Dingoes Improve Soil Quality in Australia

credits: B. Moore

Scientists now know that the presence of apex predators in an ecosystem has a wide ranging and unexpected effects on a living system as a whole. A ground breaking study of wolves in Yellowstone showed that the presence of wolves suppressed browsers and thereby allowed encouraged the growth of mature trees which in turn had a positive effect on life in streams and wetlands.  The latest evidence of the beneficial impact of predators on ecosystems comes from Australia. A study of dingoes (Canus lupis dingo) on both sides of the infamous "dingo fence" [photo] concludes that the extermination of Australia's apex predator has an adverse effect on soil quality because kangaroo populations which feed on vegetation boom in their absence.

credit: AustralianWildlifeConservancy.org

The published study by researchers from University of New South Wales looked at dingoes on both sides of the 5600 kilometer fence erected a century ago to keep the wild canines out of eastern Australia. Dingoes were brought to the Australia continent by Asian seafarers 3500-4000 years ago. Dingoes are common in western Australia.  They counted kangaroos and dingoes, collected scats, and tested soil samples for four years.  Overgrazing by kangaroos on the east side of the fence produced soil that was relatively poor in phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon. Their conclusion that the presence of an apex predator that feeds on kangaroos is responsible for richer soil on the western side, is contrary to conventional thinking that predators have no effect on soil health.  The dingoes' trophic cascade is therefore extensive, right down to the presence of soil nutrients.  The study's authors urged a re-think of kangaroo control through the reintroduction of its main predator in areas where there is an overpopulation of the marsupial such as in national parks that are at risk of becoming kangaroo 'farms'.

Another published study of the affects of dingo extermination in eastern Australia shows that the loss of dingoes there contributes to the loss of small mammals who are prey for non-native cats and foxes.  Small mammals, such as the dusky hopping mouse [photo], eat shrub seeds which keeps them under control.  Shrub cover in selected areas of the Strzelecki Desert is 26-48% more dense where the dingo has been exterminated.

Chesapeake Bay is Healthier

After one hundred days in office it is unmistakably clear that the Trumpster is no friend of the environment.  From his penchant for building an ecosytem wrecking wall to his slashing of the EPA budget and efforts to revoke previous national monument designations, he is proving his pro-exploitation ideology to "make America great again".  One example of his anti-nature policies is his plan to defund the decades long federal effort to clean up Chesapeake Bay.  The efforts are starting to pay off.  Water ecologists say now is the time to step efforts, not end them, in order to turn the natural system's balance decisively toward complete recovery.  Cleaning Chesapeake Bay is not just a matter of aethetics, either.  It is one of the most productive ecosystems on the East Coast annually producing tons of fish and crustaceans for seafood lovers throughout the US.

Who cares if the Chesapeake is return to health?  Certainly not Donald Trump.  His budget intends to zero out the federal restoration program began in 1983.  Even Ronald Regan declared the Chesapeake, "a national treasure".  Because the Chesapeake estuary borders on several states, and its tributaries--including the heavily polluted Potomac River--drain a sixth of the East Coast, it was agreed early on that the recovery effort should be a federal one [map].  The pollutants entering the bay are complex ranging from human sewage, wastewater run off, manure and chemicals from farm fields, and dirty air blowing across its surface.  The toxic mix degrades water quality through eutrophication--decline in oxygen levels and clarity--to the point that Maryland's lucrative crabbing industry was starting to suffer financially.  Despite the obvious economic contribution the Bay is making to the economies of Virginia and Maryland, it is unlikely they could afford to replace the federal funding of $73 million Trump wants to spend elsewhere.

Fortunately the chances of Trump succeeding in ending the clean up altogether are slim to none.  Some Republican congress members support continuing it.  But other cuts to agencies involved in protecting nature and thereby the public's health are more worrisome to experts.  EPA's budget is to be reduced by 31%, USDA's by 21% and big cuts for the DOI, NOAA, USGS and Corps of Engineers.  Bay restoration involves six states and twelve federal agencies in an admirable example of "collaborative federalism".  In other words, to accomplish his radical agenda, the Donald wants to defund a program that actually works to ameliorate man's heavy burden on the natural world.

Conservationists know it is working because regular water quality monitoring by the USGS shows that it is improving.  The annual "dead zone"  in summer is shrinking and sea grass is returning because of increased clarity.  Commercial fish stocks are increasing.  Oysters once covered the Bay bottom, but are now at 1% of historic levels.  $6.5 billion is being spent to rebuild oyster reefs in ten Chesapeake rivers.  Eight thousand miles of forests and meadows are being replanted to provide natural filters for water entering the bay.  All of these programs and their beneficial results would end if Trump has his way; he vacations in Florida not the Eastern Shore. Congress sets budget priorities, and it a republic they should reflect the greatest good for the greatest number.   A study by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation says a fully restore Bay would contribute $22 billiion a year to the region's economy.  Build a hotel around that, Mr. Trump!

COTW: Biggest Spender

OK, so you tell US Person the figures and charts about how much the US spends on its military are distorted and biased and only reflect his anti-military, anti-corporate world view.  Try these charts [credit Dan Steinbock] on for size:

Even when the figures are adjusted for population size, the US still comes out at the top, only behind its Mid East ally and client state, Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom spends $2000 per person on its military establishment, while the US spends $1900.  Notice that Russia spends less per capita than Germany, South Korea and the UK.  Over the past decade its military spending has increased by only 6%.  So how can the Trumpster justify a $54 billion dollar (10%) increase in one year for the US military?  He cannot given the current world situation, but the thing about the Donald is that he never lets reality get in his way.

COTW: The High Corporate Tax Lie

US Person often hears neo-facist apologists claim the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%.  That is a true statement has far as it goes, but that is not very far at all.  What the corporatists fail to mention is that the US has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the developed world. The effective rate is the whole story since that is what determines how much revenue is raised.  This chart shows the whole truth:

The US effective corporate tax rate is 25% of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average at about 13%.  Some very large US corporations earning billions in profit pay no federal taxes due to deductions, deferrals and credits.  Just ask ace businessman Donald Trump, who is enjoying a multi-year tax deferral due to his business losses, or that icon of finance capitalism, Warren Buffet, who is candid enough to admit that high corporate taxes in the US is a lie.

Toontime: The Return of Hillary?

credit: Bob Englehart

The Democrats have a severe problem.  Not as bad as Trumpism, but almost.  The problem is they have no one credible enough to run against Trump in four years, which is saying something about the quality of their leadership.  Obama is history, and too busy enriching himself at the troughs of corporate 'Merica.  The only change he brought about was a reactionary lurch to the left at the end of his two terms and a giant albatross of a health care program that is not living up to its billing.  Obamacare did save the insurance industry from public sector competition, however.  For that he is being richly rewarded. The Obamas have reportedly signed a book deal worth $60-65 million in addition to a $400,000 speaking fee!

Then there is Hillary.  What can US Person say about her that is nice?   She stood by her man?   That was a political calculation from the start.  The fact is Hillary Clinton has no credibility remaining after the campaign of 2016, and worse of all she lost to the Donald, a man the pundits thought was unelectable  That fact demonstrates what her basic problem as a politician is:  she is not believed by the electorate.  Beside that, there is a core constituency between the coasts that will not elect a woman to the presidency.  Sexism, bigotry, misogyny, call it what you will, it exists and even at this late date appears not to be disappearing into the dustbin of history.

Chuck Schummer, the Democratic Senate Minority Leader?  He might has well be wearing a tag on his back that says, "Property of Wall Street"  Bernie Sanders could conceivably run again, but he would be four years older, and many voters thought he was too old to withstand the rigors of the office this time around.  Another touted politician, Elizabeth Warren aka "Pocahontas" , has less of chance of being elected President than 'crooked' Hillary did.  So the Democrats are going to have to do some severe soul searching in the interim and decide if they really want to be the "peoples' party" or just a warmer version of Repugnant plutocracy.

credit: Nate Beeler, Columbus Dispatch
Wackydoodle sez: No, It was the moon phase, sur nuf.

South African Leopards Declining Rapidly

Mafana, credit US PERSON

A new study published in the Royal Society Open Science journal concludes that leopards (Panthera pardus) living in South Africa's Soutspanberg Moutains are declining at a rate of 44% between 2012 and 2016.  South African declared a ban on leopard hunting due to concern for their survival amid mismanagement of trophy hunting and poaching for their spotted fur.  The authors argue that the ban should not be lifted in areas were leopard numbers are in decline more rapidly than previously thought.  A team from Durham University in UK performed the four year survey using 23 camera traps in the Soutspanberg, one of the last leopard strongholds in Africa.  The alarming decline of two-thirds of the population cannot be sustained, and leopards will disappear from the area by 2020 concludes Dr. Samuel Williams, the lead author.  Even more than trophy hunting, called "a luxury that cannot be afforded", Dr. Williams thinks illegal retaliatory killings by stock herders is taking a heavier toll on leopards living outside unprotected areas.  Of eight adult leopards fitted with GPS collars in the study, six died from human retaliation for fear of livestock losses.  Leopards have lost 80% of their historic range in South Africa.  Close to seventy percent of remaining leopard habitat is outside of protected areas.

Single Payer Bill Advances in California

Single-payer health insurance aka, socialized medicine, has no chance of being passed at the federal level as long as Repugnants are in charge of Congress.  But if you consider the Canadian experience, there is a glimmer of hope for those 'Mericans who now support a similar system in the US.  Canada's successful single payer system began in Saskatchewan province and evolved nationwide since 1962.  The Canadian birth had its associated pain; an unsuccessful three week doctor strike ensued passage of the provincial system. Now, California is leading the way to a US government provided health care system.  The state's Senate health committee voted last Wednesday to forward a proposal to eliminate private health insurance and replace it with a government funded system to the appropriations committee.  The bill is supported by the powerful California Nurses Association, but opposed by an equally powerful business lobby.  Support for a single payer system has been growing, especially since the Trump administration has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  So far those efforts have failed miserably, despite widespread dissatisfaction with its inability to control health care costs.

Once again, as it did when the legislative effort to pass "Obamacare" was underway in Congress, industry groups are pouring money into politicians' coffers to prevent passage of socialized medicine in California.  Twenty-four  California legislators who sit on the committees that will consider the bill have collectively received $819,000 in donations.  That includes $80,000 given to the chairmen of the Senate and Assembly health committees.  When Colorado considered Amendment 69 to provide a statewide health care system last year, Opponents raised more than $4 million, nearly five times what supporters brought in.

California Democratic Senators, Toni Atkins, who serves on the Senate health committee, and Ricardo Lara introduced the “Healthy California Act“ in February. The legislation would guarantee coverage to all California residents and implement a “comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system,” while ensuring that members “shall not be required to pay any premium, co-payment, co-insurance, deductible, and any other form of cost sharing for all covered benefits.”  A representative of the nurses union called the bill a model for the rest of the nation to follow.  Its not the first time a single payer bill has received serious consideration by the California legislature.  Former Governor 'Muscles' Schwarzenegger vetoed similar single payer plans in 2006 and 2008.  If you build it, they will come California.