathryn Burton
In October, 2003 several major changes were put
forward that will change wildlife regulations in this country;
but one entry into the Federal Register will be remembered as
a turning point for this government, with reverberations around
the world. It was announced with just days left for what is commonly
called "public comment," but can be rescinded and would
be, if the word got out.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, whose aim over the
past years has been to go international and spread its expertise
in animal and land management, proposed a plan to pay foreign
(poor) countries for endangered species, which will be brought
here, ranched to increase their numbers and offered to wealthy
hunters bored with killing the same old animals and birds, and
leery of going to countries where they’d have to cope with widespread
political unrest or epidemics.
The money, theoretically, will go towards the environmental
programs in those countries, but spokesmen on site say it never
does and never will. Starving animals, starving people and selfish
leaders have been the rule, not the exception, too many times.
Providing “trophies" for the dwindling number of hunters,
the vast majority of whom will not be able to afford these luxury
kills, says a lot about the agency, and removes any possibility
that they can claim their role is one of protecting the wildlife
and environment.
Thrown into this program, is the legalizing of
certain ivory imports into the United States, and unexplained "parts,
skins, eggs, etc." of animals. The bare sketch, with vast
underlying potential, is not a scientific document, but a shopping
list with no control and no limits. Considering our manufacturing
facilities at present, it would appear the real benefit of this
program will not be to the United States but to "partner" countries
that would be condemned for such activities done on their own,
but have a huge, willing market here, after processing and manufacturing
goods from rare skins and pelts. It takes advantage of the poor
countries and steals their future, for what?
Photo courtesy of Betty
W. Butler
The agencies are big businesses and have to please
their customers in order to stay employed. This program will
work, they claim, based on “scientific studies.” Their long term
goals are to keep a healthy environment and flourishing wildlife.
The truth is they want that money coming in so they can stay
in business, and it is never enough.
In the Washington Post article, it says:
The Fish and Wildlife Service's parrot proposal
cited scientific estimates by Enrique Bucher, a top Argentine
parrot biologist, in determining how many birds could be safely
captured. But in a telephone interview from the University of
Cordoba in Argentina, Bucher said his research actually showed
the U.S. proposal was poorly conceived and lacked scientific
oversight. "It's a very romantic idea, but in practice I
do not know any positive examples," he said, referring to "sustainable
use" plans. "The assumption that local communities
will have the organization and altruism to put the money into
long-term protection of the environment where you have terrible
economic forces pushing for deforestation is a little naïve."
Where are the major NGOs? There was not one letter
of protest in The Washington Post in the two weeks following
the announcement. It reveals the truth, that most of the NGO’s
are bought and paid for with grant money. They look the other
way on even such degradation as this. Go down the list of names
in your mind, start with Audubon. Why haven't they screamed about
this proposed program?
This new killing program does not reflect the will
or the character of the American public, and I for one am terribly
ashamed that it got this far.
Only legislative action will stop this program.
Your senators and congressmen probably don't even know about
it. Email me at Kburton759@aol.com and
I'll send you the story from the Post, which you can then send
on. That will be more influential than individual "interpretations," such
as my own.
Kathryn Burton, President, SOS, Save Our Swans, KBurton759@aol.com
|
|
