Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Video: Hunters And Anglers See First-Hand The Impacts Of Manmade Climate Change

By Joe Romm

"Video: Hunters And Anglers See First-Hand The Impacts Of Manmade Climate Change"

Share:

google plus icon

People who spend a lot of their time outdoors are more likely to see the obvious — the climate is changing and invasive species like the bark beetle are ravaging the West.  That’s a key reason hunters and anglers rallied for the climate bill back in 2009.

Last year Todd Tanner, the founder of Conservation Hawks, an organization of sportsmen dedicated to fighting climate change, said he would give up his gun, a Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge (see picture), if someone can convince him that climate change is not real.

Videographer Peter Sinclair has a new video on “Hunters, Anglers, and Climate Change” for his Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media series, which is well worth a look:

x

‹ Sequestration Cuts Hit The National Parks Hard

Learning From The German Transition To Renewable Energy ›

11 Responses to Video: Hunters And Anglers See First-Hand The Impacts Of Manmade Climate Change

  1. Daniel Coffey says:

    Great piece. I have repeatedly tried to point out that those who seek to protect habitat and views from non-carbon renewable energy systems that they are delaying the answer and delay will assure loss of greater habitat losses, including that which they are hoping to save.

    • Gingerbaker says:

      Case in point: Chris Clarke over at Pharyngula.

      He doesn’t like development of any large-scale solar even on non protected government scrublands, hates looking at the power lines that distribute electricity becuae, he claims, “they cost money which is paid by ratepayers”, will brook no energy installations on protected desert spaces, and is, to put it bluntly, an assh0le about it.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      I agree with the point regarding ‘views’, as wind turbines will be capable of being dismantled in the future, when new technologies and a downsized global economy, allow them to be removed. However, as I’ve said before, the question of habitat is different, in my opinion. If the habitat is, indeed, precious to the survival of one or more endangered species, then, in the interests of reducing biodiversity loss and because extinction is irreversible, other locations must be used first. I realise that you are bedeviled by false, ‘astro-turf’ organisations, acting at the behest of industry, but biodiversity loss is a disaster that must be addressed at the same time as climate destabilisation.

      • Gingerbaker says:

        re biodiversity:

        You know, that argument works two ways. By actively opposing large-scale renewable energy, he may be retarding the chances that we will preserve a world warmed less than +4C. In which case, millions of species may well be lost, not just the relatively few species which *might* be lost in the Mojave.

        But Chris Clarke is not just against development in the Mojave. He is against any large-scale devo in the southwest United States outside of cities.

        T

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Well, if he’s against it all, then I’d have to say he’s wrong, possibly suspect. But I stick by my point-how much of the available land for solar thermal or wind is protected biodiversity reserves? I doubt that it is a high proportion, so I would continue to insist that degraded or derelict land, of no great biodiversity value (certainly not in comparison to other areas) ought to be used first.

  2. Mike Roddy says:

    Maybe it’s time for a little outreach from organizations like CP and 350.org. It would be impressive to see people in camouflage jackets at a public climate event.

    I used to be a whitewater/steelhead fishing guide on the Klamath and Rogue rivers. It was hard to miss what’s going on up there- we have seen huge salmon dieoffs on the Klamath, earlier springs, and milder winters.

    My hometown in the SF Bay Area has much different weather, too. Winter storms arrive much later, and San Francisco no longer has the freezing fog that lasts until August.

    Nobody in the media makes these connections. Therein lies our problem, as one of Sinclair’s interview subjects points out.

  3. catman306 says:

    Presumably Mr. Tanner still retains his shotgun.

    I live in a woodsy area in NE Georgia, spend part of every day outside, and have been noticing changes to the canopy and understory for more than ten years. Wildlife is greatly diminished and more and more wild birds depend on my bird feeders for a longer part of the winter. My immediate natural environment has become less bountiful.

  4. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    What is ‘sporting’ about killing animals with a gun?

    • Gingerbaker says:

      What is ‘ethical’ about having someone else raise, kill and dress your chicken for you, so you can purchase it on a sheet of Styrofoam at your local supermarket with nary a thought of it as a living creature?