Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) along with co-sponsor Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have introduced their own version of the House’s bill called, Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act. According to a press release by Sen. Whitehouse, the Act will accomplish three things.

The bill would direct the federal government to develop coordinated national strategies to identify, monitor, and protect or restore wildlife populations and habitats that are likely to be harmed by global warming;

It would also create a panel to advise us on what we should do.

The bill would create Advisory Boards, with members appointed by the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and a new National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center within the U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct research and provide scientific and technical advice on strategies to help wildlife, oceans, and coastal ecosystems adapt to global warming. A special panel would also be convened to look specifically at the impacts of climate change on endangered species (emboldening is added).

The bill would also provide funding in order to further study wildlife, oceans and habitat that are being affected by global warming. This money would also be used to implement programs to protect wildlife and habitat that are being affected by global warming.

We have certainly pressed the panic button in this society over global warming which is being proven time and again, day after day that it is just not scientifically supported. This is a hoax that is sure to bring billions of dollars into the pockets of scientific research and with this new proposed act would also distribute money to organizations to “implement programs” to counter global warming. And just where do you think that money will go?

I’ll give you one hint. The Defenders of Wildlife think this Act is a terrific idea and I’m sure other extreme environmental groups and animal rights groups will be jumping on this bandwagon.

This act is troubling in other ways as well. First of all, this appears to be another back door attempt to get federal government in control over state’s wildlife management programs. For decades the feds have, for the most part, recognized the 10th Amendment when it comes to managing wildlife programs and has butted out of allowing state sovereignty to prevail, with one exception being the Endangered Species Act.

Now all of a sudden because we have a group of emotionally charged people jumping on the global warming train ride, the state’s wildlife management programs are not good enough to deal with changes? State’s wildlife officials should be insulted as well as concerned. The feds want to take control over their wildlife and lands that provide the habitat.

The Endangered Species Act, as much as I think it is now outdated and in dire need of being revamped or axed, has sufficed lawmakers to this point in protecting threatened species. This act sounds like another way to put more power into the hands of the feds to further reduce hunting and fishing opportunities as well as outdoor pursuits all in the name of establishing habitat they claim is disappearing because of global warming.

Along with this grabbing up of more land for habitat protection comes the loss of individual property rights, say nothing of the millions of dollars that will be lost because of restrictions put on logging, mining and other businesses that rely on these lands.

Climateatrisk.com writes of the introduction of Whitehouse’s bill and describes the powers that would be granted to the appointed, not elected but appointed panel that would be in control.

The national strategy identifies specific goals and methods to protect, acquire and restore wildlife habitat in order to build resilience to global warming, and provide habitat linkages to facilitate wildlife movements in response to global warming. The National Strategy would also protect natural communities most vulnerable to global warming, and restore and protect ecological processes that sustain wildlife populations.

Does this language sound at all familiar? The Wildlands Project is an organization whose goals are to take land away from private landowners in order to create vast areas of land closed to humans and left for the “natural” use of wildlife at the expense of human productivity and freedom. The want wildlife to have the freedom to move about unimpaired by you and I owning land.

The Wildlands Project’s work to reconnect the continent begins with “MegaLinkages”–vast pathways that tie natural places together.

Within each continental MegaLinkage we propose regional systems of core protected areas connected to one another by “wildlife linkages,” mosaics of public and private lands that provide safe passageways for wildlife to travel freely from place to place.

Private land owners within proposed conservation planning areas are not bound in any way by our recommendations, but are encouraged to participate in voluntary actions to protect landscape linkages and native species.

It is not coincidental that the use of the word “linkages” is used in describing both goals by the Wildlands Project and the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act.

But it doesn’t stop here. Rocker Carole King, a wildlands/wilderness advocate, who I am told is friends with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got her chance to meet with the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, to promote her agenda of creating more wilderness – described as the biggest wilderness creation act since the Alaska Land Act.

King is pushing the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act.

The bill, sponsored by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays would designate as wilderness nearly 7 million acres in Montana, 9.5 million acres in Idaho, 5 million acres in Wyoming, 750,000 acres in eastern Oregon, and 500,000 acres in eastern Washington.

Another three million acres in Yellowstone, Glacier and Grand Teton National Parks also would become wilderness, where no logging, road-building, motorized use, and new oil and gas drilling or new mining could take place.

Now that the Democrats, notorious for being environmentalists with little concern for economic welfare and property rights, are in charge, this is the kind of legislation they are trying to push through and it all goes hand in hand.

This Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is unnecessary and will needlessly cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It will further inflate an already overinflated government that does not need more power over the states. We have brilliant scientists and biologists working all across this land protecting our wildlife and doing a commendable job. Let’s keep big government out.

This act will further tie up land deemed as critical habitat all in the name of global warming, a theory never proven scientifically to be valid. With those in charge fostering ideas that we need millions of square miles of unaccessible wilderness lands for animals is absurd and scientifically unfounded. This is Disney biology at its best.

We as hunters, fishermen and trappers witness first hand how our opportunities are shrinking on a daily basis when governments, pushed by environmental and animal rights groups, tie up land we use to hunt and fish on because of political hard balling.

To some this act may appear to be one that will work toward guaranteeing that we will continue to have game to hunt and fish. It is far from that. We have seen what an abuse of the Endangered Species Act has done for us and this Act will enhance the powers of those who administer the ESA. Is that what we want? Do we want left-wing environmentalists fear mongers further stripping us of hunting and fishing opportunities and taking land out of the hands of private citizens?

This act is not grounded in good scientific reasoning. It’s a means by which power hungry politicians can control the people using the fear of global warming to take away our land, our freedoms and our opportunities to prosper and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

I would encourage everyone to contact their senators and congressmen and tell them the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act is nothing our country needs. If you believe your state has the ability to handle your wildlife management and that you believe the American dream is to own land and have the rights to use that land, speak up now.

Tom Remington

Maine lobstermen are not pleased with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s plan to require them to change the kind of ropes they use to tether their traps. Most trappers are saying this plan is going to be expensive.

Fishermen say the new rules will cost them more than a hundred million dollars in lost equipment, lost time and lost income.

The idea behind this is to find ways to reduce or eliminate the incidences of whales getting tangled in the tethers.

Fishermen will have one year to comply.

Tom Remington

For those of us who are from Maine it is hard to think Lobster could really be thought of anything but a delicacy. Granted some folks who live in Maine may not eat Lobster, they at least classify it in the “too expensive” category, or dislike the taste but still understand its delicacy nature.

Recently I read an article written by Dave Barry of the Miami Herald who tells about a personal experience in Maine coming face to face with his first lobster:

I do not eat lobsters, although I once had a close call. I was visiting my good friends Tom and Pat Schroth, who live in Maine (state motto: “Cold, But Damp”). Being generous and hospitable people, Tom and Pat went out and purchased, as a special treat for me, the largest lobster in the history of the Atlantic Ocean, a lobster that probably had been responsible for sinking many commercial vessels before it was finally apprehended by nuclear submarines. This lobster was big enough to feed a coastal Maine village for a year, and there it was, sprawling all over my plate, with scary insectoid legs and eyeballs shooting out in all directions, while Tom and Pat, my gracious hosts, smiled happily at me, waiting for me to put this thing in my mouth.

He has always thought the Lobster was not something to eat. In fact, it should be classified as a giant insect. His explanation:

Anyway, my point is that lobsters have long been suspected, by me at least, of being closet insects, which is why I was very pleased recently when my alert journalism colleague Steve Doig referred me to an Associated Press article concerning a discovery by scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

The article, headlined ”Gene Links Spiders and Flies to Lobsters,” states that not only do lobsters, flies, spiders, millipedes, etc., contain the exact same gene, but they also are all descended from a single common ancestor: Howard Stern.

No, seriously, the article states that the ancestor ”probably was a wormlike creature.” Yum! Fetch the melted butter!

And that is not all. According to articles sent in by alert readers (this was on the front page of The New York Times), scientists in Denmark recently discovered that some lobsters have a weird little pervert organism living on their lips. Yes. I didn’t even know that lobsters had lips, but it turns out that they do, and these lips are the stomping ground of a tiny creature called Symbion pandora (literally, “a couple of Greek words”). The zoology community, which does not get out a lot, is extremely excited about Symbion pandora, because it reproduces differently from all other life forms.

According to various articles, when Symbion pandora is ready to have a baby, its digestive system ”collapses and is reconstituted into a larva,” which the parent then gives birth to by ”extruding” it from its ”posterior.” In other words — correct me if I am wrong here — this thing basically reproduces by pooping.

And so to sum it all up:

So to summarize: If you’re looking for a hearty entree that 1) is related to spiders, 2) is descended from a worm and 3) has mutant baby-poopers walking around on its lips, then you definitely want a lobster. I myself plan to continue avoiding them, just as I avoid oysters, which are clearly — scientists should look into this next — members of the phlegm family. Have you ever seen oysters reproduce? Neither have I, but I would not be surprised to learn that the process involves giant undersea nostrils.

And don’t get me started on clams. Recently, I sat across from a person who was deliberately eating clams. She’d open up a shell, and there, in plain view, would be this stark naked clam, brazenly showing its organs, like a high-school biology experiment. My feeling is that if a restaurant is going to serve those things, it should put little loincloths on them.

I believe that Mother Nature gave us eyes because she did not want us to eat this type of food. Mother Nature clearly intended for us to get our food from the ”patty” group, which includes hamburgers, fish sticks and McNuggets — foods that have had all of their organs safely removed someplace far away, such as Nebraska. That is where I stand on this issue, and if any qualified member of the lobster, clam or phlegm-in-a-shell industry wishes to present a rebuttal, I hereby extend this offer: Get your own column.

But hey, no matter what Lobster is classified as I will always like to eat it dripping with butter.

Steven Remington