yet more reasons to STOP putting them in soup!!!

From Care2:

Sharks Have Brains Like… Ours

After five shark fatalities in the past year, the Western Australian government announced a plan to hunt and kill great white sharks, an endangered species, in September. Conservationists have harshly criticized the new “shark mitigation plan to protect beach goers” which provides $6.85 million in funding for the tracking, catching and “if necessary,” killing of sharks identified as being close proximity to beach goers.

There are other ways to prevent shark attacks besides killing them. New research about the neurology of sharks published in a special edition of the journal Brain, Behaviour and Evolution on the nervous systems of cartilaginous fishes could be key to developing “repellents” to keep them away from marine areas used by humans.

From dissecting the brains of more than 150 sharks, University of Western Australia shark researcher Kara Yopak discovered that their brains have a number of features like that of humans. As Yopak says to AFP, great white sharks actually have “quite large parts of the brain associated with their visual input, with implications for them being much more receptive to repellents targeting visual markers.”

Currently, most of the repellents send off a strong electronic signal that targets the electrosensitive pores sharks have on their heads for picking up the currents created by prey. But such technologies have been shown to be only partially effective in deterring great white sharks. As Yopak says,

A shark may recognise a poisonous sea-snake’s markings and swim away, for example, and we can use this information to cue a response. It’s about understanding how their neurobiology affects their (behaviour).

Yopak, who is part of a team of scientists at the university’s Oceans Institute, also found that sharks’ brains are of the same relative size as those of mammals or birds, thereby confuting the notion that they are “tiny-brained eating machines.”

Based on her research, simply putting certain patterns on surfers’ wetsuits and surfboards could possibly repel sharks.

As Kopak writes in a preface (pdf) to the journal:

To the general public, the term ‘shark’ is often synonymous with mystery, fear, and morbid fascination. To an evolutionary neuroscientist, however, sharks and their relatives (skates, rays, elephant sharks, and chimaerids) represent a key a stage in the evolution of gnathostomes, with the appearance of the first fully formed neural ‘bauplan’ that is present in all extant jawed vertebrates.

That is, studying how the shark nervous system has evolved, as well as how sharks and their relatives “receive and process information from their environment” and the implications of these “evolutionary adaptations in sensorimotor function” for their nervous systems, can teach us something not only about their neurology but our own.

The Western Australian government’s shark mitigation plan also included funds for trial shark enclosure, a shark tagging program, more jet skis for rescuers and more helicopter patrols of beaches — and more research funds. Clearly it would be a positive step for the latter to be used to support research like Yopak’s. Her discovery about the similarities between sharks’ brains and ours makes it all the more important to find other ways for all of us to share the ocean and, to the extent possible, co-exist.

If sharks’ neurology resembles ours, hunting and killing them seems even more cruel and unnecessary.

E. Fudd

RIGHT. ON.

From Care2:

Endangered Flower Wins Against Major Land Developer

It’s hard to believe that anything could halt urban sprawl in Los Angeles County, but it looks like the job has been done — by a flower.

The gravely endangered San Fernando Valley Spineflower, with help from environmental organizations and indigenous tribes, faced down a builder who wants to erect a sprawling development in Newhall Ranch along the Santa Clara River. The Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Santa Clara River, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE), Wishtoyo Foundation, Ventura Coastkeeper and California Native Plant Society teamed up to take Newhall Land and the state of California to court for violating laws protecting endangered species.

The San Fernando Valley Spineflower is so rare that it was long believed extinct until it was rediscovered in 1999. It exists in only two places — and one of them is Newhall Ranch.

Two other endangered species, both fish, also live in the Newhall Ranch footprint: the unarmored threespine stickleback and the southern California steelhead trout. Like the Spineflower, these species are protected by the California Endangered Species Act.

That law requires developer Newhall Land to prove to the state that the project’s effects on these species would be minor. Though the 11,999-acre development, which would bring over 60,000 residents into the area, would destroy a quarter of the Spineflower’s habitat, the state approved the Newhall Ranch plan as minimally harmful to endangered species.

The team of environmental and indigenous organizations that took on the developer and the state disagreed with this approval. They felt that the project would do unacceptable damage to the Spineflower and the two endangered fish species, and on top of that, that it would destroy Native American Chumash and Tataviam cultural resources. So they went to court.

In a 38-page opinion the judge shut down the development project, at least for now, in order to protect the endangered species from extinction and the tribal cultural sites from destruction.

The judge’s order halting the development in its tracks may not survive an appeal by the developer, which plans to challenge it in a higher court. Even if the Spineflower and its friends win the appeal, that does not mean the saga, which began when Newhall Land first submitted a development plan to the county in 1994, is at an end. The judge didn’t just order the builder not to start work: she also ordered it to make a second pass at complying with the Endangered Species Act. This time the developer would have to modify its plans to dramatically reduce damage to the three protected species and to indigenous cultural sites, and the state would have to hold it to a higher standard in this regard.

The chair of Friends of the Santa Clara River found this ruling “very gratifying,” because it “will finally compel the [state] and Newhall Land to address the project’s devastating effects on endangered species and on the Santa Clara River as they never have been addressed before, and to seriously consider alternative plans that can avoid these effects.”

Wishtoyo’s executive director, a Chumash ceremonial elder, also praised the court’s ruling, saying that “the law protected our culture, ancestors, and resources as the legislature intended.”

E. Fudd

Came across this in the recent Patagonia catalog. While I am always cynical about corporations touting their green street cred, I think these guys are legit from everything I’ve read about them the past many years. Read it and judge for yourself…

One Planet, One Vote

In 1991, Patagonia was growing at a rate of 50 percent a year, and we hit the wall in the midst of the savings and loan crisis. The bank reduced our credit line twice in several months, and we ended up borrowing from friends to meet payroll. We laid off 20 percent of our workforce on July 31, 1991. That’s a day we still refer to as Black Wednesday.

Patagonia had exceeded its resources and limitations. Like the world economy, we’d become dependent on growth we could not sustain. In the end, we had to look at what “sustainability” might mean in the same sentence with “business.” If we hadn’t stayed in business, we never would have realized – the hard way – the parallel between Patagonia’s unsustainable push for growth and that of our entire industrial economy.

The global push for growth has led people into two impoverishments: The first is a feeling of “not enough.” We once asked the owner of a successful business if he had enough money and he replied, “Don’t you understand? There is never enough.”

We don’t have enough money, and we also don’t have enough time. We don’t have enough energy, solitude or peace. We are among the world’s wealthiest countries, yet UNICEF ranks the wellbeing of American and British children last compared to other rich nations. As Eric Hoffer, the mid-20th century philosopher, put it, “You can never get enough of what you don’t really need to make you happy.”

The second impoverishment is that while we work harder to get more of what we don’t need, we lay waste to the natural world. We want oil for our cars, so we drill in deep waters where it’s hazardous for workers and the cost of a spill is now all too familiar. We cut down whole forests, we pollute precious water. We are using one and a half planets’ worth of resources to “sustain” our way of life on our one and only planet. “We are sleepwalking into disaster,” says Dr. Peter Senge, writer and senior lecturer at MIT, “going faster and faster to get to where no one wants to be.”

What to do?
After Black Wednesday, Patagonia wrote a new statement of purpose which included this line: “All decisions of the company are made in the context of the environmental crisis … growth and expansion are values not basic to this corporation.” And ever since then, like a married couple that slowly realizes the extent of what they promised on their wedding day, we’ve been figuring out what those words mean.

As Patagonia examines its corporate life in the context of the environmental crisis, we invite you to examine your private life in the same context. We are each a consumer and a citizen. In each of these roles, we have environmental impact. As a consumer, you can decide which companies to buy from, based on what the companies do to reduce their environmental impact. As a citizen, you can look over the records of your candidates and find out how they voted on efforts to make our lives less ruinous and more sustainable.

Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time, and a healthy planet is necessary for a healthy business. We want to act responsibly, live within our means and leave behind not only a habitable planet, but an Earth whose beauty and biodiversity is protected for those who come after us.

We need leaders who are committed to this vision. Patagonia has a stake in this election, and we plan to bring our deepest values with us into the voting booth in November. We ask you to join us.

Vote for the world you want to live in.

E. Fudd

And to top it off, he’s proud of his own ignorance and stupidity. I guess that’s why we have a 1st Amendment – sadly protects even the a**holes…..pfft!

Climate Change Denier Senator James Inhofe Receives Rubber Dodo Award

E. Fudd

Free Morgan Foundation

Petition here

In June 2010 a lone female orca calf was captured from the Wadden Sea, off the northwest coast of the Netherlands, under a rehabilitation and release permit. She was emaciated and dehydrated. The Dolfinarium Harderwijk took this orca, whom they named Morgan, to their facilities in order to administer medical health care. They weren’t allowed to display her to the public and she was to be prepared for reintroduction back into her natural habitat. Unfortunately, this isn’t what happened.

Morgan currently languishes in Loro Parque, a privately owned entertainment park in the Canary Islands. She is used in shows and is abused by the other orca at the park. Yet, there is strong evidence that illustrates that Morgan is a suitable candidate for release back into the wild.

Since Morgan’s capture two years ago, the Free Morgan Foundation has been fighting for Morgan’s freedom. Please help us in our efforts.

E. Fudd

From Care2:
First Nation Challenges Shell’s Proposed Tar Sands Expansion

Shell Oil’s plans to expand the Jackpine tar sands strip mine near Alberta, Canada have come to a head today, as environmentalists from across North America stand united with the people of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) against Shell’s proposed expansion.

The Jackpine expansion would fuel even more global warming and drive the destruction of the boreal forest — all to extract filthy tar sands oil that would be funneled to dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL. Today, ACFN is bringing a constitutional challenge to Shell’s application before Canada’s Joint Review Panel in Fort McMurray, Alberta. The challenge may be the only remaining pieces of law that can stop the destruction of the land on which ACFN has resided for generations.

ACFN has asked the public to join them in Fort McMurray today and stand in solidarity as they present their evidence against the proposed tar sands expansion.

If you can’t be there in person, you can still show your support! Take action now at www.stoptar.org.

E. Fudd

E. Fudd

E. Fudd

From Oceana:

Victory! Strict Shark Finning Ban Moves Forward in Europe

Today we moved closer to a complete ban on shark finning in the European Union!

The Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament voted in Brussels today to support a strict ban on shark finning, both in European Union waters and on EU ships worldwide. The European Union contains several major shark fishing nations, responsible for 14% of all reported shark catches worldwide.

This new policy would close loopholes in EU’s existing shark finning policy, which allowed some vessels to remove fins at sea. It will have to be approved by the rest of the Parliament before it can go into effect.

Shark finning is a cruel and wasteful practice where fishers cut off a shark’s fins, often while it is still alive, and then toss the rest of the shark overboard to die. Sharks everywhere are facing strong fishing pressures, with many species now classified as threatened or endangered. When only fins are collected, more sharks can be caught, and the species may not be identifiable on-shore, putting threatened and endangered sharks at more risk.

The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 made shark finning illegal in US waters, requiring fishers to bring the entire shark to shore. In the EU, shark finning has technically been prohibited since 2003, but the policy voted on today will remove an exemption that allowed some vessels to continue removing fins on-board and made enforcement of the ban difficult.

Put together, EU countries form the largest shark fishing entity in the world, and we are thrilled that the Parliament is taking this important step to protect sharks in their waters, after several years of campaigning by Oceana’s team in Europe. “The vote of the Fisheries Committee sends a strong message to the wider Parliament: the EU, which catches the largest share of sharks worldwide, must set a global example when it comes to policy on shark finning,” says Xavier Pastor, Executive Direction of Oceana Europe.

E. Fudd

to all those advocates of ‘local control’ – when you stop being hypocrites, we can talk….

E. Fudd

From Mother Jones:
States Aren’t Enforcing Their Own Oil and Gas Rules

The biggest domestic oil and gas boom in a generation is going unpoliced by regulators in many states, according to a report released today by the environmental group Earthworks. Since 2005, the United States has increased oil production by about 10 percent and gas production about 20 percent, largely due to technological advances in horizontal drilling and fracking. Meanwhile, enforcement actions in six major oil and gas states have not kept pace with all the new drilling.

The report, “Breaking All the Rules,” examined oil and gas regulation in Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. It found that in recent years the number of oil-and-gas-related enforcement actions and total dollar amount in penalties in each state have either remained fairly constant or dropped. The only exception was in Colorado, where penalties increased because the state addressed a backlog of old cases.

One reason enforcement hasn’t kept pace with drilling could be that regulators are overwhelmed. In Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, there are more than 2,000 wells for each oil well inspector (there are nearly 4,500 wells per inspector in New Mexico). In 2010, the report found that some states inspected only 1 in 10 oil and gas wells to determine whether they complied with state rules. (chart and more at article link – EF)