Cagle World

San Francisco, one of America’s most iconic cities, is in decay. Smash-and-grab robberies and open shoplifting have forced businesses to close, law enforcement has tied hands, and urine, feces and the used syringes of zombie drug addicts litter the streets.

Yet one of the leaders of the decline, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 83, who represents San Francisco, announced this month that she will run again for office. Or, in perhaps a slip of the tongue, she says she has “agreed to stay on another term,” assuming it’s a foregone conclusion that the position is hers.

“Now more than ever our City needs us to advance San Francisco values and further our recovery,” Pelosi wrote on social media.
“Our country needs America to show the world that our flag is still there, with liberty and justice for ALL. That is why I am running for reelection — and respectfully ask for your vote.”

Nancy’s announcement that she wants to turn all American cities into San Francisco should be sufficient impetus for Americans to demand term limits. But, there are many other reasons we need to implement term limits now. Restoring the concept of public service in public service positions is one. It should be anathema to every American citizen that too many elected officials enrich themselves by way of public office.

Contrast today’s “public servants” to those of the past. For example, President Harry S. Truman, after leaving office, returned to Independence, Mo., with his wife, Bess, to the humble home they’d had since 1919 when they married.

Today’s presidents are quite different. The Obamas have multiple homes, including houses in Washington, D.C. and on Martha’s Vineyard worth $20 million. They also have another three-acre, multi-million-dollar property on Oahu and still own their Chicago home. The presidency made the Obamas extraordinarily rich. The insidious, deep-rooted corruption that has come with entrenched politicians is perhaps nowhere greater on display than with Joe Biden, who has been in elected office for 50 years.

Fellow Democrat Pelosi is no exception. San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in which to live, and through the years of Pelosi’s time in elected office, she and husband Paul have amassed wealth of an estimated $120 million to $290 million today, depending on the source. According to Open Secrets, the Pelosi net worth was an estimated $115 million in 2018, up from $101 million in 2013 and $24 million in 2009. The annual salary of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is $174,000; for Speaker of the House, $223,500. Pelosi served as speaker from 2019 to 2023. Pelosi has been in elected office since 1987, or for 36 years.

In 1951, a two-term limit was established for the presidency, but no limits were set for Senate and House members, although term limits of six years for members of Congress were discussed in 1945. In more recent years, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was proposed in 2017 to limit the number of terms members of Congress could serve. In January this year, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), along with 43 cosponsors, proposed term limits via H.J. Res. 11.

This month, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) accused House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) of not adhering to agreements made in January this year during the fight for the House Speaker position, which included pushing forward on term limits. Whether Gaetz’ loud reminder will have an impact or not is to be seen. But change cannot come too soon.

Pelosi has held elected office for nearly four decades. Among others past their expiration dates are Sen. Mitch McConnell (81) – now showing health issues impacting his job performance – in office for nearly five decades; former San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein (90), the oldest U.S. senator (only a few months older though than Chuck Grassley) and visibly displaying cognitive issues after a stroke (if not before) which kept her out of office for months; Sen. Grassley (90), in public office since 1959; and Rep. Maxine Waters (85) who has occupied a seat in the House of Representatives for 17 terms and been cited for ethics violations and was named one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

An argument can be made there’s value to having lawmakers in office who have experience navigating Capitol Hill, but there’s a much stronger argument to be made for limiting years in office. Too many senators and representatives have used their positions of power to enrich themselves, which means decisions are made based on their personal interests and aggrandizement, not the interests of America and Americans.

Term limits are a long overdue course correction, one Americans appear ready for. A University of Maryland poll this year found that 86 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment to set term limits.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Lord Acton, a British Parliament member (1859 to 1866). There’s little evidence that statement isn’t true when looking at some of America’s elected office holders. To some extent, enacting term limits may curb the scheming time available to devote to personal enrichment.

–

Copyright 2023 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on Facebook @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

The New York Times has a history of journalistic infractions. Too-cozy relations with government operatives, inaccurate reporting and outright plagiarism and fake stories. More recently, there’s been the unhinged writing of columnist Paul Krugman, the embrace of “Wokeism” and the meltdown of the commentary section, with resultant resignation of the publication’s opinion page editor.

With such a rich history of compromised content, it’s unsurprising that “the newspaper of record” would run a pure puff piece on real estate and investment mogul Nicolas Berggruen (net worth: $2.9 billion). The story’s fawning author, Michael Steinberger, who also manages to make himself part of the piece, skirts the real story: A billionaire’s push for a vanity project that would sacrifice the last great open space in Los Angeles.

In opposition to the local community, Berggruen plans to plop a George Jetson-looking complex atop a Southern California mountain on a 447-acre holding that is home to rich flora and fauna, and offers respite to Los Angelenos via hard-won open space and public hiking trails. In the more than 3,500-word Times article, Steinberger gave only one line to the controversy: Berggruen “has yet to break ground on the project, which has drawn resistance from nearby residents.”

Now based in Los Angeles, the Paris-born Berggruen is establishing himself as a philosopher, thinker and benefactor – the gushing Steinberger writes that Nic has been called a “latter-day Medici.” The physical manifestation of the “Philosopher King” and formerly “Homeless Billionaire,” as the Times headed the Steinberger article, is the Berggruen Institute. Created in 2010 with $100 million “to develop foundational ideas about how to reshape political and social institutions,” the Institute currently offices in Downtown Los Angeles in the iconic Bradbury Building.

In 2014, Berggruen purchased property in Los Angeles west of the 405 freeway and north of the Getty Center for $45 million to build his mountaintop retreat, which Town & Country described as “devoted to sheltering the world’s elite thinkers in a peaceful yet intellectually fervid sanctuary for reflection and dialogue.” There also are plans for Berggruen’s private quarters.

Prior land owner and developer Castle & Cooke had been in a long, litigious battle over the 447 acres with various stakeholders, including area residents, the Canyon Back Alliance, Mountaingate Open Space Maintenance Association (MOSMA) and others. The end result in 2006 was zoning that allowed for 28 individual homes and unrestricted trail access – in other words, not a development such as what Berggruen desires.

Berggruen’s project “is blatantly illegal and cannot be built under existing law,” wrote the Sierra Club’s Santa Monica Taskforce in a seven-page January 2021 letter to the planning department for Los Angeles and to City Councilman Mike Bonin, who represents the disputed area.

Of the 447 acres, the Sierra Club letter outlines that 424 acres of open space and two historic trails are protected from development through conservation easements held by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a local public agency.

In addition to the Sierra Club letter, a number of groups have all either expressed problems with the development as proposed or outright opposition to Berggruen’s vanity project at the proposed site. Community activists are prepared to fight.

Among concerns about the proposed development are fire. California has become a tinderbox in recent years. In December 2017, the Skirball Fire burned 475 acres, destroyed or damaged 18 structures and forced 46,000 residents to evacuate. The October 2019 Getty Fire burned 745 acres – blackening some of the Berggruen property – destroyed or damaged 25 residences and forced thousands to flee. On its face, building in a high fire zone seems foolhardy.

The Berggruen site is on top of a former landfill now monitored by the City of Los Angeles for methane. A massive Southern California methane gas leak in a neighboring community in October 2015 should be taken as a cautionary tale for this proposed project.

As the last great open space in Los Angeles, the Berggruen property features wild woodland with ferns, oak trees and sycamores. The natural habitat is home to cougars, coyotes, deer, falcons, great horned owls, raccoons, redtailed hawks and quail, among other animals, who navigate the Santa Monica Mountains. In addition to loss of wildlife habitat, the Berggruen project would bring more light pollution, which impacts the biology and ecology of wild animals. Additionally, the development would eliminate an important animal corridor, including for cougars, under severe pressure in the area. If Berggruen were to gift his land holding to remain as open space, it would continue to benefit area wildlife and help connect the patchwork of land to support the movement of animals.

Why Berggruen would continue to want to develop in an area when the community is not receptive seems odd, given he could build his think tank anywhere. For a contemplative, meditative retreat, there is plenty of desert in California.

“I have no objection to him developing his project – just not here,” said Eric Edmunds, Chair of the Sierra Club Santa Monica Mountains Task Force and President of the Brentwood Hills Homeowners Association.

In a state that’s horribly overpopulated and overdeveloped, preserving this intact area of precious wildland, wild animal habitat and trails forever would turn Berggruen – who is shaping up to be the local villain – into a local hero.

–

Copyright 2022 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on Facebook @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

For basketball fans and players, the third month of the year means “March Madness,” one of the biggest sporting events. March for some college undergraduates means spring break in exotic locales. For thousands of this year’s medical school graduates, March means the exciting culmination of eight years of higher education – undergraduate training and medical school – and the next step in the medical profession: residency training.

But for thousands of other doctors, it means rejection, doubt and questioning the way forward.

Residency training is the additional hands-on learning that occurs at a teaching hospital or clinic after a doctor has graduated from medical school. Residencies are funded by taxpayers at a cost of about $150,000 per year. Of that, the average medical resident earns $64,000 a year. The length of training can last from two to five or more years, depending on the specialty area. Residencies are grueling and punishing, with exceedingly long hours.

The National Resident Matching Program is the nonprofit organization that has been “matching” doctors to residency programs since 1952. Public perception for a long time has been that once a doctor graduates from medical school, that’s it. A doctor is a doctor and can go forth and practice medicine.

That was pretty much true for several decades. But then began a divergence. There were more doctors – including ones from other countries – applying for residencies than there were residencies. A major factor was the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which capped the number of residents and fellows that the federal Medicare program would support. And Medicare was the single largest source of funding for graduate medical education.

Not until the end of 2020 was there an increase in residency positions when H.R.133 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, was signed into law. The legislation included funding for 1,000 (200 slots per year over five years) new Medicare-supported positions.

In this year’s Match, the National Resident Matching Program put a positive spin on the numbers, reporting, “The 2022 Match realized many significant milestones including a record number of U.S. MD and U.S. DO [doctor of osteopathic medicine] senior applicants and the largest number of total and first-year positions offered.”

But the reality is that more than 7,000 doctors who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents still don’t have residencies. Thus, we continue to fail our doctors who have invested years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for their training, and who are eager to contribute to America’s healthcare system and alleviate the much-discussed looming U.S. shortage of between 38,000 and 124,000 physicians in both primary and specialty care.

Last month, Kevin Lynn, cofounder of Doctors without Jobs, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary on the topic. Lynn emphasized that not only are we sidelining our talent, we’re also subsidizing doctors from other countries by importing them to fill U.S. taxpayer-funded residencies. The number is significant: more than 40,000 foreign doctors have been given taxpayer-funded residencies in the last 10 years.

This issue impacts every American who accesses the healthcare system. Unmatched doctors and American citizens alike should call and write their elected officials – weekly, until this is fixed – and ask that they prioritize our doctors for residency positions. Current legislation, H.R. 2256, The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2021, would create more residency slots, but in its current iteration, it does not prioritize U.S. physicians for these spots. H.R. 2256 needs to be modified to hire American doctors first.

U.S. politicians have had no problem in recent weeks quickly finding $14 billion for Ukraine, which includes both humanitarian aid and weapons. But for more than a dozen years, these elected officials haven’t been able to find the dollars to take care of American doctors. Maybe there’s no money to be made for American elites and the political class by fixing this problem.

–

Copyright 2022 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on Facebook @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

Listed as an endangered species in 1967, the red wolf (Canis rufus) was declared extinct in the wild in 1980. A native of the Southeastern U.S. for 10,000 years, the species has continued, albeit in low numbers, only because a small population of red wolves raised in captivity was reintroduced into a 1.7 million acre recovery area in northeastern North Carolina.

Between 2002 and 2014, according to the Animal Welfare Institute, “the wild red wolf population consistently numbered over 100 animals.” But from there, the story headed south. The Institute writes that by 2015, the red wolf population had dropped to an estimated 50 to 75 animals. The next year showed more loss, with an estimated 25 to 48 red wolves remaining. As of October 2021, only eight red wolves were known to be in the wild. Soon to join them, per a recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announcement, will be nine captive wolves that will be released into the North Carolina wild.

The Animal Welfare Institute says mismanagement by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the low numbers. Program management moved from red wolf biologists to bureaucrats in Atlanta, far removed from on-the-ground work. And landowners who didn’t like the recovery program continued to kill wolves, claiming innocence – “we thought it was a coyote.” As well, the government actually issued permits to kill red wolves on private land, even in the face of so few numbers. The Institute writes, “Given the small and declining number of red wolves, losing even one wolf has huge repercussions for the species.”

As an outsider looking in, the obvious solution would seem to be greater protections for wildlife in North Carolina, including no more killing of coyotes and wolves. The level of frustration with those who care about these animals and work most closely with them to save them must be off the charts – only eight in the wild and only in one state.

As an apex predator important to overall biodiversity, this species needs much more attention. A higher level of commitment to supporting a sustainable population in North Carolina is needed, more space and attention to captive breeding and more support for reintroduction of red wolves to other suitable areas where they could thrive.

Equally important is more public education. The maltreatment of the gray wolf, the larger cousin of the red wolf, which was also taken to the brink of extinction in America. The gray wolf has been reintroduced to some areas and found footing in a few parts of the U.S. – and seemingly as soon as there’s a bit of a foothold, there are those among us all too anxious to kill the animals.

Wildlife advocate and author Rick Lamplugh writes that by 1970, only about 700 wolves remained in the lower 48 states, down from an estimated 2 million prior to the arrival of colonists, who quickly eradicated wolves east of the Mississippi.

Multiple organizations are working on issues related to the survival of red wolves, with several zoos and nature centers housing captive animals totaling more than 200. Kudos to them. Among them are breeding programs managed by the Wolf Conservation Center at their Endangered Species Facility.

It’s great there are committed organizations, but it seems that we should be much farther along in higher numbers of animals and with more animals reintroduced into the wild. Even factoring in that science may move slowly, we are talking about decades since the few remaining red wolves were removed from the wild and placed into captive programs.

A program that hopefully will prove helpful in identifying appropriate areas for red wolf reintroduction is the Gulf Coast Canine Project. Breeding occurred among coyotes, gray wolves and eastern wolves, resulting in red wolf genetics in coyotes in southwest coastal Louisiana and the Gulf Coast of Texas – the coyotes have become reservoirs of genetic information for red wolves.

By tracking these coyotes with red wolf genes, researchers are assessing the genetic history to see what remains of the red wolf, looking to understand behavior and hoping to ultimately inform conservation and management of both red wolves and coyotes.

For more information and ways to help the red wolf, visit the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, Endangered Wolf Center, Wolf Conservation Center and Gulf Coast Canine Project, and read Rick Lamplugh.

–

Copyright 2022 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on Facebook @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

Millions of animals die on U.S. roads every year. Reductions in night-time driving would stem future senseless loss of wildlife.

While data is difficult to come by for the number of animals killed on the 4.17 million miles of roads in the U.S., author and nature photographer Mark Mathew Braunstein wrote that an estimated 1 million animals are killed on U.S. roads each day. After a recent road trip in the Midwest, I wondered if the estimate of 1 million daily deaths isn’t too small a number.

On a 700-mile round-trip between Oklahoma City and Kansas City in late October, I counted 178 animal victims of vehicular hits, with the body count higher as I got nearer to Kansas City. The landscape of pumping units, hay bales, windmills and fall foliage was diminished by so much death.

As the miles ticked by, emotions were up and down, sadness seeing what looked like more remains of yet another dead animal, but then relief to see just more shredded tires from blowouts, an abandoned child’s stuffed animal bunny toy or other detritus. Sometimes there were lone victims; sometimes pairs or threesomes – a calico cat, maybe a dog, skunks, raccoons, armadillos, eight deer, unknown species in pieces spread across multiple car lengths and animals no longer identifiable.

With miles and miles of unbreaking cement divider separating the lanes for drivers heading north on I-35 from those heading south, there’s been no thought of how the chicken will cross the road, let alone “Why did the chicken cross the road?” But even if that solid concrete impediment weren’t there with four lanes of traffic – more in other parts of the country – and with vehicles traveling 75 mph (or 85 or 90 mph), the likelihood of successful animal crossings no doubt would probably still be low. About 100 cougars are killed each year on California’s roadways, some of the busiest in the world.

This carnage on the roads contributes not just to reductions in wildlife, but it also impacts humans. The hundreds of thousands of animal fatalities without end on the roads result in 26,000 human injuries and 200 deaths, and vehicular damage. Crashes with animals translate to annual costs of $8 billion.

With an estimated U.S. population of more than 30 million deer, there are ample opportunities for the unfortunate intersection of particularly lethal incidents between deer and moving vehicles. Just in Pennsylvania, the state synonymous with deer – think the 1978 film, “The Deer Hunter” – nearly 142,000 deer were struck by vehicles in reported claims to insurers. So the number could be higher.

Senseless death coupled with practical costs are ample reasons to look at how to significantly reduce losses. One way would be to stop driving at night. Nearly half of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities happen at night (6 p.m. to 6 a.m.), a rate that is three times higher than daytime fatalities, according to a 2007 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. About 25 percent of driving is during darkness, and speeding was a factor in 37 percent of night crashes. Driving at night is just more dangerous, the National Safety Council tells us.

In addition to reducing or eliminating night driving, because it’s safer for humans, with so many nocturnal animals, it’s good for them too. Let’s give them back the night!

That might not be a difficult choice for many. For the trucking industry, however, it likely that would send shockwaves, certainly if there were any movement towards nonvoluntary participation. Nearly 4 million drivers – owner-operator truckers – hold commercial driver’s licenses, and they are the ones responsible for delivering 70 percent of all freight in the country. Delivery schedules, driving preferences and traffic are factors of when they drive. Cities with high traffic are just easier to navigate when there are fewer vehicles on the roads, which generally will be early morning hours. Current backlog issues at U.S. ports have only exacerbated driving schedules for truckers.

Just in the U.S., the chances of keeping a portion of the 290 million cars off the roads at night to save lives would seem remote, seen as overreach to our freedom. It would take a mighty re-education campaign, which likely would still result in refusal by probably half of the population based on past and current polarization on other issues.

Yet, it is a real option should enough Americans deem it more important to save millions of lives than to have unfettered access to roads at night.

–

Copyright 2021 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on Facebook @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

Rep. Chris Rabb (D-Pa.) got media traction recently when he proposed requiring vasectomies for men once they hit age 40, or after their third child, whichever came first.

The idea was intended as parody, but unfortunately the joke was buried at the end of a series of tweets and wasn’t clarified until a few days later. While Rabb failed in whatever point he was trying to make about abortion restrictions, he further failed by using the legislative process simply for a PR stunt.

But there were two positive unintended consequence of his bad faith proposal. First, whether parody or not, putting out the idea highlighted the potential of extremism in government mandates, which can run counter to the essential core value of educated self-determination. Second, it showed how essential men – half the population – are to family planning.

Vasectomies are not a topic for polite dinner conversation, but a few years ago I was with a group of committed environmentalists when several of the older men started talking about theirs in some detail. They remained acutely attuned to the overpopulation piece of conservation and environmental degradation, even as the broad green movement abdicated responsibility in discussing overpopulation as integral to these issues. Appropriateness of the discussion over a plate of pasta aside, I thought, well, hey, they’re proud of their commitment to doing their part to limit population growth. That’s a good thing.

They are just a small sample. Every day men across the world step up to their role in family planning. Thanks to work begun in 2013, there’s now a world vasectomy project that gained momentum with the documentary film, “The Vasectomist,” by Jonathan Stack, which featured urologist and vasectomy advocate Doug Stein. The two cofounded the World Vasectomy Day (WVD) nonprofit project to educate men and women about vasectomies. WVD works with health organizations to build sustainable and scalable programs, and now includes partners and allies in more than 30 countries, making it the largest male-focused sexual and reproductive health movement ever, according to their website.

The WVD project has put together a substantial team that includes medical, sexual and reproductive health advisors. The group provides training, offers lectures, conducts pop-up clinics and otherwise inspires men’s participation in family planning in many ways including through the “Responsible Men’s Health Club,” supporting more than 80,000 vasectomies worldwide since 2013. World Vasectomy Day is now a multi-day event scheduled this year for November 13 to 20.

Among the organizations and policymakers who work on family planning issues, the focus traditionally has been on educating girls and women. When this happens, the thinking goes, marriage and childbirth are delayed. Additional focus has been on ensuring access to health care and contraception for females, which includes the discussion on the importance of spacing of children, for the health of the mother and the child. WVD’s work has done much to broaden the dialogue, placing emphasis on the value men bring to family planning. Other groups increasingly are doing more to bring men into the loop.

The global development and advocacy organization Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) educates, trains and connects youth with each other in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda. DSW writes of men’s essential role in improving reproductive rights in Africa, noting that “men’s general knowledge and opinions on major factors such as the ideal family size, spacing between births and contraceptive methods used have a significant influence on women’s own preferences and attitudes.”

In Niger, where contraception rates are low, and maternal mortality rates and illiteracy are high, men in the Schools for Husbands program meet to talk about reproductive health situations within their communities and seek solutions working with health personnel. Practical solutions to problems solved by the men in Schools for Husbands included building a home for a midwife and constructing a proper toilet when women said the lack of one was a reason they didn’t go to the maternity facility. Overall, the use of family planning services tripled, according to the United Nations Population Fund. The setup provides the men an opportunity to look at maternal health differently and is a way to help change attitudes and actions.

One more example of men coming to the table for family planning comes from the Population Media Center (PMC), founded by Bill Ryerson more than 20 years ago. PMC develops entertaining programming to encourage positive changes in behavior relating to women’s rights, education of girls and responsible parenting that emphasizes good communications between wives and husbands about their families. PMC has documented success, helping more than 500 million people in 50 countries.

So, Rep. Rabb, thanks for putting men back in the equation on family planning. Millions of men are stepping up to do their part. Through continued focus on education and noncoercive measures, and lending support to organizations such as WVD and PMC, millions more will be encouraged and educated on making good choices for their partners and families.

–

Copyright 2021 Maria Fotopoulos, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on FB @BetheChangeforAnimals and [email protected].

Children love learning, and it’s undeniable that great ideas and principles shared at a young age can impact the path of a child for a lifetime. A coloring book I had as a child about America’s national parks instilled a desire to visit all of our country’s parks – a goal still in process – and was the seed for a commitment to keeping wild things wild.

There’s my anecdotal story, and there’s the science. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states, “Early childhood is a time when developmental changes are happening that can have profound and lasting consequences for a child’s future. Studies have shown that much more is going on cognitively, socially, and emotionally in young children than previously known. Even in their earliest years, children are starting to learn about their world in sophisticated ways.”

So my wish for learning-loving children – if I had a magic wand – would be to ensure there was more emphasis in school curriculum about the essential value of the natural world and biodiversity to engender a love and appreciation for the world’s wildlife, and the role each species plays in keeping Earth in balance.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, between 1970 and 2014, 60 percent of birds, fish, mammals and reptiles were wiped out, a threat to civilization, experts say. Given that shocking statistic, and the implications of it, the role of biodiversity should be core curriculum material.

In addition to emphasizing the importance of our wild world in public school curriculum, wildlife organizations have a critical role in developing programs that reach youth. As a small example, the American Prairie Reserve, which is working to create the largest nature reserve in the contiguous United States, offers a downloadable coloring book for ages 12 and up. With designs created by artist Erica Freese, a long-time supporter of the nonprofit, the book brings the prairie to life with intricate drawings to color of bison, prairie dogs and more from the grasslands of Montana. While nonprofits can push out this type of material in a variety of ways to a young audience, teachers, parents and kids can actively seek out this sort of information too.

Books open imagination and worlds to young readers and, short of making the actual physical journey, reading is a way to travel to the wild spots, a way to see the animals and the great natural world and a way to plant the seeds of inspiration – what can I do to make the world a better place?

Panthera, a nonprofit committed to the conservation of the world’s 40 wild cat species and their ecosystems, compiled a list of great children’s books for wild cat-loving young readers. Among them: “A Boy and a Jaguar,” “The World Belongs to Animals” and “One Day on our Blue Planet … in the Savannah.” Again, educators and parents need only to seek out these resources to engage their students and children in wildlife discussion.

Additionally, recently in print is “Cougar Crossing – How Hollywood’s Celebrity Cougar Helped Build a Bridge for City Wildlife.” Written by Southern Californian Meeg Pincus, this children’s book is the true story of P-22, the mountain lion who survived crossing two of the busiest, multiple-lane U.S. highways. While P-22 escaped his birthplace, the Santa Monica Mountains, which are essentially cut off for cougars and other animals to migrate and find mates, he ended up on yet another “island,” Griffith Park. The world-famous location, home to the Griffith Observatory, encompasses an area that’s 17 times smaller than what the average cougar ranges.

P-22’s plight shows a major failing in our approach to wildlife. We’ve worked to preserve areas – parks, reserves and preserves – but we’ve missed the importance of interconnectivity. Wildlife needs to be able to move. The story of this adventurous cougar has generated worldwide interest and has been a driver of the movement to build a wildlife bridge over the 101 Freeway in Southern California to facilitate wildlife movement.

What great grist for inspiring children – the future biologists, land use directors, city planners, conservationists, wildlife managers, environmental scientists and legislators – to think about how we can have a world that works for our wildlife and how interconnectivity needs to be considered.

“Children are our future” is an oft-repeated line that rings true. Let’s do more to ensure that our children have the educational underpinnings to understanding how essential all wild things are for all of us and our one planet.

–

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on FB @BetheChangeforAnimals.

“The National Parks do not suffice as a means of perpetuating the larger carnivores; witness the precarious status of the grizzly bear.” These words were published in 1949 in Aldo Leopold’s “A Sand County ALMANAC,” which influenced the modern environmental movement. Seventy years later, the insight remains true.

Last year, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service removed grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone area from protection under the Endangered Species Act. When listed in 1975 as threatened with extinction, there were only 136. By 2014, an estimated 757 grizzly bears lived in the park area; today numbers are below 700. Removing protections for the grizzly when numbers are just in three digits – and in decline – seems counterintuitive.

Now, Wyoming has said grizzlies who leave the park can be baited and killed in a hunt that will permit the destruction of up to 22 bears – visions of not so mild-mannered Minnesota dentist cum trophy hunter killer Walter Palmer, who lured a lion out of a protected park, come to mind.

Since about 2000, grizzly deaths have increased significantly, according to Grizzly Times, which describes mortality “far in excess of anything that can be explained by changes in population size,” and states, “Hunters have emerged as the leading cause of grizzly bear mortality.” In addition to being shot by hunters, reportedly in self-defense, bears lose their lives to automobiles and wildlife agencies, who deliver lethal punishment for bears killing livestock or looking for food in the wrong place.

This is probably not surprising. David J. Mattson and Troy Merrill in a study for Northern Arizona University wrote: “Grizzly bears in the contiguous United States die primarily because humans kill them. This is true now and has apparently been true since widespread contact with European settlers began in the mid-1800s.”

While the National Park Service states that the park’s grizzly population is recovered, and the park may have reached its capacity for bear residents, they acknowledge that not all agree. Among them are conservationists, Indian tribes, activists and concerned citizens. To make a determination of success based on a small region that a species inhabits, as numbers are dropping, on its face seems neither scientific nor holistic. An animal population does not flourish in a vacuum.

The very habitat on which they’re dependent may also be problematic. According to the Mattson-Merrill study, the “apparent robustness” of the ecosystem of the Yellowstone grizzly “is deceptive.” Yellowstone’s grizzlies are highly dependent on whitebark pine seeds, and the continued existence of whitebark pine is in question, under attack by beetles, disease, wildfires and climate change.

If that’s not enough to call out Wyoming on its unconscionable decision, add in that grizzly bears are among the slowest reproducing land mammals. They start families between the ages of,three and eight, and have small litters, with long spacing between litters.

Further, there aren’t populations of grizzly bears spread out across the United States. Today a mere 1,500 grizzly bears remain in the lower 48, in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Between the U.S. and Canada, grizzly bears now live in half of their historical range.

Leopold wrote that when he first saw the West, in 1909, “there were grizzlies in every major mountain mass.” But by the time he penned “A Sand County Almanac,” only four decades later, 5,000 of the 6,000 grizzlies, per official reports, were in Alaska. “Only five states have any at all,” he wrote. “There seems to be a tacit assumption that if grizzlies survive in Canada and Alaska, that is good enough. It is not good enough for me.”

Those in positions to protect grizzlies, ensuring they survive and thrive, appear, based on choices made, to have the least interest in doing so. This includes the National Park Service – they can’t abdicate responsibility at park borders.

This is not to criticize the committed conservationists who number in the tens of thousands working as park employees and volunteers. However, NPS operates under the Department of the Interior, and Secretary Ryan Zinke has shown repeatedly that he places many interests above wildlife. In fact, the Department of the Interior website ranks stewardship next-to-the-last on the stated priorities list.

Governmental organizations with biodiversity responsibilities must prioritize the best care of wildlife – that’s an obvious public expectation. This includes looking at how to extend the grizzly range and develop a system of connectivity that will ensure the long-term survival of Ursus arctos horribilis, not leave the grizzly limited to Yellowstone and assuredly an uncertain future. Ideas Leopold put forth nearly 70 years ago.

–

Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss. Contact her on F–@BetheChangeforAnimals and Twitter@TurboDog50.