text:
Summary: Bills are proposed laws which Parliament considers. They contain various elements. Understanding those elements will help you interpret the bill. This fact sheet explains these elements with examples, and sets out practical information about bills and Acts generally.
The Victorian Parliament considers many bills each year. Bills are debated in both Houses and certain aspects are also considered by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
Bills are made public at the second reading stage. Organisations and the public then have the chance to put their views to the minister and members generally.
Apart from reading and interpreting a bill, you may wish to track its progress. For more about a bill becoming law, see Fact Sheet C1: How a Bill Becomes Law. To find out how to track its progress on our website, see Fact Sheet C2: Tracking Legislation on the Internet.
The minister's second reading speech, statement of compatibility and debates recorded by Hansard give you more information about each bill.
See Legislation & Bills for second reading speeches and statements of compatibility.
See Hansard for debates on bills.
The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee also reports on bills, focusing on rights and freedoms rather than policy.
Media reports can also give background information and context.
We explain the major elements of bills below.
(1) The explanatory memorandum explains each clause in numerical order. It appears at the front of the printed bill, but is not formally part of the bill.
(2) All Victorian Acts referred to are printed in bold. In this case the bill refers to a 'Principal Act'. The purpose of all bills is to introduce new legislation, either to amend an existing Act or to create a completely new Act. When a bill amends existing legislation, the main Act it affects is often defined as the 'Principal Act'. This term is then used throughout the text. It is also confirmed in the bill itself, normally in clause 3.
(3) The footer at the bottom of the page is simply a reference and does not form part of the text. It states the print version (see Print Versions) and the date of printing.
(1) Every bill has a formal structure and, for ease of reading and interpretation, is divided into a number of elements. In a very long bill, the text is divided into chapters.
More commonly there will be separate parts to a bill. Each part deals with a different aspect of the bill's subject matter. The table of provisions lists each part's title and its contents.
(2) A part may be split into divisions and, sometimes, subdivisions. These are listed in the table of provisions.
(3) The clause title is the most frequently referred to element of a bill. Shorter bills only contain clauses without the need for separate parts. Clauses are numbered consecutively and each has a title. See Clauses later in this fact sheet.
The introduction print is the first version of the bill. It is kept confidential until the minister sponsoring the bill moves that it 'be now read a second time'. Paper copies are then available and the version is released on our website. 'Introduction Print' appears at the top of the explanatory memorandum.
The House the bill was introduced in is shown at the top of the first page of the bill. If the bill is not a government bill, the name of the member introducing it is also shown here.
If the first House to consider the bill amends it, we print a new version. We incorporate the amendments into the original bill and it becomes the amended print version for the second House to use. This version also appears on our website.
The first page of the bill shows the date it was amended. In the example above, it is 28 November 2007.
You will also find what print version a bill is, in its footer.
Short titles appear on the first page of the bill. Examples are Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2007 and Victorian Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007.
Before September 1985, the short titles were included in one of the initial clauses in the bill. Today, they are the title of the bill.
From 2007, short titles include 'Bill' rather than 'Act'. However, when the bill becomes an Act, the word 'Bill' is changed to 'Act'.
A Bill for an Act to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1973, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and for other purposes.
The sponsoring minister uses the long title when introducing the bill. At that time, the bill is still confidential and not released publicly.
A preamble is an optional preliminary statement in a bill that is used occasionally. It gives reasons for the legislation, explains the context and clarifies its scope. For example, preambles have been used to explain the history of a Melbourne public park, and to formally state that Parliament recognises principles of non-violence.
A preamble is much less detailed than an explanatory memorandum but, unlike the memorandum, it is part of the bill. It can be used to help interpret the eventual Act if anything is not clear. When used, you will find it immediately after the long title.
(1) Bills are divided into numbered clauses, allowing for convenient reference.
Clauses are numbered consecutively throughout the whole bill. The above example shows clause 28. Clauses may be grouped into chapters, parts, divisions and subdivisions. Each clause has a title, which for bills passed after 1 January 2001, is part of the ultimate Act. Once a bill becomes an Act, clauses are known as sections.
(2) Clauses may be divided into subclauses. Subclause 1 is shown here. When a bill becomes an Act, subclauses are known as subsections.
(3) Subclauses can be divided into subparagraphs. The above example shows subparagraphs (a) and (b). This terminology is the same in a bill and an Act.
(4) Subclauses are numbered consecutively.
There are a number of ways in which a bill can amend existing legislation. These examples set out the most common methods. It is also possible for provisions to be repealed.
(1) The bill states the amendment's location in the Principal Act.
(2) Words may be deleted. All those words are enclosed in quotation marks.
(3) Text may also be inserted. Anything from an additional word to complete sections, or even parts, may be added. Again, quotation marks are used.
(4) Words may be substituted. In these cases, existing text is deleted and replaced with new wording. Both the wording to be deleted and the text replacing it appear in quotation marks.
Clause 1 of all bills drafted since September 1985 sets out the bill's purposes. The clause can help you interpret the eventual Act.
(1) Since September 1985, clause 2 is usually the commencement clause. It sets out details of when the Act will start operating. Even though an Act is law at the date of royal assent, that does not mean that all its provisions will begin at that time. Normally they will begin at a later date. It is common for different sections of the bill to come into operation at different times.
(2) A bill often states that clause 2 comes into operation the day after it receives royal assent. In this example, it specifies that Part 12 will come into operation on that day.
(3) Often, provisions will not come into effect until they are proclaimed. The Governor makes these proclamations. They are legal documents specifying the date(s) of operation and are published in the Government Gazette. The Governor may make several proclamations for one Act over time, with different sections commencing at different times. For a helpful summary of commencement dates, see 'Legislative Information' > 'Commencement Information Acts' on the Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents website.
(4) In recent years, bills have an automatic commencement date which comes into effect if there is no proclamation. In this example, that date is 1 January 2008.
If any specific definitions are required in a Principal Act, they are usually found in clause 3 in alphabetical order. The word or term being defined is printed in bold. If, in the future, additional definitions are added by an amending Act, they are inserted in alphabetical order too. Formal definitions help avoid disputes over meanings and save unnecessary repetition.
Side notes, sometimes known as historical or marginal notes, tell you about the history of an existing Act which is mentioned in a bill. Here, the history is about the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. The note gives a history of the individual section.
The example side note confirms that the Act was reprinted in July 1999. A reprint was necessary to include amendments. It then lists the amending Acts applicable since the reprint.
Since 1986, each Act has a unique year reference number such as 49/2000, literally Act No 49 of 2000. Before 1986, Acts were numbered sequentially.
Finally, the note cites the Law Today website, for viewing the Acts online.
(1) Bill schedules must be connected to a clause within the bill. The schedule depends on that clause and, if the clause is removed, the schedule cannot be considered. This example shows a reference to a schedule which lists a number of consequential amendments to existing Acts.
(2) Schedules appear after all the clauses, under the main heading 'Schedules'. If there is more than one schedule, they are numbered. Some matters are more suitable in a schedule than in a clause. Apart from the example shown, other common uses are to include rules, maps, forms and fee scales.
(3) The relevant clause is referred to at the top right of the text for easy reference.
Endnotes, while more common in Acts than bills, are sometimes used to give more information, especially for complicated bills. In Acts, endnotes also include the date of the second reading speeches and the long title. The long title is not printed at the start of an Act.
An index is not part of a bill but is a useful tool in searching for a particular subject. As the same index is printed in the Act, it refers to 'sections' rather than 'clauses'. Indexes are normally included in larger bills, except those that are purely amending bills.


text:
En R1 tenemos la MM50 actuando como resistencia, el fibo 50%, la resistencia de la cuña ascendente ( que incluso en el pico intradía de ayer no la pincharon ) y el retest al soporte del canal perdido.
En R2 ronda la posible ultima bajista ( digo posible porque con dos toques es solo una suposición ) , rondando la MM200 y en zona de 61,80% retroceso fibo.
Tal y como pintan las cosas, volúmenes a un lado … a ver por donde tiran.
RDUS. Bueno, estudiando el grafico veo que debo cerrar el corto. Si no sucede nada brusco su estocástico va a girarse y eso le permitirá la posibilidad de irse a los 17,9 … podría pensar en un doble top , podría ser … pero la vela semanal que hoy dejaría si se va a esa cota no es para pensar en shorts ni mucho menos. En cualquier caso un cierre semanal por encima de su MM20 semanal me tira por tierra mi estrategia bajista. Uno se retira, con suerte en tablas de nuevo, y a otra cosa. Si acaso me espero al giro confirmado de MACD bearish para replantearme un reshort. Ya se vera … pero hay otros shorts mas viables actualmente que este y técnicamente veo muy debilitada la justificación inicial para ir corto aquí ahora mismo.
Voy a empezar a seguirla, se que la llevas desde hace tiempo. Varios fondos importantes han entrado en el Q4 y la veo en buen momento, han mejorado la tecnología "zinc finger nuclease" para la terapia génica durante más de dos décadas y está avanzando en múltiples proyectos de propiedad absoluta, así como en programas asociados.
Tu que la sigues, hay alguna noticia que se espere a corto plazo?
Following a comprehensive review of the genetic therapy landscape, in line with BB Biotech's strategy to reinvest more in earlier stage leaders, capital was invested in Sangamo and Audentes. Sangamo has improved zinc finger nuclease technology for gene therapy over more than two decades and is advancing multiple fully-owned projects as well as partnered programs.
Sí, como dice mugi, en nada tenemos world con información relevante. Pero aparte hay muchos catalizadores importantes este año en las varias indicaciones que tiene, va a ser movidito.
Lo único que el mercado esperaba la eliminación el ERT para ya también (no sé muy bien por qué) y eso va a llevar su tiempo. Es una tecnología que está empezando en pacientes y siempre se va con la seguridad por delante.
De hay, la subidita de ayer; La musica,,, suena bien ya veremos como acaba la pelicula.
I am very excited because I have great news! On January 5th, I sent a very complete email to all the parties involved in the case. Like always, I like thinking ahead of the game and what the possible outcomes can be. I had 3 very specific concerns.
The involvement of just one investment bank in the marketing process. Since October I have been pressing the company and the Board of Directors to hire 3 investment banks to run the sale process. This helps maximize the sale value and reduce the conflict of interests. Though all banks charge a retention fee, they work harder to bring the best deal to the table.
From the court readings, we can see that last June Centerview contacted 10 parties and asked them to submit an offer by June 21st. Though 3 parties expressed interest nobody made the June 21st timeline. In my opinion, Centerview didn't spread the net wide enough nor did they gave them enough time to submit an offer.
We were running late to an Equity Committee appointment. If we were to be appointed, the possibility of hiring an investment banker to represent our interests was there. However, given the timeline, it would be almost impossible for an investment banker to create our own Dataroom, run an effective marketing process, dig into financials, etc. with only 6 weeks before the auction.
With these concerns in mind, I knew Jefferies had been hired in December to assist the Unsecured Creditors in the mining of financial data and as a financial advisor to their interests. They helped the UC go through 60,000 pages of documents provided by the company. Since they were already a step ahead of us in terms of data, depositions, financial analysis, recovery analysis, etc. I wanted them to participate as well in the marketing process. I also wanted to extend the reach of the pharmaceutical companies that were to be reached. As such, I asked that Jefferies be allowed to participate in the marketing process. The ideal situation was Centerview and Jefferies working as a team. Jefferies then could use the Dataroom setup by Centerview but still use its influence and contacts. With that in mind, I sent the following email to all the parties involved in the process. Though the first paragraph was erroneous and should just have said (Ad-Hoc committee of equity holders which represents 7 shareholders who are the voice for the interests of approximately 40 million shares) it was indeed a very good email which got us most of what we wanted. Skadden Arps acknowledged receipt, has shared the list with Centerview, and they have been happy to add names to their list of outreach.
Furthermore, Jefferies has been added to the marketing process of the company and can now compete to bring the best offer to the table. Jefferies' fee is separate and apart from the fee Centerview is receiving. So to the best of my understanding, Centerview is getting a base commission for all the work they have already done. And the overbid commission will go to the investment banker with the best offer. So Centerview and Jefferies will be competing to bring the best offer to the table.
On behalf of the Ad-Hoc committee of equity holders which represents approximately 40 million shares, we want to ask Centerview Partners to engage the following pharmaceutical companies as part of their marketing process and to provide them with immediate and unlimited access to the data room setup when the appropriate NDA’s have been signed. We will follow up on this request as part of our discovery process.
Pfizer - After signing a co-promotion deal with Exact Sciences, they mentioned having spare capacity with their salesforce due to several drugs going off-patent.
Johnson & Johnson - They have several GI products on their commercial infrastructure as well as on their pipeline.
Astra Zeneca - They still continue to have a significant presence on the GI space and sufficient sales reps. They could potentially expand their GI division.
Exact Sciences - They could be interested in Dolcanatide as part of their suite for screening colorectal cancer and perhaps preventing it with Dolcanatide. They also have a salesforce ready to promote Trulance. This could be similar to the effort made earlier to in-license products for the company to have.
Ironwood - With patents for Linzess expiring on 2026, Ironwood would be a natural fit. They will increase their pricing power while ensuring a leadership position for another 6 years with a differentiated treatment. Not to mention, the possibility of their immunogenicity results being negative.
Allergan - To the same extent, Allergan could choose to terminate its relationship with Ironwood and in turn choose Trulance as their primary asset for CIC/IBS-C.
Celgene - Assuming that ozanimod gets approved for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, Celgene will need to build a GI-focused salesforce. Synergy has the sales reps that Celgene would need.
Takeda - Now that their merger will be completed in January, they can be back on the table for negotiations. With Amitza being the first drug in the category losing patent, we can definitely see Takeda being a bidder for the asset.
Mallinckrodt - By the same token, Mallinckrodt is the partner of Takeda in Amitza, while their debt leverage has increased since their transaction of Sucampo, a stock deal should certainly be a possibility for them.
Alfasigma - This company licensed Xifaxan to Bausch Health. Xifaxan is the #1 IBS-D drug. They will certainly understand the potential of Trulance and Dolcanatide plus they have significant experience in GI.
Abbvie - They have shown interest in developing drugs that help treat/prevent Colorectal cancer. As well, they have several treatments on Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s disease on their pipeline. They will need a salesforce as well and they might be interested in acquiring the whole company.
Cosmo Pharmaceuticals - The developers of Uceris and a player who wants to gain leadership on GI treatments.
Evoke Pharma - A small player worth contacting.
EndoGastric Solutions - A smaller player in the industry, hence it’s in the last place.
Any large pharma with a sales force in place can benefit from Trulance. Trulance is manufactured by a third party so any salesforce with primary care access can promote the product without an additional added cost. Here are other players which are worth contacting.
Cardinal Health - Being one of 3 distributors for Trulance, they are definitely a natural acquirer for Trulance.
Cogentix Medical - They specialize in urology, GI, otolaryngology and pulmonology assets.
Finally, contact the players who have already been involved with the company.
Luoxin Pharma - With up to $56 million still due in commercialization milestones, they are a natural buyer of the whole asset.
These are a total of 25 players who should be allowed access to the data room. This number is in line with the 30 pharmaceutical companies who were allegedly contacted in the past 3 years. We believe a thorough outreach would maximize the value for all parties involved. Finally, allowing companies to offer stock at fair market value should help maximize the sale price of the company/assets.
Finally, we believe Jefferies should be allowed to present offers to the auction and act as a co-lead investment banker. Perhaps, Centerview and Jefferies can come to an agreement in this regard? Share a percentage of the proceedings should the winning offer come from Jefferies? This would mitigate concerns presented by the US Trustee in regards to the conflict of interests of Centerview in regards to Ironwood and Bausch Health.
If someone thinks that another pharmaceutical should be added there please let me know. Don't just throw out names for the sake of adding more. We want surgeon precision as casting the net too wide can also prove against our interests given the timeframe that we have.
From that list, I was advised that Ironwood, Allergan and Cardinal Health won't be able to have unlimited access to the Data Room due to conflicts of interest. That won't prevent them from bidding but they will have to do so with their eyes covered.
I have created two separate funds with extremely clear purposes going forward. Furthermore, the lawyers have their eyes on the big prize: " To be the Official Law Firm of the Equity Committee." That's where the real money is for Cole Schotz and anybody who says otherwise is wrong, ignorant and doesn't understand the bankruptcy process. If you get to be on the official equity committee please remember the good faith Cole Schotz has shown to us.
"They are fighting for the meat, not for the bones."
As such, now that they know there's a solicitation for a committee they won't sit still and not fight for shareholders. Now they will double down to fight for shareholders. As further explained below it's on their best interest to show they have added significant value to the case.
Going forward for transparency issues here's what going to happen in regards to fundraising.
If you want to participate i n the Equity Committee Fill out the following forms. Please only fill out the form if you have significant experience in the background of the company, dealing with other parties and deal-making. We want our best people to serve there. The Trustee will make the ultimate decision for every one of who will serve in the Committee. People from overseas should probably pass on serving.
Objection to Motion /Objection of the Ad Hoc Committee of Equity Holders to Debtors' DIP Financing Motion (related document(s)15) filed by Ryan T. Jareck on behalf of Ad Hoc Committee of Equity Holders.
Objection to Motion /Objection of the Ad Hoc Committee of Equity Holders to Debtors' Motion for Approval of a Key Employee Incentive Plan (related document(s)144) filed by Ryan T. Jareck on behalf of Ad Hoc Committee of Equity Holders.
As I mentioned, the best way to maximize our value was to align the interests of Centerview along with the interest of Equity Holders as such the following was negotiated. Again limited defense with very good results.
Our lawyers probably already have billed in excess of 100k in hours. They recently have worked mostly on contingency with the hope of getting to be the official equity committee law firm. Their good faith won't be forgotten and plays a key role in the selection of the law firm by the official committee of equity holders. Cole Schotz is first in line to be appointed and once they do they can bill a couple of hundred thousand dollars for their very hard work.
Cole Schotz can also, to the extent that they bring significant value to this case, ask for a reimbursement of their unpaid work realized up to the time of their appointment. That's why they are working very hard to bring a new lender to the bankruptcy case which could save Synergy in excess of $7 million in additional fees and interest (depending on final terms.) Such significant recovery repayment for unpaid legal work can be partial or full at the discretion of the court. This is a very important provision since it gives them "skin in the game."
Ps. If anyone has changed the number of shares they own please reply. This email is just an opinion email and it's your own responsibility to consult a registered financial advisor before placing any trades. Investing in securities could lead to a total loss of capital invested. I am not a registered financial advisor and not responsible in any way for the financial outcome of SGYP. None of the information in this email should be considered as investment advice. By participating in this group you waive the right to personally sue Jose Solorio for any matter related to SGYP.
Copyright © 2019 Synergy Activist Group, All rights reserved.
Hace un rato he comprado putts AMD, algo inusual en mi operativa.
Es cobertura, si no pasa nada,,, y si pasa más tranquilo me quedo. Si sube tampoco pasa nada porque voy más largo.
Puedo estar equivocado, por supuesto.
Me voy a merendar con amigos.
Un saludo. Vaya chapa rara me ha salido.
Yo he comprado una segunda spy 265... Se quieren comer el mundo y no importa nada malo. A ver la bajista de Oct.

industry_corpus2: Biopharmaceuticals


text:
Everybody loved pillow fights when they were young! Well, maybe not everyone. I’m sure there were some pretty angry mothers involved as well. Wouldn’t it be awesome to return to those childhood moments where the floor is lava and the pillow full of your life’s dreams is the deadliest weapon you know of? Bed Hogg, a game by 01010111, takes you back to your childhood, at least for a little while.
Three points are required to win a match. Each time you manage to hit your twin you get a point. On the other hand, being hit takes a point away from you if you are in the lead, or gives another point to your twin if she’s ahead. For instance, if your twin (controlled by a great big force called Artificial Intelligence) gets the first point, you need to hit her four times in order to win (once to remove the point she already has, and three more times in order to win). This system ensures a challenging fight every time. However, in order to be the true winner (even after scoring three points) you have to escape the bedroom leaving your defeated twin behind to (I choose to believe) explain the situation to the not-so-happy parents, adding insult to injury as only a twin can.
All in all, Bed Hogg is a small game, fun to play for a while, but nothing you won’t forget a month (or less) from now.

industry_corpus2: Gaming


text:
> >Ok needing a bit of help here, ive added my current diff in the hope of some help from a more knowledgable ffmpeg developer.
> >My problem is that i need to get the main output loop to eventually call the do_subtitle_out for every frame of video that is produced.
> >I have attempted to change the code where the subtitle is decoded, only once in the case of dvbsubs, and to output it multiple times, but the output bit is still only called once.
> >Can anybody help me in getting the loop to make the multiple calls to output the subtitles, im trying not to have to write this as a filter, but to have the subs placed on the output video plane BEFORE resizing and ENCODING?
> >If you think im going about it the wrong way then let me know, and if the only way is to produce a filter i will spend my time on that instead.
> >So just for clarity i need to get the subs to be copied to the video before any resize or encoding is performed, if this works it should be possible to take any subs and have them placed on the video.
> >also one more problem is that the TS si still has the entry for "dvb subs" in its pmt, this will need removing, as i cant see the point of having hard subs and soft subs whch are the same.
> Ok boys i have the "hards subs" kind of working, but i need some help in dumping the subtitles onto the screen in the correct format.
> I have modified ffmpeg.c and in the routine "pre_process_video_frame" i aim to do the dump of the subs, im just testing but if i do a memset on the memory pointed at by picture->data+x+y*picture->linesize i get my boxes in the correct place.
> What i need to do now is translate the subtitles pixel and clut map into the correct format and add this to the plane, now the good point of this is that scaling the video works after this.

industry_corpus2: Computing & Telecommunications


text:
Breakfast has a new dimension. Every morning, we habitually watch a news channel to learn what happened while we were blissfully asleep. In particular, we are most curious these days to find out what hair-raising nonsense Benito Mussolini – oops, no, what was his name? Donald or something – has come up with in the last few hours. And very rarely will we be disappointed and either laugh out loud or shake our heads in bewilderment. Obviously, we do realize many of the truly negative implications right away, but how else can you respond to all of that other than with venomous sarcasm?
That the new US administration would cause havoc also for US wildlife I had forecast and, sadly, it’s starting to prove true now. It was clear that it would make opponents of nature conservation crawl out of their holes and try and use the opportunity to push their anti-wildlife pro-huntsmen bills. Our International News section below is full of the first ridiculous to outright barbaric proposals that have sprung up within the past few weeks. Fortunately there are (now more than ever) organisations that coordinate public protest and fight these with legal means. And considering how popular this joker at the helm has made himself already, many a judge will probably like nothing better than an opportunity to shoot his and his helpers’ ideas down.
We found another dark wolf tale that we share with you here, and Erin updates us on the latest that has been happening in her mixed pack.
The HuskyRomi Wolf Sanctuary’s 2017 Calendar can now be ordered. It is R 50 and all proceeds will go straight to the sanctuary. P&P not included.
USA: Keep up the Fight for lobos!
She never had a name, but she was known and loved around the world.
…but then she was shot and killed just a few miles outside the Yellowstone National Park boundary – after the death of their matriarch Yellowstone’s Lamar Canyon pack was thrown into chaos.
When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly delisted Wyoming’s wolves in 2012, we went to court because the state’s wolf plan declared more than 80% of Wyoming a ‘predator zone,’ where anyone could kill as many wolves as they wanted at any time. And we won, but the case took two years. While the case was pending, 832F and more than 200 other Wyoming wolves were killed.
I think you know the threats to wolves and other wildlife have never been greater than they are today.
The incoming Trump administration and the extremist-dominated Congress have rung the dinner bell for developers, ideologues, and others who see wildlife either as nuisances or fit only for target practice. It’s up to you and me to stop them!
We must do everything we can to fight this legislation! I’m counting on your help today.
USA: Wolves and other wildlife – beware!
From January 20th, things have been going from bad to worse for wolves and other wildlife.
The Trump administration is a who’s who of climate change-denying oil and gas boosters and special interests. And, extremists in Congress are embarking on a ruthless campaign to turn the clock back on wildlife protection.
I won’t lie. Animals will die in alarming numbers if the extremists get their way.
I know you share you my love for wildlife. And you’ve been an important ally in protecting wolves, grizzlies and other wild things we love.
And, now’s a particularly good time to do this. Our Board of Directors and National Council have offered to donate $100 for each member who donates $15 or more monthly, up to $25,000.
We’ve seen that President-elect Trump views most things as resources to be exploited. And the ideologues and the oil barons he has named to his cabinet have their own agendas.
As a monthly sustainer, your support provides a steady, reliable source of contributions as we fight habitat loss and threats to wildlife.
What will happen to wolves in the lower 48 if stripped of all Endangered Species Act protection?
What will happen to dwindling African elephant populations if the doors are thrown open for importing illegal ivory?
What will happen to polar bears and other animals if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other precious wild habitats are opened for drilling, fracking and mining?
These are real threats, just some of the many we are sure to face in the months and years ahead.
But your monthly donation will give us the resources we need to defend wildlife from the mounting threats they face.
Not everyone shares the commitment to wildlife that you and I do. This is the moment when those of who care must do everything possible.
Congress is once again taking aim at our beloved wolves.
A companion bill to H.R. 424, the House bill introduced by Liz Cheney of Wyoming to strip wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming of all protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), was just introduced in the Senate.
One thing is for certain: If this bill is enacted, more wolves will die.
This bill would return wolf management in Wyoming to the state, which had previously allowed for unregulated, shoot-on-sight killing of wolves in a “predator zone” that encompasses over 80% of the state.
We are very concerned that a number of pro-conservation Senators have signed onto this bill because we need as much support for the ESA as possible this Congress.
These decisions are supposed to be about science, not politics.
When Congress intervenes, animals die.
The state of Alaska refuses to give up on its relentless quest to kill wolves, bears and other wildlife by baiting, snaring and shooting mother bears with cubs and wolves with pups.
We’re pulling out all the stops to defend these animals and end the madness.
You might recall that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service passed regulations last year specifically outlawing Alaska’s excessive and extreme attacks on predators on national wildlife refuges and preserves. But Alaska is fighting back. They recently filed a lawsuit in federal court to overturn these regulations. And now the Alaska delegation has introduced legislation in Congress to accomplish the same goal.
We’re fighting a war on two fronts. Thanks to you, Defenders’ is going to court and filing a motion to intervene to try to stop this deadly lawsuit. And on Capitol Hill, we’re gathering opposition to this crude effort to replace science with politics – but we need you!
Wolves, bears and other Alaska carnivores are once again in grave danger.
Congress is trying to revoke a regulation that protects wolves and other predators on national wildlife refuges in the state. If Congress succeeds, Alaska will be allowed to authorize extreme killing methods such as shooting mother bears with cubs and killing wolves with pups.
Anti-wildlife Members of Congress are using an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act to toss aside a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulation that restricts these gruesome methods of “predator control” on Alaska national wildlife refuges. Perhaps even worse, voiding this rule would slam the door on any future regulations that aim to conserve these predators on refuge lands.
Alaska wants to kill these animals to artificially inflate game populations so hunters have more animals to shoot. Alaska’s scheme targets wolves and bears through extreme methods including killing mother bears and cubs, killing wolves and pups in their dens, trapping, baiting and using airplanes to scout and shoot bears.
This resolution opens federal refuge lands that belong to all of us to this despicable predator control program – and it will be voted on this week!
Alaska’s egregious predator control program is a backwards attempt to artificially inflate game populations and clearly violates the letter and spirit of the National Wildlife Refuge System to conserve biological integrity and diversity for wildlife on refuges.
Thanks for all you do for the wildlife we all love.
www.azgfd.gov/wolf or by visiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website at www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf.
To view semi-monthly wolf telemetry flight location information please visit http://bit.do/mexicanwolf or www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/RWL.cfm.
Genetic results from a male pup, mp1561, in the Leopold Pack indicate that the breeding female of the Leopold Pack is AF1346; a pup cross-fostered into the Dark Canyon Pack in 2014. This confirms the first instance of a Mexican wolf cross-fostered into a wild den surviving to and successfully reproducing offspring. This is a significant accomplishment in recovery efforts to increase genetic diversity in the wild population through cross-fostering efforts. M1347 of the Baldy Pack was also cross-fostered into the Dark Canyon pack in 2014. M1347 has survived to reproductive age and has paired with f1445 which was named the Baldy Pack by the IFT in September 2016.
On December 1, 2016, the Mexican Wolf/Livestock Council met to discuss requests for depredation compensation that varied from the depredation compensation guidelines. The Council also discussed how they would use estate funds that were provided to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for conservation of the Mexican wolf.
On December 6, 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service gave a recovery award to Chairman Lupe of the White Mountain Apache Tribe for their exceptional contributions to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. The Mexican wolf population on the 1.6 million-acre Fort Apache Indian Reservation has grown and now contributes substantially to the overall recovery of the Mexican wolf. Over fifteen years ago, the White Mountain Apache Tribe became the first tribe to officially facilitate Mexican wolf recovery.
Population monitoring requires year round effort documenting births, deaths, survival, total numbers, and distribution. Mortality occurs throughout the year and is particularly high on young pups, so while the IFT has documented reproduction this year, the IFT will not have a complete idea of how many of these young pups and adults have died until the annual population survey which is conducted in the winter. Annual surveys are conducted in the winter because it is when the population is experiencing the least amount of natural fluctuation (i.e. in the spring the population increases dramatically with the birth of new pups and declines throughout the summer and fall as mortality is particularly high on young pups). Thus, the IFT summarizes the total number of wolves in the winter at a fairly static or consistent time of year. This allows for comparable year-to-year trends at a time of year that accounts for most mortality and survival of young pups. At this time, the IFT’s best population estimate is that there was a minimum of 97 wolves in the wild as of December 31, 2015. End of year counts for 2016 are currently ongoing and will be completed in February 2017. At the end of December, there were 56 wolves with functioning radio collars that the IFT was actively monitoring.
In December, the Bear Wallow Pack was located within their traditional territory in the east central portion of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (ASNF).
In December, the Bluestem Pack continued to use their traditional territory in the east central portion of the ASNF. M1382 and F1488 from the Bluestem Pack displayed dispersal behaviour during the month. F1443 continued to travel with m1447, of the Diamond Pack, in New Mexico near the Arizona border.
In December, the Elk Horn Pack was located within their traditional territory in the north eastern portion of the ASNF.
In December, the Hawks Nest Pack was mostly located within their traditional territory in the north central portion of the ASNF. The IFT documented movements by AM1038 outside of the normal pack territory. Two additional sets of wolf tracks with AM1038 and photos from a remote camera indicate male sub-adults M1383 and m1483 from the Hawks Nest Pack may still be travelling with AM1038.
In December, the Hoodoo Pack remained in the north central portion of the ASNF.
In December, the Maverick Pack was located within their traditional territory both on the FAIR and ASNF. AM1183 was documented travelling with AF1291.
In December, the Panther Creek Pack was located in the east central portion of the ASNF.
In December, the Diamond Pack was located in the eastern portion of the FAIR, the northern portion of the ASNF and on private lands north of the ASNF. Sub-adult m1447 continued to be documented travelling with F1443, of the Bluestem Pack, in New Mexico near the Arizona border.
In December, the Tsay-o-Ah Pack was located within their traditional territory in the eastern portion of the FAIR.
In December, the Baldy Pack was located in the eastern portion of the FAIR and northern portion of the ASNF.
During December, the IFT located this pack within its traditional territory in the west central portion of the Gila National Forest (GNF). During December, f1444 was often located near Eagle Peak in NM.
During December, the IFT continued to document F1405 (formerly of the Buckalou Pack) travelling within the Lava Pack’s traditional territory in the south eastern portion of the GNF.
During December, the IFT documented the Leopold Pack within their territory in the northern portion of the Gila Wilderness and southern portion of the GNF.
During December, the Luna Pack remained in their traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF.
During December, the Mangas Pack was located within their territory in north western portions of the GNF in New Mexico.
During December, the Prieto Pack was located within their traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF. There has been dispersal behaviour documented for M1386, m1455, f1456, f1553 and M1552 within the GNF. Remote cameras documented f1553 and M1398 travelling with AF1251 and other uncollared wolves in the Prieto Pack. Photos from remote cameras taken later in the month revealed AF1251 travelling with M1398 and f1553 was travelling with AM1284 of the SBP Pack.
December, the IFT documented the San Mateo Pack within their territory in the north central portion of the GNF.
During December, the SBP Pack continued to use their traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF. AM1284 was documented on remote cameras travelling with f1553 of the Prieto Pack.
During December, the IFT documented the Willow Springs Pack within their traditional territory in the north central portion of the GNF.
During December, AM1155 was documented travelling within New Mexico.
During December, M1398 was documented travelling with AF1251 of the Prieto Pack in the west central portion of the GNF.
During December, M1354 was documented travelling in southern portions of the GNF and northern Gila Wilderness. M1354 has been documented travelling with members of the Leopold Pack; M1354 is full siblings to AM1293.
There were no documented mortalities in the month of December.
During the month of December, there was one confirmed wolf kill and no nuisance reports.
On December 14, Wildlife Services investigated two dead calves in Apache County, Arizona. The investigations determined both of the calves were killed by coyotes.
On December 18, Wildlife Services investigated a dead calf in Apache County, Arizona. The investigation determined the calf was a confirmed wolf kill.
On December 23, Wildlife Services investigated a dead adult cow in Apache County, Arizona. The investigation determined the cow died from unknown causes.
On December 7, 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service met with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the Chairman of the New Mexico State Game Commission to discuss issues regarding the recovery of the Mexican wolf.
On December 8, 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service convened a meeting of the Mexican Wolf Tribal Working Group to discuss the status of recovery planning for the Mexican wolf.
On December 14, 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service presented on Mexican wolves and the Mexican Wolf Recovery program for the Superstition Area Land Trust in Apache Junction.
On December 14, 2016 WMAT met with the USDA-Farm Service Agency regarding livestock loss compensation options for Tribal cattle growers.
On December 15, 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service held a community information meeting in Young, Arizona to discuss the status of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program and listen to issues and concerns raised by the public. The US Forest Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department were in attendance.
On December 20, 2016 the Fish and Wildlife Service met with the US Forest Service regarding coordination of Mexican wolf recovery efforts, including the status of NEPA review for release sites in Zone 1 of the expanded Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area.
On December 29, 2016 WMAT presented on Mexican wolf biology and recovery at a community event in Vermont.
During December, USFWS volunteer Craig Zurek left the volunteer program for other professional opportunities. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication Craig!
Senators from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming yesterday introduced the “War on Wolves Act,” a companion bill to legislation introduced last week in the House that would strip federal protections from wolves and allow trophy hunting and trapping of the species in four states.
“A new congress has resurfaced an old vendetta against imperiled wolves. If this legislation is signed into law, wolves in Wyoming will be subjected to unregulated killing across the vast majority of the state, and even on the borders of Yellowstone National Park numerous legal loopholes will authorize widespread wolf killing.
Americans widely hailed the return of wolves to the Northern Rockies two decades ago as a triumph of the Endangered Species Act, but now this ‘War on Wolves Act’ would allow for the same unregulated killing that nearly wiped out the species in the first place.
Donald Trump’s tenure in the White House, along with the Republican Party’s reign in Congress, will be an unmitigated disaster for the environment. A witch-hunt is already underway for federal employees who support the science of climate change: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/13/energy-dept-rejects-trumps-request-to-name-climate-change-workers-who-remain-worried/. Protections for the 640 million acres of public land you and I own in this country are already being stripped away: http://www.missionmt.com/journal/2017/1/6/115th-congress-immediately-moves-on-land-transfer.
Oil and gas extraction on public land is expected to be deregulated (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-zinke-idUSKBN1511DQ), and even coal—a heavily polluting, inefficient energy source the market has rendered obsolete—may see reinvestment: http://www.livescience.com/57535-interior-nominee-zinke-focuses-on-coal.html.
A victim of all of those programs, and even the target of specific GOP plans for eradication? The gray wolf, only recently reintroduced to western states to help check overpopulated elk and deer and restore balance to the natural food chain there.
On January 17, 2017, Republican Senators introduced a bill nicknamed, “The War on Wolves Act.” If passed S.164 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/164?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22wolf%22%5D%7D&r=1) will not only remove ESA protections from wolves in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Wyoming, but it will also strip citizens of the right to challenge it in court.
It’s important to understand that the gray wolf, as a species, is not under threat overall—it’s just specific populations of wolves in certain geographic areas. There are approximately 60,000 wolves living in the wilds of Alaska and Canada. Those will only suffer the general impact of anti-environment policies, accelerated climate change, and habitat loss.
It’s the wolf populations reintroduced to the American West that GOP policy is directly targeting.
There’s also a population of more than 3,500 gray wolves in and around the Great Lakes—in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota—that, to a lesser extent, is also threatened.
Wolves were first brought back to the West in 1995, when 66 were brought from Canada to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho. The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (https://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Recovery_and_Mgmt_Plans/Northern_Rocky_Mountain_Gray_Wolf_Recovery_Plan.pdf) also allowed for the natural southern dispersal of other wolf populations from Canada. Since then, the species has spread to Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon, and now there’s even a single pack living in Northern California. The population of wolves in those states is approaching 1,700 (http://www.defenders.org/gray-wolf/gray-wolves-northern-rockies) —a huge success story for conservationists, albeit one that’s still ongoing. Wolves numbered 2 million on this continent just a couple hundred years ago but were killed off as modern civilization expanded westward.
As part of the reintroduction, the burgeoning population of gray wolves in the West was initially protected by the Endangered Species Act. Largely due to the controversial nature of the wolf reintroduction that we’ll get to a little later, however, those protections have variously been repealed, replaced, and repealed again at federal and local levels. Wolf populations have returned to just 10 percent of their original range in the West, making their existence there still tenuous and dependent on some sort of protection.
In Yellowstone, for instance, the reintroduction of wolves corrected an imbalance caused by the unchecked expansion of ungulates. Historically, wolves kept the elk population in balance in that area; without them, the elk became too numerous and their movements too static. Grasslands were overgrazed. Willows, cottonwood, and aspen were damaged, destroying the riparian habitats of beavers, songbirds, otters, muskrats, ducks, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Wolves fixed that. They also checked the population of coyotes, which preyed heavily on small animals. So those populations returned, too, along with the birds of prey that feed on them. The revitalized shrubbery produced more berries, expanding the bear population. The entire ecosystem benefited and was returned to balance by the mere reintroduction of a handful of wolves. It’s that whole circle of life thing that Elton John once sang about in that Disney movie.
Can wolves restore balance to ecosystems elsewhere in their historic range? This study (http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2815%2900005-1), published in the scientific journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, suggests they can, and that they may also enable the successful coexistence of invasive species with their native counterparts. The study argues that allowing the return of apex predators like the wolf may be much cheaper than trying to manage these environments through human methods.
Need a dollar amount to define their value? Wolves bring in more than $35 million a year of tourist spending (http://www.georgewright.org/251duffield.pdf) to the Yellowstone area. Local businesses benefit from the mere presence of wolves.
Wolves kill and eat stuff. As described above, that’s their job. Things they like to kill and eat include things people like to kill and eat—primarily deer and elk, but also sometimes sheep and cattle; which makes us rivals. Between 1995 and 2005, wolves killed 213 cattle and 173 sheep in Wyoming. The elk population has also fallen since the reintroduction of wolves, though drought, disease, and hunting also play a role. There were 17,000 elk in the park when the reintroduction began. Today there are 4,844 (https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/elkinfo.htm).
Perhaps due to an exaggerated presence of wolves in nursery rhymes and fairy tales, we humans also find them scary. There have been only six documented fatalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_America) due to wild wolves (two of which were rabid) in North America in the past 100 years. The number of people killed by wolves pales in comparison to the number of people who die each year due to, say, bee stings (in the United States, that’s 100 people every year, http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/08/bees-are-deadliest-non-human-animals-america-cdc/119328/). Others complain that the loss of livestock hurts ranchers’ livelihood, even though state governments compensate ranchers for any losses. Still others lament the decrease in lucrative guided elk hunts in wolf states, though that has largely been attributed to an increase in out-of-state tag prices.
Politicians from rural areas have been pressured to address those unsubstantiated fears of their constituents, but that doesn’t come close to explaining the scale of the GOP’s war on wolves. The 114th Congress (2015–17) introduced 20 bills targeted at eliminating protections for the gray wolf alone. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) called it “the most anti-wildlife Congress we’ve ever had.” Until the 115th, that is.
Why exhaust so much time and energy attacking a single species? The real answer is that the protections wolves require in the West can run counter to the interests of industrial agriculture businesses and the oil and gas industry, both of which want to operate on land that is currently subject to protection because it’s wolf habitat.
The anti-wolf policies being paid for in part by industrial agriculture are actually damaging the small, family-owned farms where problems with wolves killing livestock actually take place and which are often cited as the cause for these policies. It’s been scientifically demonstrated that killing problem wolves actually leads to a direct correlation in increased livestock depredation (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/killing-wolves-actually-leads-more-livestock-death-180953605/). The killings disrupt pack order and disperse wolves into new areas, and weakened packs are forced to seek easier prey than the wild animals they’d otherwise focus on.
The CBD has tracked donations from those industries to Congress (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_attacks/pdfs/ESAAttacks_09-2016.pdf) and compared them with the number of bills introduced that threaten the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As campaign donations from the oil and gas industry and industrial agriculture have increased, so too have legislative assaults on the ESA. Because wolves have large ranges, the ESA may prevent energy extraction or industrial farming across larger areas than some other species. That explains the focus on removing the wolf’s protections.
In 1973, partly motivated by the plight of the bald eagle, President Richard Nixon called on Congress to take action to protect species on the verge of extinction. Congress created the Endangered Species Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act_of_1973) by a nearly unanimous vote. Bald eagle populations have since increased from a low of 417 mating pairs to more than 11,000 today. That species was delisted (removed from the ESA’s protections) in 2007, although it remains subject to other protections as our national bird. Today, the ESA protects more than 1,600 endangered plants and animals.
Not every animal protected by the ESA is a success story. Due to the precarious nature of many of the species it protects, delistings are infrequent. Take, for instance, the case of the Death Valley pupfish. Only a handful exist in two ponds in Death Valley National Park. Totally isolated, it’s obviously unrealistic to expect that the species will ever expand its population enough that it will ever be considered anything but endangered. Does the pupfish deserve our protection? Environmentalists would say yes. And the law has prevented extinction for 99 percent of the species it protects. But Republicans argue no, because only 1 percent have been rehabilitated.
“It has never been used for the rehabilitation of species. It’s been used for control of the land,” argues House National Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah). He has stated that he “would love to invalidate” the ESA.
The wolf’s protection under the ESA has always been precarious. Due to the politically charged nature of their reintroduction, initial population targets that would trigger a delisting were set incredibly low—just 150 in Idaho, for instance. That didn’t sound like a viable population to wolf advocates, so, since the species started triggering de-listings shortly after its reintroduction, its status has bounced back and forth both nationally and locally in a process of litigation and lawsuits so confusing and asinine (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/index.html) that I’ll spare you a recap of it here.
To the best of my understanding, wolves are currently protected by the ESA (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/gray_wolves/index.html) everywhere in the lower 48 with the exception of Montana, Idaho, and the eastern third of both Washington and Oregon. In large part, those protections are thanks to lawsuits conducted by environmental organizations like the CBD. Acknowledging that, Republican lawmakers have begun introducing anti-wolf laws as riders on essential budget bills, disturbingly including language that prevents legal challenge.
Trump has yet to go on the record about either the ESA or wolves, but he does oppose environmental policies that get in the way of drilling. It’s not expected that he’d veto any legislation designed to weaken or repeal the ESA or any riders intended to remove wolf protection. Trump’s nominee for interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, who will manage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers ESA programs, once sent out a Christmas card featuring a dead wolf. Last year, Zinke co-sponsored a bill designed to remove federal protections for wolves. It looks like the anti-wolf, anti-ESA Republican Congress is finally getting both the president it needs to rubber stamp this legislation, combined with an administrator of the Department of the Interior prepared to carry it out.
In addition to both that rollback of the ESA and likely direct challenges to the wolf’s inclusion in it, wolves are under threat from the GOP’s plan to steal our public lands. Like all wild animals, wolves need habitat to survive. Development of resource extraction on those lands will further threaten them.
In 2012, the Alaska Board of Game passed its heavy-handed management plan which included aerial gunning of wolves to stop the decline of moose populations in two Game Management Units (GMUs) on the Kenai Peninsula. This despite opposition from biologists and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), who explained that the peninsula’s moose population decline was generally due to overharvest and habitat limitations, not increased predation by wolves.
Later that year, ADFG’s division of Wildlife Conservation decided to hold off on implementing the Board’s controversial wolf cull to collect the information necessary to make a well-informed management decision.
Today, we’re witnessing history repeat itself with the Board proposing to reauthorize its controversial plan to kill all the wolves on a part of the lower Kenai Peninsula despite opposition from the regional Fish and Game Advisory Committee (the Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee) who objected to the proposal unanimously.
If the Board of Game votes to approve the proposal, Proposal 155, at its upcoming meeting scheduled for Jan. 4–7, it would allow the public to hunt and trap wolves, both from the ground and from the air, and would be allowed to conduct its own aerial hunts.
The Alaska Board of Game has repeatedly opted for lethal predator control as their management tool of choice despite opposition from the scientific community and public outcry. It’s time that science, not special interest groups, guide responsible wildlife management policy, especially with so much at stake in one of Alaska’s most iconic wild places.
Please personalize the letter below.
In 2012, the Alaska Board of Game passed its intensive wolf management plan which included aerial gunning of wolves to stop the decline of moose populations in two Game Management Units (GMUs) on the Kenai Peninsula. This despite opposition from biologists and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s division of Wildlife Conservation, who explained that the peninsula’s moose population decline was generally due to overharvest and habitat limitations, not increased predation by wolves.
The decline of Kenai’s moose population is a complicated and delicate matter that should involve careful consideration of all factors involved.
I am counting on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to listen to science, as the Department did in 2012, and take the time to make a well-informed wildlife management decision that will ensure both sustainable moose and wolf populations. The Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee objected to the proposal unanimously.
Thus, I urge the Dept. to hold off on implementing the Board’s controversial wolf cull to collect the information necessary to make a well-informed management decision.
After nearly 50 years of protection, endangered Italian wolves might be slaughtered soon.
Despite a lack of recent scientific population estimates, the Italian Minister of Environmental Affairs is determined to kill off 5% of the endangered wolf population.
The only reason the Italian government wants to kill endangered wolves is because farmers and ranchers blame them for killing their animals. Outrageously, there are no efforts to humanely protect livestock with electric fences or trained dogs â€“ even though fences and dogs have proven effective elsewhere in Europe.
Even worse, when pressed, farmers admit that feral dogs are far more lethal to their livestock than wolves. But wolves get the blame.
Rhinos are in a desperate need of help, but the question remains how to help?
It has only been a week ago that we launched a Crowd Funding campaign to help bring Nellie (a poaching survivor) home to an intensive protection zone where she can give birth and live life while being protected against any further poaching attempts.
South Africa is facing the worst conservation crisis in our history and rhinos continue to be butchered at an unprecedented rate. Their numbers are plummeting and the crisis is very real.
The past weekend two orphaned rhino calves were attacked right at the home of the farmer hand rearing them after poachers slaughtered their mothers. From the accompanying photographs, you will be able to see just how terrible their suffering must be. Disturbingly these incidents are quite regular and increasingly many other animals suffer a similar fate. There is no question that there is a massive and growing crisis!
Taking all the factors into consideration, including all the amazing work being done by so many to curb rhino poaching and to bring about change with education and awareness, time unfortunately is running out for rhinos. The only sure-thing on the short-term, to end the terribly cruelty and suffering is to set-up private intensive protection zones and bring as many rhinos as possible into these protected areas; be they poaching survivors, orphans, or unwanted rhinos.
Two weeks ago, a local man was arrested and charged for contravening our conservation laws pertaining to rhinos. This individual purchased unwanted rhinos from their owners, relocated the poor animals to his farm and summarily executed them. Their horns were removed and only certain body part where recovered by the authorities.
As the investigation continues an increasing number of rhino carcasses is being unearthed revealing the callous murder of many rhinos for commercial gain. What this incident illustrates without a doubt is that no rhino is safe anymore and if they fall into the wrong hands the animals will die. Poachers coming under cover of darkness are not the only enemy these unfortunate creatures have to fear.
Unfortunately, the world remains slow to respond and where help is provided, in some instances is not used effectively to end rhino poaching. There is also increasing donor fatigue as people, frustrated and saddened by the ongoing slaughter simply turn their backs on the rhinos and walk away. Many people feel that there is nothing to be done anymore to save the species, but we beg you to please reconsider and not desert South Africa’s rhinos! They are just too special to lose.
With your help, we intend finding individual rhinos that need our help on a priority basis and where possible we intend buying these rhinos and relocating them to Intensive Protection Zones at undisclosed locations as a matter of urgency.
It is pretty much like throwing that one star fish at a time, back into the ocean, but we feel that with your support and understanding we will inspire many more people to share our dream of seeing rhinos living wild and in safety for many years to come.
Steve Jobs once said; that it is the people that are crazy enough to believe they can change the world, that actually do.
By leading and proving that the concept is working well, we believe others will follow and use the example to establish more PIPZ’s that will, over the next couple of years, ensure that an increasing number of rhinos will be spared a brutal death and ensure that the genetic viability of the species is protected for future generations.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and we hope and trust that Nellie’s story will inspire you to help bring her to safety.
To Donate towards the Save Nellie campaign please click on this link or email louise@sanwild.org for more details or for the banking details.
To help a very special rhino cow, called Nellie, that survived a brutal poaching incident we will be giving you the opportunity to make a donation towards her rescue and enter a silent auction for two respective Accommodation Vouchers.
Beach House (Saldanha Bay) Western Cape South Africa 4 nights 5 days 4 people self-catering.
AUCTION AMOUNTS ON BOTH DESTINATIONS OPEN AT $100.
In other words the amount you donate may not be less than $100.
ABSA, Danie Joubert Street, Tzaneen,0850.
The highest offer (donation) received by close of business on Wednesday the 15th February 2017 on either of the two available destinations will be awarded the respective accommodation voucher for either the Beach House or Bukisa Camp.
A single decision by President Donald Trump has undone years of fighting to stop the dangerous Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines from being built, hampering progress for short-term profits and environmental destruction.
These combined projects would result in 2,279 miles of potentially leaking pipelines, contaminating everything in their path: rivers, forests, underground aquifers — everything. By approving the advancement of these projects, President Trump blatantly denies the link between oil and climate change, and ignores the damage that the pipelines will inevitably spread across the country.
While it is true that the American economy depends on oil, now is the time to act on the fact that we cannot build a future on oil without sacrificing our farmlands, forests, water sources and climate. Please sign our petition today to implore President Trump to put an end to the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines — investing in viable green-energy and the sustainable jobs that accompany that industry instead.
Please go to: http://therainforestsite.greatergood.com/clickToGive/trs/petition/dakota-keystone-pipelines/?utm_source=trs-ta-enviro&utm_medium=email&utm_term=01302017&utm_content=takeaction-f&utm_campaign=dakota-keystone-pipelines&origin=ETE_013017_dakota-keystone-pipelines_f&oidp=0x2bd25baa4cd41335c0a82937 to sign the petition.
Urgent appeal for animals, like humans, to be legally recognized as “sentient beings”.
In 2015, France, New Zealand and the province of Quebec, Canada recognized animals as sentient beings. I believe South Africa should lead the way as the first African country to do the same.
To recognise that animals are sentient is to acknowledge clearly that they are able to experience both positive and negative emotions, including pain, distress and emotional trauma.
This would make hunting of wild animals, animal testing and capture or ill treatment, illegal and would afford animals the right not to be owned as property.
This would go a long way towards ensuring decent and humane housing and treatment of animals by individuals, breeders and retailers. Currently the requirements for the care and housing of animals are minimal, and inadequately enforced.
It really is time we South Africans climb aboard and stand up for our fellow non human beings, who give us so much and enrich our lives in so many ways.
Trophy hunting is a disgusting hobby wherein people pay large sums of money to slaughter and then stuff and bring home the bodies of animals, many of whom are at risk of becoming extinct.
Each year, over 126,000 wildlife trophies are imported to the U.S. Most trophies are iconic, beloved mega fauna: African elephants, African lions, African leopards, southern white rhinos, and African buffalo. Over 1,000 different beautiful species have been killed and turned into trophies. Between 2005 and 2014, over 1.26 million in total were brought in.
The website is full of images of people standing next to lifeless, bloodied animal bodies. Some are smiling proudly, others hold an emotionless face. But all share a few things in common: they spent a lot of money to kill animals, and they love doing it.
Argentina: A baby dolphin died for an Instagram photo.
Tourists in San Bernardo, Argentina, dragged the baby dolphin out of the ocean after he swam close to shore. A video shows a crowd taking pictures and touching the animal, who lay in just a few inches of water. Now, the baby dolphin is dead.
This isn’t the first time tourists have killed wildlife in the area, either. Last February, tourists on a beach in Santa Teresita killed an endangered baby dolphin after pulling it out of the water. Tourists passed the dolphin around for photos until it died of dehydration.
Care2 petition author Paige D. argues that animals in Argentina are particularly vulnerable to abuse because the country does not support the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, an inter-governmental agreement to reduce animal suffering and promote animal welfare standards. In fact, World Animal Protection, an animal welfare charity, gives the country an overall D rating in the protection of animals.
The fight over the re-introduction of wolves is headed for new heights. More than 83,000 people have already signed an Internet petition against the shooting of a wolf in the Oberlausitz (Lower Saxony) that seems to have lost almost all shyness of humans. Saxony’s authorities have decided to have the so-called problem wolf „Pumpak“ killed by a bullet; will he have to share the same fate as Bruno, the problem bear of Bavaria?
„We are a group of people who are fighting for the protection of wolves in Germany“; these are the introductory words of an Internet petition (https://www.change.org/p/wolf-pumpak-muss-weiterleben) that has the goal of saving the life of Pumpak, a wolf living in the area of Rietschen. He was seen on numerous occasions at night in the village searching for food in compost heaps, seemingly unperturbed by the presence of humans. When people approached him he calmly trotted back into the nearby pine forest. Sometimes he would watch from a safe distance how the frightened two-legged ones reacted to him by retreating into the safety of their homes. He is still a young wolf, and youngsters are curious.
Wolves are very shy and will usually disappear into thin air before humans even spot them. But the young male wolf of Rietschen seems to be an exception to the rule. It is possible that he was fed by humans as a pup when he lived on the banks of the German/Polish border river Neisse. Pumpak seems to love cake, because he tried to steal a freshly baked one from a windowsill where it had been placed for cooling down.
His curiosity, his searching for food in gardens, and the fear of humans of this legendary predator make Pumpak a problem wolf for the authorities. The district magistrate’s office Görlitz has declared the two-year old wolf free to be shot, and the Saxony Ministry for Environmental Affairs has also given the “green light” for shooting him in the Polish border area.
Nature conservationists and animal lovers are shocked about the order to shoot and kill him, but some huntsmen welcome the decision, because a hardheaded fight has ensued since wolves have emigrated from Poland and re-occupied territory after territory. A similar scenario played out with a bear in Bavaria eleven years ago.
Bruno the Bear had become a “problem” when after waking from hibernation, he chose Bavaria as his new hunting territory. He was the first bear there in 170 years and his presence was obvious in that he made a meal of six sheep. Again and again Bruno was seen in the close vicinity of villages; he broke into a pigsty, and he cleaned out a chicken pen on another occasion. All people saw of him was a fleeing shadow, and he divided Germany into camps of supporters and opponents. And like back then, the order to shoot and kill Bruno was causing the same storm of indignation as the one now to shoot and kill Pumpak.
More than 83,000 people have already signed the Internet petition that is meant to prevent the so-called “removal of the wolf“. With the term “removal“, authorities describe the killing of wild animals exhibiting an abnormal behavior. A wolf can be removed if, e.g., he repeatedly attacks flocks of sheep, ignores protective fences or, like in Pumpak’s case, loses its natural shyness of humans.
But wolf welfare activists are not only active on the Internet; more than 100 e-mails have been received by the Saxony Ministry for Environmental Affairs that are in favour of Pumpak. Even in Berlin, the Federal Minister of Environmental Affairs, Barbara Hendricks, has to deal with the so-called problem wolf and answer questions. She refers to the decision of the Dresden authorities by stating that the decision to remove the wolf has been made by experts who have the necessary knowledge about nature conservation and legal interests. Therefore the decision by the authorities is not really suitable for a public referendum, said Frank Meyer, press speaker for the Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Saxony.
The huntsmen of the Oberlausitz are watching the fight over problem wolf Pumpak with great interest. For years they have been demanding orders to shoot and kill wolves that cause problems. One huntsman says, however, that Pumpak is actually not a problem yet, but he could become one if he, at a later stage, formed a pack and taught his experiences to his offspring, so that they would also lose their shyness of humans. Brigitte Sommer, who initiated the Internet petition, does not accept this statement without counter-arguing that there will always be curious young wolves that investigate their territory and learn from experience. She refers to a young wolf that strolled through villages around Oldenburg. If every curious young wolf is seen as a problem and is therefore shot and killed, it would be catastrophic, she says.
She is trying for more than 100,000 signatures to make it clear to the provincial government that there is a huge public interest in nature, wild animals, and wolves in particular, and that a small lobby of politicians, huntsmen and farmers tries to accomplish their own goals against the will of the rest of the public, and that cannot be, she says.
Meanwhile The Green Party wants to know from the Saxon state government who has been chosen to kill the problem wolf in the Oberlausitz. And a private person is said to have applied for a temporary interdict to prevent shooting Pumpak.
Since the Rietschen wolf has officially been handed the death sentence, Pumpak has gone missing. For more than a week, the two-year old predator hasn’t been seen. Maybe he has moved back to Poland across the Neisse into the Görlitzer Heide, or he is travelling through the neighbouring army trainings ground.
By the way, the Görlitz district council’s office would not reveal who will be the one to train the rifle at and shoot Pumpak and keep him as a trophy afterwards.
Without the support of all the people who signed this petition this might not have been possible, and therefore many, many Thanks to everybody.
The order to shoot Pumpak will expire on 19 February, the MDR radio and TV station announced this morning, although there is no official confirmation from the provincial government yet.
Darkstorm is an Alpha wolf that was killed 4 years ago while saving another wolf in his pack, and carried off into the forest by an injured bear that was slowly dying from a wound caused by Darkstorm… What made Darkstorm so unique from the other wolves? What made him special? Well sit back and listen to the story of Darkstorm’s Life….
Darkstorm was born under the sign of the shadow… he had abilities that already would made another Alpha wolf bow to him as a pup! He was able to take down caribou and other large animals as a teen wolf… he could talk with nature itself… he was known as Natures Child. Darkstorm lost his mother around the time he was a pup, and his father, an alpha wolf at the time, blamed him for his love’s death. So he banned Darkstorm far from his homeland. Darkstorm was raised by many different animals and learned to communicate with the wind and earth… he could easily tell were game was by the feel of the earth… and the smell of the wind… he could tell what type of storm was brewing by the way the earth shifted.
Back then, Darkstorm was not his name, it normally was Fang, but I’ll tell you how he earned the name Darkstorm. One day, Fang was out running with the other animals to see who was the fastest. Darkstorm easily won, but what scared the animals was that when he would run, he left a path of destruction behind him! He was so dark and fast he was like a DARK STORM!!! So he earned the name Darkstorm.
When he left the new home he lived in for many years, he decided it was time to go back to his home and claim the rightful position as the new Alpha Wolf; but doing so he would have to challenge his Father! Darkstorm crossed many green fields and rocky mountains till he was home. The wolves saw Darkstorm enter and were ready to attack until they smelled his scent.. it was exactly like his father’s, Tundra. Darkstorm walked in between the wolves until he reached his father. When he saw his father Darkstorm totally changed; his eyes were no longer blue, but now forever a green-red, which showed the hatred he had for his father, and his black coat had a few white stripes showing now. His teeth a little more sharper and his claws a little more jagged, sharp as ice cycles in a cave. Darkstorm had changed and knew that the only way for him to become the new Alpha wolf, was to kill his father, even though it was forbidden. Darkstorm got into an attack position and leaped toward Tundra to begin the combat…..
Darkstorm nimbly leaped onto the boulder, his slitted amber eyes never leaving his opponent’s. His misty charcoal coat rippled in the twilight breeze as a low growl escaped his tightened throat. A set of silvery fangs were bared, tinted with a thin shade of dark blood. He suddenly pivoted, and sprang, using every ounce of thick muscle in his legs. He launched himself towards Silverfeet and sunk his teeth into the alpha’s tough flank, ripping savagely at the wolf’s flesh, spraying deep red about the granite rock.
Silverfeet flung himself against his challenger, fighting off Darkstorm with both tooth and claw. Darkstorm snarled, and shook away his attacker, then lunged at him again. The alpha crumpled, dark blood staining his silvery fur. His breath slowed, and then stopped, and the wolf lay motionless, the constant pounding of his heart now silent. Darkstorm raised his head, staring at the pack as they were at him. They were dumfounded at the sudden and short death of their leader, and now lowered their eyes and heads submissively to their new alpha, now standing proud in the rising fire of the sun. He was their future.
Darkstorm stood tall in the frigid waters of the creek, upon the cliffs from which careened the mighty East Ridge Falls. The wind snapped icily at his skin, and tossed his dark fur like angry fire. He bent his head, and thirstily lapped up the cold water, which slid pleasantly down his dry throat. He then gazed upwards, staring at the cloudless skies. Below the cliffs lay a sea of forest, and beyond that, a golden tundra. It was early spring, and only two winters back he had challenged and caused the death of the alpha, his father Tundra, of the Whitehawk Creek Pack, the pack that he now held responsibility for. He knew from his previous pack, the West Ridge Pack, that it was against the wolf code to kill in a challenge – or even for a pack-less wolf to challenge an alpha. Yet he had ignored this – he had hated and dismissed all law of the wolf then, as it was what had affected his position as a beta in West Ridge, and placed him without family or pack.
Russet came bounding towards him, his cinnamon coat gleaming and glossy in the sunlight. Darkstorm could tell straight away from the excited wags of the wolf’s tail and the spark in his pale brown eyes that they were here – pups! The two wolves streamed down the cliff-side, eagerly dodging the trees and following the scent path to their pack den. The alpha barked happily, and his pack welcomed him into the den, followed by Russet. He saw Raven, his mate, laying on her side, and her four pups wriggling and fighting beside her. Their tiny eyes were sealed shut, and their teeth were tiny but sharp. They were all black, like he and raven, but two had splotches of white on their faces and stomachs. One of the white-masked pups had a white tip on its tail, which was thumping the ground enthusiastically. Raven glanced at Darkstorm with tired eyes, and then her heavy eyelids shut from exhaustion. He nudged her with his nose, and left the den.
Skysong stood in the shallow depths of Whitehawk Creek, feeling the wind blow through her fur and giving her a carefree, spirited attitude. She raced along the creek, her paws sending cold water splashing up her dark coat. Her pale green eyes scanned the jagged horizon, watching the sun rise, showering sparks of gold upon the tundra.
Skysong walked ashore, shaking the water off her night-black fur. She paused for a moment, sensing a sort of danger unknown to her. She sniffed the air, and suddenly cried out at an agonizing pain in her back muscles. Skysong tried to free herself from the bear’s weight, then snarling and clawing at its face and eyes, but the bear remained unharmed. The female wolf knew she was as good as dead. She tried to helplessly shake it off, but its teeth were firmly sunk into her back. The wolf cried out for help from Blackfire, her brother, as the great bear prepared for its fatal bit to her jugular vein, but he only yelped at her sorrowfully, then turning and running to the forest in the opposite direction. Suddenly she heard the bear roar with pain and rage, and it let go of Skysong, turning to fight Darkstorm, who had then leaped upon the bear’s back and sunk his razor-sharp teeth into the bear’s massive neck muscle. Though the attack wasn’t enough to cause the bear serious harm, it distracted it long enough so that Skysong could drag herself to a hiding place. She watched, suffering from untold pain and unable to help, as the bear lifted her sire with its enormous forepaws and delivered the fatal bite to Darkstorm. The alpha convulsed in the bear’s tight grip, and then went limp as the bear dragged the wolf away. Skysong felt her strength ebbing away from her as her dripping blood formed a dark crimson path behind her as she made her way slowly to the den. Darkstorm had died in order to save her life – a sacrifice she wouldn’t soon forget.
I have previously made mention of Ascar II being a little bully who loves to order Kajack II around and play the big boss. Now, lately Ascar was becoming so aggressive towards Kajack over no issues at all, that the latter was screaming for his life (it seemed) several times a day every day. He ended up with lots of small bits and pieces of scurf all over his face. Whatever we tried only resulted in Ascar taking out his frustration over his being reprimanded on Kajack. Taima, on the other hand, didn’t like our interfering at all and growled and even snapped at Ted a couple of times. Something had to happen, however, before Kajack would possibly lose an eye, for example. One day two weeks ago, it was particularly bad, and Ted couldn’t stand it anymore. While I was screaming at Ascar out of frustration, telling him we would oust and bring him back to where he came from, Ted grabbed a leash with a choke chain, slipped it over Ascar’s head, lifted him off Kajack, and dragged him out the back door. He fiddled the leash through the burglar bars of the door from the outside and pinned him against it from the inside. After a very short while Ascar became completely catatonic, which Ted knew to be a sign of him capitulating unconditionally. He held him there for a moment longer to make sure, then unfastened the chain. Ascar trotted off while Ted was torn between hating himself for having to be so drastic and fury over Ascar’s brutal mobbing of the most pacific pack member in the house. A short while later, Ascar could be seen trying to find a place where to jump the fence in order to get back into the house (the connecting gate was closed). We ignored him for half an hour and even closed the front door in case he should manage to get to the front yard.
Ted eventually went out to have a talk with Ascar and meditate over the problem. He first addressed him and tried to tell him where his behaviour would end him up. All he got in response was “get in, get in, get to Kajack”. Ted eventually realized that Ascar needed a teacher. And because there was no four-legged dominant male that could teach him at our place, he realised he would have to take on this role.
Some half-hour later, Ted and Ascar walked back to the still-closed backdoor. First, Ascar just wanted to get to Kajack on the inside, but when Ted didn’t let him, he sat down next to him and looked at him. Ted told him to apologize, and now the most unexpected things started to happen. Ascar got up and apologized to Ted, who told him that he must apologize to Kajack and true enough, he got up once more and started to wash Kajack’s face and ears through the bars. Ted praised him over the blue moon, opened the door, and he continued to wash Kajack, then Taima, then me, and Ted some more. He laid down next to Kajack and has been a new animal ever since. Whenever he gets too rough with Kajack (he can of course play with him, even wildly), Ted or I just have to touch the leash and make a small noise with the chain, and all aggression will cease this instant. We now even leave the set lying on the living room table so that he is reminded of it every time he walks past it. He will often sniff and touch it, and then sit down in front of either of us so that we can acknowledge him for his good behaviour. He will now also listen most of the time if we just tell him to be a little gentler or stop mobbing him.
I was a bit worried at first that Ascar would now be scared of the leash and chain, but it is most curious that he doesn’t show any fear of them. When Ted picks it up, he sometimes even tries to put his head through the loop. Not that we are complaining, mind you.
Subduing a canine as Ted did is nothing that could be recommend to anybody, for it is not exactly not dangerous to both the handler and the animal. However, in the above scenario, there was no way about it, and now we are glad that Ted mustered the courage. It just could not continue like it was.

industry_corpus2: Agriculture & Fisheries


text:
Cards are not required this weekend. Hopefully everything will be sorted out by next weekend.
Charge only for the number of refs who show up.
Home team chooses their sideline. There’s no “North”/”West” is the home side in spring as teams travel to other cities and the home team providing the field should get their choice.
We would prefer teams on opposite sides of the field. Some RecSelectGold (Signature) teams might elect to setup a coaches’ side and spectators side. This is okay for 11v11 games and some 9v9 games. However, for 7v7 it can become an issue with parents too close to opposing parents – work it out if there are any issues.
Rec U12 may NOT head as it’s a combined U11/U12 bracket.
RecSelectGold U11 may NOT head.
Clocks skip ahead on Sunday – don’t be late to your Sunday games!
Referees on 9am games should be ON THEIR ASSIGNED FIELD no later than 8:30am. This does not mean you pull into the parking lot at 8:40am and then slowly walk out to find the rest of your crew who already did all the pre-game work for you.
Home team chooses which side to sit on and changes jersey colors if conflicting.
Check-in for equipment only – no need to check player cards/medical releases.
Perform a coin toss to determine sides/kick-off.
Record scores on game card provided by coach. RETURN TO THE COACH as it’s used for the entire tournament.
Some refs are doing games on multiple fields, some at the same venue and some at multiple venues.
Coaches may also have multiple teams.
Keep the games on schedule so there are no issues that arise out of running late on start times.
No extra time – straight to Kicks in Finals.
No heading in U11 and under.
All players must play 50% of the game.
Spring season games start on March 8th and continue through finals on Sunday, May 18th. There are likely to be games on both Saturdays and Sundays given the number of teams and limited field space.
The schedule will hopefully be online Sunday, March 2nd. Keep checking your email for when you may begin signing up for games.
There are two levels of play in spring: Recreational and Select. The Select level is for new and returning Signature teams, and for teams that are seeking a higher level of competition. These are not officially “Signature” games, so there are no specific sign-up restrictions beyond the age of the players, but you should expect play to be at a Signature level when you sign up, especially if you take a center position. While I will try, I may or may not be able to differentiate the level of play on the referee schedule but you can look at the regular game schedule to see which teams are in which bracket.
In addition, for spring, the U10 Select bracket plays 60-minute 11v11 games in preparation for U11 Signature play in the fall.
Last I heard, there were around 270 teams registered to play games from U6 through U19. This is at least 15 more teams than last spring. Games are played throughout Orange County, plus Whittier, Diamond Bar, and West Covina, with JUSA providing referees only for U7 through U19 games held at JUSA fields.
There are quite a few U16/U19 teams signed up for spring. As usual, these games, when played at JUSA fields, will be manually assigned by Brendon Garabito. Since there are so many teams, he may need additional help with these games which pay the most at $1.40/minute. Spring is your chance to “try out” for U16/U19 games in the fall, so email Brendon at jusa_intercity@hotmail.com if you are interested.
Home team chooses which sideline they occupy. While this is not necessarily a refereeing issue, we are often asked to arbitrate such disagreements. Since spring games are played in many cities using many associations’ fields, the home team, per the schedule, is given the opportunity to choose a sideline at their own home field.
Guest players: With teams often having players playing more than one spring sport, sometimes teams need to use guest players. I will get the final wording on guest players, but as I recall it being presented to the coaches at the coaches’ meeting two weeks ago, teams may only have guest players if they will not have enough players to have at least 2 substitutes and, I believe, the limit on guest players for any team for any single game is 2. No guest club players are allowed. There will be official rosters that will be “locked” after the 3rd weekend of play and no guest players will be allowed to participate in playoffs. I will send out further clarification on guest players in the next week or so.
U7/U8 games will be 1-referee, as usual. All other games, including 8v8 U9/U10, will use the 3-referee system.
There may be some new information regarding handling of “no-show” teams this spring. I will forward this information once it’s finalized.

industry_corpus2: Sports


text:
SaleBoards are the ethical estate agent in Exeter. They pride themselves on treating every client with the same level of respect, no matter what the value of the property is. SaleBoards are a family-run business and always put customer service above volume of properties being listed.
SaleBoards are a proud member of Property Ombudsman.
On average their properties are on the market for a value of £250,000. You will find many properties listed over £500,000 on the SaleBoards website.
SaleBoards' fees for every property, no matter what the value of your property is fixed at 1.25% + vat.
On average their customers pay £3000 in total, inclusive of vat.

industry_corpus2: Real Estate & Construction


text:
Five artists who had been taking creative classes together in 1959 decided to found the Columbia Art League, a place where like minded creatives could come together to create, appreciate, and learn. The group started by meeting at the home of Betty Robins, who spearheaded the organizational efforts.
The first Art in the Park was held as an art fair on Cherry Street as a way of encouraging artists to share their work with one another and with the community at large.
The event has grown quite a bit since then, but Art in the Park is still free to the public, and the festival showcases a diverse range of mediums that are available for purchase. “There is art for everybody,” says Executive Director Holly Stitt.
Over the years, CAL has added installations, interactive activities, food vendors, and performers to the overall experience of the festival, which now draws both artists and attendees from across the state.
The newest addition to the festival this year was the Veterans’ Art Pavilion, which was an extension of the outreach CAL does with the VA reintegration program. The pavilion featured art created by veterans and let them share their stories with the community.
The Young Collector’s Tent is another unique experience the festival offers each year. Artists who show their work in the festival donate a collection of pieces to CAL to hang in the Young Collector’s Tent. Children are encouraged to choose one of these pieces without the help of their parents so they can identify the kind of art that resonates with them personally. They are then given a map of where the artist is located in the festival so they can meet the artist in person.
“We get feedback from the artists that the best part of coming to the show is seeing those kids and working with them. It’s one of the best parts of Art in the Park,” says Stitt.
As CAL celebrates 60 years of Art in the Park, they’re reflecting on how they have grown from a small collective into a thriving nonprofit. CAL now employs three full-time staff members who coordinate with 20 to 25 volunteers to run the gallery, teach classes, and direct outreach.
An annual fee allows patrons to become members of CAL. Members are given discounted rates to gallery shows, access to members-only shows, and opportunities to show their art in community exhibits. “We really strive to get people into the arts and using the arts in any way that we can,” says Stitt.
CAL has also created different outreach programs for youth in the Columbia area. Emerging Artists is one such program focused on encouraging high school students and college undergraduates to show their art in one of the galleries that CAL curates. Pieces are also displayed in the emerging artists’ tent at Art in the Park.
A mentorship program for at-risk and underprivileged teens is another way in which CAL engages young artists. Teens are paired with a master artist for the school year to learn how to create different forms of art. The water serpent that was featured in the lake at this year’s Art in the Park was created by one of the mentees from this program.
The gallery at CAL features six shows a year, with two being members-only shows. The remaining four shows are open to anyone in the community who wants to display their art.
Artists who are featured may be well-known or up-and-coming. Each show is themed, and art is selected based on the approval of juried panels.
Give a Gift of Art is currently on display; the show is intended to encourage patrons to purchase art as gifts during the holiday season.
In addition to the galleries, CAL’s building houses a classroom, where both children and adults can learn a variety of crafts. Painting, hand lettering, basket weaving, and drawing are just a few of the classes taught there.
CAL’s main goal for the future is to further expand its membership base. In doing so, CAL can mobilize outreach initiatives and programming, all of which directly funnel back into the community.

industry_corpus2: Subject Education


text: ∅ 6mm tubing, BSPT 1/2 thread push in fittings male elbow. (∅6mm tubing to R 1/2 thread push to connect fittings male elbow). The thread is equiped with teflon for thread sealing.

industry_corpus2: Manufacturing


text:
The author of the books for adults, and the illustrator of all the books.
Neil Phillips is a consultant psychiatrist who works in rural and remote community mental health. He is also an active communicator about mental health, mental illness and relationship issues through regular contributions to the popular Sydney ABC Radio 702 Drive show.
Neil is a cartoonist and for many years he has drawn cartoons to explain mental health issues in a safe and friendly way. Cartoons help people understand things that are frightening or felt to be shameful and encourage greater understanding. This makes it easier for everyone involved to work together.

industry_corpus2: Health & Medicine