Categories
Sports

A wolf may be at Crater Lake in Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness

Jim and LuAnne Spurrell were hiking the trail alongside Crater Lake in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness close to dusk last week when the alarmed cries of an animal stopped them in their tracks.

They pivoted to see what the commotion was about and were startled to see what they believe was a gray wolf loping across terrain they had just passed 30 to 40 yards behind them.

“I immediately yelled, ‘That’s a wolf,’” Jim Spurrell recounted Thursday. “At about the same time, my wife blurted out, ‘That’s a wolf.’”

The sounds of alarm were coming from a smaller animal that they couldn’t see well enough to identify but suspect was a beaver or marmot. The presumed wolf was walking across a pile of downed timber on the north end of the lake, paying no attention to the smaller animal. The wolf “floated” through the tree trunks without a problem, Jim Spurrell said. Once clear of the logs it followed the trail in a “characteristic wolf-like gait” and soon disappeared to the west into the woods, he said.

Read more on our partner site The Aspen Times.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Adventurist, to get outdoors news sent straight to your inbox.

Related Articles

  • Colorado state parks just became the coolest kid in school — but my mom was right, popularity isn’t all that
  • Colorado will soon have a new state park that’s home to elk, black bears and more
  • Popular scenic Mount Evans Highway will stay closed to motorists for all of 2020
  • Rocky Mountain National Park to start requiring online reservations during the coronavirus outbreak
  • You might need reservations to drive to Maroon Bells this summer as shuttle service won’t be available


Source: Read Full Article

Categories
World News

Theresa May slams Boris for hiring security adviser with 'no proven expertise'

Theresa May has blasted Boris Johnson’s choice of new national security adviser as a ‘political appointee’ with ‘no proven expertise’.

Speaking in the Commons, she paid tribute to the departing NSA and chief civil servant Sir Mark Sedwill – but fumed over the decision to replace him with David Frost, who is the chief EU trade negotiator and Europe Adviser to Mr Johnson.

The appointment has also been criticised by a former chief civil servant, Gus O’Donnell, and a former NSA, Peter Ricketts, who feared it could undermine the impartiality of the security advice the PM receives.

It is the first time Ms May has openly attacked Mr Johnson’s government since she stepped down last summer.

Singling out Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, Ms May said: ‘On Saturday, my right honourable friend said we must be able to promote those with proven expertise. Why then is the new national security adviser a political appointee with no proven expertise in national security?’

Mr Gove had attacked the ‘whirligig of Civil Service transfers and promotions’ in a speech to the Ditchley Foundation on the same day Mr Sedwill’s resignation was announced.

He said: ‘We must be able to promote those with proven expertise in their current role to perform the same, or similar, functions with greater status and higher rewards without them thinking they have to move away from the areas they know and love to rise in their profession.

‘We would not ask an Orthopaedics Registrar to become a psychiatrist in order to make consultant. So why should we require an expert in agriculture negotiations with the EU to supervise the Universal Credit IT system to see their career progress?’

Mr Sedwill held both the position of national security adviser and Cabinet Secretary, the most powerful civil service role, whereas the two roles will now be held by different people.

Mr Gove said previous NSAs were not all ‘steeped in the security world’ and said some were ‘distinguished diplomats’ like Mr Frost.

Ms May glared and shook her head as he gave his response.

In response to further questions by a Labour MP, he said: ‘The broader point is that David Frost is involved in one of the most complex diplomatic negotiations ever conducted and a diplomatic negotiation that relates specifically to defence and security cooperation as well as tariffs and trade.

‘He has been a civil servant for decades and it is the case that Mark Lyall Grant and Kim Darroch, who were national security advisers, were not people who were steeped in the world of intelligence and security.

‘They were gifted diplomats and gifted civil servants and they were, as David will be, supported by a superb team in the national security secretariat.’

Like Mr Frost, Mr Darroch held a number of diplomatic roles with the Foreign Office and was the PM’s Europe adviser for several years.

However his responsibilities included briefs on the Soviet Union and satellites towards the end of the Cold War, according to the New Statesman.

His successor, Mr Lyall Grant, had served mainly in ambassadorial roles and senior Foreign Office postings.

Neither men had the extensive security background of Mr Sedwill, who had held military-facing and counterterrorism roles in the Foreign Office and the United Nations respectively.

Before Ms May’s comments, Mr Gove claimed the civil service commissioner has agreed the job of national security adviser ‘can be regarded as a political rather than necessarily civil service appointment.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected]

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Source: Read Full Article

Categories
Politics

Theresa May makes rare intervention to slam Boris Johnson’s security adviser hire

Theresa May has attacked Boris Johnson’s choice to be his new national security adviser, saying he has “no proven expertise” in the area.

The former prime minister unleashed unusually strong criticism on her successor after Downing Street announced the PM would bring in his chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, to take on the role of national security adviser.

Mr Frost will replaces Sir Mark Sedwill, who is being let go from his senior roles as national security adviser and cabinet secretary from September.

The unusual move by Mr Johnson saw a politically-neutral civil servant replaced with a political adviser.

Mrs May did not hold back her criticism of the major Whitehall shakeup in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

“I served on the National Security Council for nine years – six years as home secretary, and three as prime minister,” she told MPs.

“During that time I listened to the expert independent advice from national security advisers.”

Addressing Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, she continued: “On Saturday, my right honourable friend said, ‘We must be able to promote those with proven expertise’.

“Why then is the new national security adviser a political appointee with no proven expertise in national security?”

Mr Gove responded by paying tribute to Sir Mark’s unusually short service at the top of the civil service.

He explained: “We have had previous national security advisers – all of them excellent, not all of them necessarily people who were steeped in the security world, some of them who were distinguished diplomats in their own right.

“Sir David – sorry David Frost – is a distinguished diplomat in his own right and it’s entirely appropriate that the prime minister of the day should choose an adviser appropriate to the needs of the hour.”

Lord Ricketts, the UK’s first national security adviser, has also been less than positive about the appointment.

He said the role requires someone with “deep knowledge” but instead that Mr Johnson’s priority is “not to expertise and experience, but to political loyalty among his closest advisers”.

Mr Frost has had a rocketing ride through the civil service, having run the Scotch Whisky Association for two years until joining then-foreign secretary Mr Johnson as a special adviser from 2016 to 2018.

He was previously the UK’s ambassador to Denmark and held diplomatic posts in Brussels with the European Union and in New York with the United Nations.

Source: Read Full Article

Categories
World News

Ved Nanda: India may need to pull closer to U.S. as it navigates tensions with China

The agreement reached this week by Indian and Chinese military commanders in the Himalayan region of Galwan Valley, Ladakh, to disengage troops from the disputed border points should diffuse tensions that had resulted in a clash between their security forces on June 15, in which 20 Indian troops were killed. China was silent on its casualties, but Indian officials said that 30-40 Chinese soldiers were killed. Foreign ministers of India and China, S. Jaishankar and Wang Yi, have also spoken over the phone and met on Tuesday, pledging to find peaceful resolution of the dispute.

The accord is not likely to resolve the crisis that has built over a period of several decades. The struggle goes back before the India-China war in 1962, which resulted in a humiliating defeat for India and the occupation by China of the Indian territory of Aksai Chin in Ladakh. This time no shots were fired, but the forces fought with sticks, stones, and clubs with nails or barbed wire.

The 2000-mile-long border is one of the longest unmarked borders in the world. Thousands of Indian and Chinese troops are stationed along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which was established after their war in 1962. The Galwan Valley clash occurred when Indian soldiers tried to stop Chinese troops seeking to build a “structure” on the Indian side of the LAC. China has often asserted that it has historical sovereignty over the Galwan Valley.

In India, the public is outraged, with huge gatherings calling for a boycott of Chinese goods and putting pressure on the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to respond decisively to Chinese aggression. Modi convened an all-party meeting, in which he announced that India wants peace but will defend every inch of its territory and the that sacrifice of 20 soldiers will not be in vain.

How should India respond? Modi has met China’s President Xi in informal summits and has been to China several times. However, China continues to aggressively pursue its geopolitical strategy of seeking hegemony in the region and considers India as the only rival to stand in its way.

Modi will not follow Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s fateful decision in 1962 to wage war with China as he knows China’s superiority, both militarily and economically. He understands that in 1988, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his counterpart, Deng Xiao Ping, agreed to form a forward-looking relationship between the two countries, they were near-equals, with similar GDP and defense spending. Today, China’s GDP is more than five-times India’s and its defense expenditure is almost four times that of India.

Things are further complicated by India’s ongoing disputes with Pakistan. Thus, the two-front situation – China and Pakistan – presents Modi with a difficult choice. As India cannot afford to fight on both fronts, should it make peace with one of these rivals? If this does not currently seem feasible, as dictated by history, public opinion, and the current geopolitical situation, India will have to get closer to the United States because the policy of nonalignment that India cherished for several decades is dead.

India getting closer to the West should not necessarily be seen as designed to contain China. India should substantially increase its defense spending and use its diplomatic and economic skills to counter China’s aggressive stance. India and China could be rivals and still good neighbors.

Modi is an astute politician with a stellar record, as he has won the trust of the people at home and gained respect abroad for India.  To illustrate, India recently was elected as a member of the Security Council and chair of the Board of the World Health Organization. Just as one of his predecessors, Atul Bihari Vajpayee, he has reached out and created close relationships with neighboring countries in Asia and the Arab world. All expectations are that he will skilfully navigate this crisis.

Ved Nanda is Distinguished University Professor and director of the Ved Nanda Center for International Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. His column appears the last Sunday of each month and he welcomes comments at [email protected]

Source: Read Full Article