Property Rights Group Asks Members to Fight Crapo's Owyhee Bill
A national private property rights group is urging its members to "deluge" Republican Sen. Mike Crapo's office with calls and e-mails asking him to back off of the Senate bill that would protect wilderness and public land ranchers in Owyhee County.
But Fred Grant, president of another national private property group and one of the leaders of the collaborative group that negotiated Crapo's bill, says the American Land Rights Association's claims that Crapo has sold out private property rights "is not right or truthful."
The association sent out an alert Monday urging its members to target Crapo for his efforts to gain votes for the Omnibus Public Lands Bill, a collection of 150 bills, including more than a half-dozen wilderness measures to protect more than 900,000 acres of wild land in Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Virginia and West Virginia.
The bill includes Crapo's Owyhees legislation, which has finally come to the floor after six years of talks by the coalition of ranchers and environmentalists. The legislation would protect 517,000 acres as wilderness, another 315 miles of rivers as wild and scenic, and help ranchers with a series of land transfers, buyouts and the establishment of a science center.
The lands group calls the omnibus bill a land grab and focused its opposition on the provision codifying the National Landscape Conservation System, 26 million acres of lands with special protection, including national monuments, managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
"It will add dozens of new National Heritage Areas and Wilderness Areas that will eventually be a land-use control noose around the necks of local people and rural America," the lands group said in its alert.
Grant, president of Stewards of the Range, which has fought for private property rights in and around federal lands in court, was the man who first proposed talks between ranchers and environmentalists as a way to keep ranchers on the land in Owyhee County. The Owyhees bill is the first bill that specifically protects private property rights to make it to the floor in 16 years, Grant said.
"For eight years, the ranchers and land owners in Owyhee County, many of whom have fought a lonely fight through the years, without noticeable support from the private property organizations now attacking Sen. Crapo, have worked to craft a bill that will add private land to the tax base of the county, protect their ranching rights and gain the largest comparable release of wilderness study area acres ever seen in any bill to reach a vote," Grant said.
The lands group targeted Crapo because he is working with Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid to gather the 60 votes needed to allow the bill to go to a vote in the lame duck session scheduled next week.
"It appears you cannot trust Sen. Mike Crapo's heart to protect your private property and access and use of Federal lands," the group said in its alert.
Grant said he wasn't challenging the lands group's right to oppose the bill.
"But it is not right, or truthful, to claim that Sen. Crapo has sold out private property interests," Grant said. "He has sponsored and supported the interests of, and the bill crafted by, landowners in Owyhee County."
Passing omnibus land bills is a bad way to legislate, said Charles Cushman, executive director of the lands association. If the bill passes, then more will come and the public will pay more in costs and in unwanted regulations.
"If we allow these omnibus federal land bills to go forward, every senator will get one project and the result is we'll get lots of bad bills," Cushman said.
Cushman has worked with Grant in the past and talked to him after they exchanged e-mails. But he didn't comment on what they said.
"I support the Owyhee legislation, but that doesn't change things or let Crapo off the hook," Cushman said. "We won't ever stop hammering him if this bill passes."
The American Land Rights Association, one of the largest grass-roots property rights groups in the country, was one of few groups that stood by U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, after his conviction on charges related to his arrest in a Minneapolis Airport bathroom. The group urged its members to boycott the Minneapolis Airport in response.
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Dorgan says Forest Service to scrub grassbank plan
Sen. Byron Dorgan says the chief of the U.S. Forest Service has assured him the agency will scrub plans to manage a scenic badlands ranch in western North Dakota as a forage reserve without traditional grazing.
Dorgan said Wednesday that he spoke with Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell, who told him that grazing rights on the Billings County land would continue.
The Forest Service proposed last month that the 5,200-acre ranch and 18,000 acres of nearby federal grasslands be managed as a "grassbank" for area ranchers to use during times of drought, grass fires or when their own ranch lands need a rest.
The Forest Service's Dakota Prairie Grasslands supervisor, Dave Pieper, said Wednesday that the agency will continue to take public comment on its grassbank plan until Nov. 24. He said he had not been ordered by agency bosses to halt the plan.
"We're going to follow the law," Pieper said. "We are moving forward with the public process. It's just a proposal at this stage."
Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club, said that under Dorgan's plan, the management of the badlands ranch would deviate from how other public-owned grasslands are managed in the U.S.
"It's unprecedented that the public will not be a part of the management decision in this one area, and that ranchers themselves will decide how much grazing there will be and when," Schafer said.
Rancher Jim Arthaud, a county commissioner and member of the Medora Grazing Association, said it was clear in the negotiations over the purchase of the ranch that the grazing rights involved would be divided among area ranchers.
The Forest Service purchased the ranch, next to Theodore Roosevelt's Elkhorn Ranch site, from brothers Kenneth, Allan and Dennis Eberts and their families last year. It cost $5.3 million, with $4.8 million coming from the federal government and $500,000 from conservation groups.
As part of the deal, the Forest Service promised to sell an equal number of acres in North Dakota to balance the acquisition of the former Blacktail Creek Ranch, and to continue grazing and other activities, including oil and gas development.
Dorgan said the purchase agreement allows the grazing association to allocate leases as it has traditionally done and he said using the land as a grassbank would violate that agreement. He has accused Pieper of acting as a "one-man band."
"We've got some folks in the Forest Service who want to try and skirt the law," Dorgan said. "They did not follow the agreement we made."
Pieper called it a complex situation. Dorgan found it fairly straightforward.
"It's not complicated at all — the law is the law, and federal agencies are not above the law," Dorgan said. "I do expect the Forest Service to follow the law, and if they don't, there will be consequences."
Schafer said the Forest Service manages millions of acres of grasslands in the U.S., including 1.2 million acres in North Dakota.
"Of all the grasslands in the U.S., none would be set up the way Sen. Dorgan wants this to be managed," Schafer said.
The Sierra Club strongly supports the idea of a grassbank, which Schafer called "an insurance policy" for ranchers.
"It would benefit all ranchers in need, rather than just two or three who would be able to increase their cattle herds," Schafer said.
Arthaud said locals always have been critical of the federal government's purchase of the ranch, fearing the valuable grasslands would be off limits to ranchers. He said about half a dozen area ranchers would benefit by allocating leases in the traditional way, and he hopes the Forest Service will back off its grassbank proposal now that Dorgan has intervened.
"The deal was made, they agreed to it, and then they lied to us," Arthaud said of the Forest Service. "The issue here is that they want to take 23,000 acres out of production."
Those acres are enough to support about 500 cows, he said.
"The Forest Service doesn't know how to manage cows and the Sierra Club doesn't like cows, period," Arthaud said.
Sen. Byron Dorgan says the chief of the U.S. Forest Service has assured him the agency will scrub plans to manage a scenic badlands ranch in western North Dakota as a forage reserve without traditional grazing.
Dorgan said Wednesday that he spoke with Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell, who told him that grazing rights on the Billings County land would continue.
The Forest Service proposed last month that the 5,200-acre ranch and 18,000 acres of nearby federal grasslands be managed as a "grassbank" for area ranchers to use during times of drought, grass fires or when their own ranch lands need a rest.
The Forest Service's Dakota Prairie Grasslands supervisor, Dave Pieper, said Wednesday that the agency will continue to take public comment on its grassbank plan until Nov. 24. He said he had not been ordered by agency bosses to halt the plan.
"We're going to follow the law," Pieper said. "We are moving forward with the public process. It's just a proposal at this stage."
Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club, said that under Dorgan's plan, the management of the badlands ranch would deviate from how other public-owned grasslands are managed in the U.S.
"It's unprecedented that the public will not be a part of the management decision in this one area, and that ranchers themselves will decide how much grazing there will be and when," Schafer said.
Rancher Jim Arthaud, a county commissioner and member of the Medora Grazing Association, said it was clear in the negotiations over the purchase of the ranch that the grazing rights involved would be divided among area ranchers.
The Forest Service purchased the ranch, next to Theodore Roosevelt's Elkhorn Ranch site, from brothers Kenneth, Allan and Dennis Eberts and their families last year. It cost $5.3 million, with $4.8 million coming from the federal government and $500,000 from conservation groups.
As part of the deal, the Forest Service promised to sell an equal number of acres in North Dakota to balance the acquisition of the former Blacktail Creek Ranch, and to continue grazing and other activities, including oil and gas development.
Dorgan said the purchase agreement allows the grazing association to allocate leases as it has traditionally done and he said using the land as a grassbank would violate that agreement. He has accused Pieper of acting as a "one-man band."
"We've got some folks in the Forest Service who want to try and skirt the law," Dorgan said. "They did not follow the agreement we made."
Pieper called it a complex situation. Dorgan found it fairly straightforward.
"It's not complicated at all — the law is the law, and federal agencies are not above the law," Dorgan said. "I do expect the Forest Service to follow the law, and if they don't, there will be consequences."
Schafer said the Forest Service manages millions of acres of grasslands in the U.S., including 1.2 million acres in North Dakota.
"Of all the grasslands in the U.S., none would be set up the way Sen. Dorgan wants this to be managed," Schafer said.
The Sierra Club strongly supports the idea of a grassbank, which Schafer called "an insurance policy" for ranchers.
"It would benefit all ranchers in need, rather than just two or three who would be able to increase their cattle herds," Schafer said.
Arthaud said locals always have been critical of the federal government's purchase of the ranch, fearing the valuable grasslands would be off limits to ranchers. He said about half a dozen area ranchers would benefit by allocating leases in the traditional way, and he hopes the Forest Service will back off its grassbank proposal now that Dorgan has intervened.
"The deal was made, they agreed to it, and then they lied to us," Arthaud said of the Forest Service. "The issue here is that they want to take 23,000 acres out of production."
Those acres are enough to support about 500 cows, he said.
"The Forest Service doesn't know how to manage cows and the Sierra Club doesn't like cows, period," Arthaud said.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Like their cattle on BLM land, family of ranchers stands firm
Don’t let the 1,000-pound weight difference fool you — burrowing desert tortoise and plodding cattle are both big grazers.
They both eat tender new shoots of wildflowers and grasses.
That’s why advocates for the tortoise say keeping cattle out of officially designated critical tortoise habitat, including parts of the proposed Gold Butte National Conservation Area, is so important.
Try telling that to the Bundy family, organic-melon farmers and cattle ranchers who have been grazing herds on federal land in the area since the late 1800s. The Bundys, led by family patriarch Cliven Bundy, have been back and forth – and in and out of court – with the Bureau of Land Management over their cattle for a decade and a half, according to records obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Bundy admits he has cattle roaming free on federal land. But he claims to have forage and access rights to land in the Gold Butte area and own range improvements there.
According to BLM records that were part of the request, however, all of Bundy’s rights have been terminated.
The Bundy family is one of a handful of Nevada ranching families whose cattle might still trespass on federal land. They’re throwbacks to the Sagebrush Rebellion, whose members wanted state and local governments to take control of federal lands in several Western states.
“These cases, some of them, have been going on for decades,” said JoLynn Worley, BLM spokeswoman. Although most of the cases have been resolved over time, she said, Bundy’s has not.
As Rob Mrowka, public lands conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, sees it, the law is clear and the cattle should have been cleared out of Gold Butte long ago. Because they compete with the tortoise for food in an unforgiving desert, “the tortoises are being put at risk when the law ... says they shouldn’t.”
The cattle aren’t just a problem for the tortoises, though. They’re also setting back efforts to restore and replant areas of Gold Butte scorched by 2005 wildfires, said Angie Lara, the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office manager. The cows trample and feed on the tender young plants the BLM has planted in the fire-ravaged areas.
That, in turn, sets the area up for future wildfires, by priming the ground for highly flammable, nonnative grasses, Kirsten Cannon, a spokeswoman for the BLM, said.
“The concern is that as native plants are reestablishing themselves, the soil is especially delicate,” she said. “The crust is rebroken and it offers an opportunity for invasive species to come back in.”
Nevada ranchers hold about 700 legal livestock grazing permits with the BLM in the state.
But the Bundys lost the right to graze cattle in the area in the early ’90s after they stopped paying grazing permit fees, according to records. About the same time, Clark County bought up the rest of the grazing rights in the area to create a safe home for the tortoise. But since then, the BLM has documented cattle there bearing the Bundy brand on numerous occasions.
Many of the cattle grazing today have no brands, which makes it impossible to prove they’re Bundy cattle, according to the BLM.
Officials might just want to ask Bundy, however. He told the Sun about two dozen of his cattle are roaming free in the adjacent Lake Mead National Recreation Area, where they are also prohibited from grazing.
But no matter who owns the cattle tromping around Gold Butte or how they got there, they need to be removed from Gold Butte, various federal agencies and conservation groups agree.
But the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office manager said it isn’t as simple as just rounding up the cattle and auctioning them off. The BLM is working with several state and federal agencies, including the National Park Service, which oversees the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, to figure out how to get the cattle out of tortoise territory.
Bundy said that if the BLM attempts to remove the cattle he will contact the sheriff, and we could have an old-fashioned range war stand-off on our hands.
Don’t let the 1,000-pound weight difference fool you — burrowing desert tortoise and plodding cattle are both big grazers.
They both eat tender new shoots of wildflowers and grasses.
That’s why advocates for the tortoise say keeping cattle out of officially designated critical tortoise habitat, including parts of the proposed Gold Butte National Conservation Area, is so important.
Try telling that to the Bundy family, organic-melon farmers and cattle ranchers who have been grazing herds on federal land in the area since the late 1800s. The Bundys, led by family patriarch Cliven Bundy, have been back and forth – and in and out of court – with the Bureau of Land Management over their cattle for a decade and a half, according to records obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Bundy admits he has cattle roaming free on federal land. But he claims to have forage and access rights to land in the Gold Butte area and own range improvements there.
According to BLM records that were part of the request, however, all of Bundy’s rights have been terminated.
The Bundy family is one of a handful of Nevada ranching families whose cattle might still trespass on federal land. They’re throwbacks to the Sagebrush Rebellion, whose members wanted state and local governments to take control of federal lands in several Western states.
“These cases, some of them, have been going on for decades,” said JoLynn Worley, BLM spokeswoman. Although most of the cases have been resolved over time, she said, Bundy’s has not.
As Rob Mrowka, public lands conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, sees it, the law is clear and the cattle should have been cleared out of Gold Butte long ago. Because they compete with the tortoise for food in an unforgiving desert, “the tortoises are being put at risk when the law ... says they shouldn’t.”
The cattle aren’t just a problem for the tortoises, though. They’re also setting back efforts to restore and replant areas of Gold Butte scorched by 2005 wildfires, said Angie Lara, the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office manager. The cows trample and feed on the tender young plants the BLM has planted in the fire-ravaged areas.
That, in turn, sets the area up for future wildfires, by priming the ground for highly flammable, nonnative grasses, Kirsten Cannon, a spokeswoman for the BLM, said.
“The concern is that as native plants are reestablishing themselves, the soil is especially delicate,” she said. “The crust is rebroken and it offers an opportunity for invasive species to come back in.”
Nevada ranchers hold about 700 legal livestock grazing permits with the BLM in the state.
But the Bundys lost the right to graze cattle in the area in the early ’90s after they stopped paying grazing permit fees, according to records. About the same time, Clark County bought up the rest of the grazing rights in the area to create a safe home for the tortoise. But since then, the BLM has documented cattle there bearing the Bundy brand on numerous occasions.
Many of the cattle grazing today have no brands, which makes it impossible to prove they’re Bundy cattle, according to the BLM.
Officials might just want to ask Bundy, however. He told the Sun about two dozen of his cattle are roaming free in the adjacent Lake Mead National Recreation Area, where they are also prohibited from grazing.
But no matter who owns the cattle tromping around Gold Butte or how they got there, they need to be removed from Gold Butte, various federal agencies and conservation groups agree.
But the BLM’s Las Vegas Field Office manager said it isn’t as simple as just rounding up the cattle and auctioning them off. The BLM is working with several state and federal agencies, including the National Park Service, which oversees the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, to figure out how to get the cattle out of tortoise territory.
Bundy said that if the BLM attempts to remove the cattle he will contact the sheriff, and we could have an old-fashioned range war stand-off on our hands.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Environment & Energy Daily
November 10, 2008
http://www.eenews.net/eed/
BLM employees, advocacy groups worked together on lands bill, docs show
Bureau of Land Management employees and environmental lobbyists coordinated to promote legislation that would recognize the National Landscape Conservation System as a permanent federal entity, documents obtained by E&E Daily show.
Environmentalists and BLM officials worked together on special events, exchanged draft policy memoranda and discussed job openings and candidates, according to e-mails, calendars and other documents related to the NLCS.
The Interior Department's inspector general is investigating links between BLM and the environmental groups on several fronts, including the lands bill, which is expected to reach the Senate floor during the lame-duck session next week. Investigators are trying to determine whether BLM employees violated the 1939 Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from lobbying Congress, a source familiar with the probe said.
IG spokesman Roy Kime acknowledged the investigation "into the way BLM employees have administered the National Landscape Conservation System," but he declined to elaborate.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), whose request for NLCS documents helped launch the investigation, says the bill should be sidelined until the investigation is complete. But environmentalists say the probe is a politically motivated attempt to sink the widely supported legislation.
"They have to go to a mud-ball," said Jim Lyon, senior vice president of conservation at the National Wildlife Federation.
At issue is assistance that environmentalists provided to BLM in the run-up to the House vote on the lands bill last spring, providing the agency with regular updates on the bill's cosponsors and committee and floor action, according to documents provided by a House Republican aide.
Established by the Clinton administration, NLCS oversees 27 million acres of wilderness areas and Western public lands, but the system is not on the same legal plane as the National Park Service, Forest Service and other federal agencies. The bill would simply codify NLCS.
For example, Denise Ryan of the National Wildlife Federation wrote in a March e-mail to four BLM officials that the National Rifle Association had decided to remove its support from the bill and asked for information on hunting and recreational shooting on NLCS land. "Can we pull together the brightest in the Bureau to help me with this?" she asked. "Make it a joint fact sheet?"
Ryan served as special assistant to the BLM director when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created the NLCS in 2000. In a follow-up e-mail, Ryan thanked BLM's Jeff Jarvis for "whipping a team together yesterday for the fact sheet."
"It seemed like old times -- and that is a good thing!" she wrote.
Jarvis' reply: "Making progress, I look forward to seeing improvement this evening, and yes that was fun."
Last year, John Garder of the Wilderness Society wrote Jarvis and another BLM official about details of his meeting with House appropriators on fiscal 2008 spending bills. In June, Gardner wrote Jarvis: "I'm looking for a few things from you all, foremost a summary of managers' wish lists of any kind of summary on NLCS $ needs, as I intend to soon put something together." Jarvis replied that they could talk soon.
Last year, BLM's Mala Malhotra wrote NLCS officials Jarvis, Elena Daly and Dave Hunsaker to set up regular meetings with conservation groups. "They have adopted our approach to the NLCS name which is great. ... I am sure that the more we communicate with them, the more consistent our messages will be," she wrote. "The more our messages trickle to them, versus their messages trickling to us, the better."
After hearing a short list of the types of activities the environmental groups engaged in, government-ethics lawyer Jan Witold Baran said they did not set off alarm bells. "Without commenting on any of the specifics, to my knowledge it's hardly unique for organizational representatives to meet with government officials all over town every day on a widespread basis," said Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP.
"It sounds to me like you've described a very active organization that is interacting with a part of the government that affects them and their supporters," Baran added.
Even Bishop acknowledged, "There's a whole lot of difference between inappropriate behavior, which is a political matter, and actual malfeasance."
The National Wildlife Federation's Lyon said his group's employees complied with lobbying laws. As is the case with other advocacy organizations, the federation talks frequently with government employees on issues in the public domain.
"There's nothing wrong with it and frankly there should be a lot more of it," Lyon said.
The group is cooperating with the Interior investigation, Lyon said. "The IG investigators have made it very clear to us that the NWF is not the target of this investigation," he added.
Kevin Mack, NLCS campaign director with the Wilderness Society, said he has not been contacted by investigators. He declined to comment further on the investigation or on his group's activities except to say that any probe "is not an investigation of folks in the conservation community."
Daly, the NLCS director, is planning to retire in January, but a source familiar with her decision said the retirement was long-planned and unrelated to the investigation.
Calls to BLM officials in the NLCS division were referred to the agency communications officials. Spokeswoman Celia Boddington noted the Bush administration supports the legislation but declined to comment on the investigation or employees' interactions with environmental groups other than to say they are cooperating fully with the inspector general.
'Red herring'
The chairman of the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the bill's sponsor, called the investigation a "red herring" designed to derail codifying the system. "If there is a corrective action that should be taken, it should be taken, but that shouldn't punish the legislation," Grijalva said.
Because it was created by administrative fiat: NLCS is not a permanent part of the Interior Department and a later administration could dissolve it. NLCS includes areas already designated as national monuments, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national historic and scenic trails.
Grijalva said codifying the system would help address the decline of some sites.
Lyon said the bill is a needed final step of ensuring the protections are backed by law, especially given what he described as the Bush administration's poor record of protecting public lands. "Everything's in danger right now," he said.
But Bishop, who concedes the bill is likely to pass, said the system is redundant, especially given protections provided by other Interior agencies.
"It doesn't do anything, it doesn't appoint, it doesn't administer," Bishop said. "It's almost as if you're looking for something to do."
If Congress does not pass the bill, Bishop said Interior could fold NLCS and its lands into other Interior agencies, a move that would become impossible if the bill became law.
Western oil and gas interests are also concerned about the bill. "[It] in our view is a backdoor attempt at locking up by our estimates some 13 million acres of land that is now characterized as wilderness study areas," said Greg Schnacke, president and CEO of Americans for American Energy. "That will then become de facto wilderness, be managed as such, and essentially takes it away from any responsible multiple use management program and that's it for that acreage."
For its part, NWF suspects the bill's critics of coordinating their efforts against the measure. Last month, NWF filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communication between Bishop or Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) and the IG's office, BLM employees and Interior's congressional affairs office, and between BLM employees and several Western energy industry groups, regarding NLCS or oil shale development. NWF officials noted that Bishop put out a press release revealing the IG investigation two days after the House passed a bill to remove a ban on commercial oil shale leasing on public lands in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
The Senate is scheduled to take up the NLCS bill as part of a 150-bill public lands and resources omnibus measure this month.
Removing the NLCS proposal could put the entire omnibus in jeopardy. Already facing opposition from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who claims the package continues frivolous government spending, the bill contains other controversial proposals, including one to allow construction of a road through Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. If the Democratic leadership pulls the NLCS proposal, it could prompt environmentalists against the Izembek proposal to also have it removed from the package.
A spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said removing the NLCS bill is not a consideration. "This is a very carefully balanced package, and we don't have any intention to drop any bills," said Bill Wicker.
November 10, 2008
http://www.eenews.net/eed/
BLM employees, advocacy groups worked together on lands bill, docs show
Bureau of Land Management employees and environmental lobbyists coordinated to promote legislation that would recognize the National Landscape Conservation System as a permanent federal entity, documents obtained by E&E Daily show.
Environmentalists and BLM officials worked together on special events, exchanged draft policy memoranda and discussed job openings and candidates, according to e-mails, calendars and other documents related to the NLCS.
The Interior Department's inspector general is investigating links between BLM and the environmental groups on several fronts, including the lands bill, which is expected to reach the Senate floor during the lame-duck session next week. Investigators are trying to determine whether BLM employees violated the 1939 Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from lobbying Congress, a source familiar with the probe said.
IG spokesman Roy Kime acknowledged the investigation "into the way BLM employees have administered the National Landscape Conservation System," but he declined to elaborate.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), whose request for NLCS documents helped launch the investigation, says the bill should be sidelined until the investigation is complete. But environmentalists say the probe is a politically motivated attempt to sink the widely supported legislation.
"They have to go to a mud-ball," said Jim Lyon, senior vice president of conservation at the National Wildlife Federation.
At issue is assistance that environmentalists provided to BLM in the run-up to the House vote on the lands bill last spring, providing the agency with regular updates on the bill's cosponsors and committee and floor action, according to documents provided by a House Republican aide.
Established by the Clinton administration, NLCS oversees 27 million acres of wilderness areas and Western public lands, but the system is not on the same legal plane as the National Park Service, Forest Service and other federal agencies. The bill would simply codify NLCS.
For example, Denise Ryan of the National Wildlife Federation wrote in a March e-mail to four BLM officials that the National Rifle Association had decided to remove its support from the bill and asked for information on hunting and recreational shooting on NLCS land. "Can we pull together the brightest in the Bureau to help me with this?" she asked. "Make it a joint fact sheet?"
Ryan served as special assistant to the BLM director when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created the NLCS in 2000. In a follow-up e-mail, Ryan thanked BLM's Jeff Jarvis for "whipping a team together yesterday for the fact sheet."
"It seemed like old times -- and that is a good thing!" she wrote.
Jarvis' reply: "Making progress, I look forward to seeing improvement this evening, and yes that was fun."
Last year, John Garder of the Wilderness Society wrote Jarvis and another BLM official about details of his meeting with House appropriators on fiscal 2008 spending bills. In June, Gardner wrote Jarvis: "I'm looking for a few things from you all, foremost a summary of managers' wish lists of any kind of summary on NLCS $ needs, as I intend to soon put something together." Jarvis replied that they could talk soon.
Last year, BLM's Mala Malhotra wrote NLCS officials Jarvis, Elena Daly and Dave Hunsaker to set up regular meetings with conservation groups. "They have adopted our approach to the NLCS name which is great. ... I am sure that the more we communicate with them, the more consistent our messages will be," she wrote. "The more our messages trickle to them, versus their messages trickling to us, the better."
After hearing a short list of the types of activities the environmental groups engaged in, government-ethics lawyer Jan Witold Baran said they did not set off alarm bells. "Without commenting on any of the specifics, to my knowledge it's hardly unique for organizational representatives to meet with government officials all over town every day on a widespread basis," said Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP.
"It sounds to me like you've described a very active organization that is interacting with a part of the government that affects them and their supporters," Baran added.
Even Bishop acknowledged, "There's a whole lot of difference between inappropriate behavior, which is a political matter, and actual malfeasance."
The National Wildlife Federation's Lyon said his group's employees complied with lobbying laws. As is the case with other advocacy organizations, the federation talks frequently with government employees on issues in the public domain.
"There's nothing wrong with it and frankly there should be a lot more of it," Lyon said.
The group is cooperating with the Interior investigation, Lyon said. "The IG investigators have made it very clear to us that the NWF is not the target of this investigation," he added.
Kevin Mack, NLCS campaign director with the Wilderness Society, said he has not been contacted by investigators. He declined to comment further on the investigation or on his group's activities except to say that any probe "is not an investigation of folks in the conservation community."
Daly, the NLCS director, is planning to retire in January, but a source familiar with her decision said the retirement was long-planned and unrelated to the investigation.
Calls to BLM officials in the NLCS division were referred to the agency communications officials. Spokeswoman Celia Boddington noted the Bush administration supports the legislation but declined to comment on the investigation or employees' interactions with environmental groups other than to say they are cooperating fully with the inspector general.
'Red herring'
The chairman of the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the bill's sponsor, called the investigation a "red herring" designed to derail codifying the system. "If there is a corrective action that should be taken, it should be taken, but that shouldn't punish the legislation," Grijalva said.
Because it was created by administrative fiat: NLCS is not a permanent part of the Interior Department and a later administration could dissolve it. NLCS includes areas already designated as national monuments, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national historic and scenic trails.
Grijalva said codifying the system would help address the decline of some sites.
Lyon said the bill is a needed final step of ensuring the protections are backed by law, especially given what he described as the Bush administration's poor record of protecting public lands. "Everything's in danger right now," he said.
But Bishop, who concedes the bill is likely to pass, said the system is redundant, especially given protections provided by other Interior agencies.
"It doesn't do anything, it doesn't appoint, it doesn't administer," Bishop said. "It's almost as if you're looking for something to do."
If Congress does not pass the bill, Bishop said Interior could fold NLCS and its lands into other Interior agencies, a move that would become impossible if the bill became law.
Western oil and gas interests are also concerned about the bill. "[It] in our view is a backdoor attempt at locking up by our estimates some 13 million acres of land that is now characterized as wilderness study areas," said Greg Schnacke, president and CEO of Americans for American Energy. "That will then become de facto wilderness, be managed as such, and essentially takes it away from any responsible multiple use management program and that's it for that acreage."
For its part, NWF suspects the bill's critics of coordinating their efforts against the measure. Last month, NWF filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communication between Bishop or Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) and the IG's office, BLM employees and Interior's congressional affairs office, and between BLM employees and several Western energy industry groups, regarding NLCS or oil shale development. NWF officials noted that Bishop put out a press release revealing the IG investigation two days after the House passed a bill to remove a ban on commercial oil shale leasing on public lands in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
The Senate is scheduled to take up the NLCS bill as part of a 150-bill public lands and resources omnibus measure this month.
Removing the NLCS proposal could put the entire omnibus in jeopardy. Already facing opposition from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who claims the package continues frivolous government spending, the bill contains other controversial proposals, including one to allow construction of a road through Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. If the Democratic leadership pulls the NLCS proposal, it could prompt environmentalists against the Izembek proposal to also have it removed from the package.
A spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said removing the NLCS bill is not a consideration. "This is a very carefully balanced package, and we don't have any intention to drop any bills," said Bill Wicker.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Public lands management of particular concern to Cowboy State
A U.S. president can often have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of Cowboy State residents. And a president's cabinet has more direct sway in Wyoming, in some respects, than in most other states.
Nearly half of Wyoming -- about 47,000 square miles of it -- is owned and managed by the federal government. Only four states in the nation, all of them in the West, have a higher percentage of their landmasses owned by Uncle Sam.
The way that national parks, forests and other public lands are managed here has implications for individual residents, groups and industries. Among those who can be directly affected by a president's land management policies are ranchers, oil and gas drillers, miners, hunters, fishers, outdoors enthusiasts, loggers, sawmill operators and conservationists.
So, what does an incoming Barack Obama administration signal about the way Wyoming's public lands will be managed?
All interested parties seem to agree there will be a shift -- and perhaps a big one -- from the approach of the Bush administration. But fewer agree on what the ultimate effects of that shift will be.
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama pledged to govern from the "middle," and he emphasized the importance of local influence over decisions made on federal lands. He pledged to do more to protect national parks, forests and the environment, and at the same time to encourage domestic energy development.
Judging from the outcome of the Cowboy State's vote, residents here are skeptical.
Not a repeat of Clinton
In a state where 65 percent of voters filled in the bubble for Republican Sen. John McCain, many Wyomingites are viewing president-elect Barack Obama, a Democrat, with trepidation.
But some prominent Western leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, say those fears might be unfounded.
Former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, of Cody, said Wyoming residents can expect something quite different than they experienced under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president.
"The last one, with Clinton and (Al) Gore -- they really just didn't understand," Simpson said. "One was from Arkansas and the other was from Tennessee, and they had no public lands of any significance in their states. They didn't know the issues, they didn't know about abandoned mines, didn't know about coal."
This time around, Western Democrats will have more influence with the president, and Obama has shown more of a propensity to be sensitive to Western concerns, Simpson said.
If nothing else, sheer politics will force this administration to be more receptive to the interests of Western states, he said.
Obama visited with Wyoming's Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal, before the state's primary election, and Freudenthal asked Obama tough questions about how he would handle public lands and other Western issues, Simpson said.
Obama eventually won Gov. Freudenthal's support, and the governor recently campaigned for him in Pennsylvania.
"Obama comes from a state that produces a hell of a lot of coal," Simpson said. "He talked about coal research, gasification. There are things going on with oil and gas in Illinois. If they get his ear, he'll be listening. I'm not fearful at all."
This time around, as opposed to during the Clinton years, the West also has several "thoughtful" and forceful Democrats, including Freudenthal, who already have garnered the president-elect's attention.
Montana has Democratic Sens. John Tester and Max Baucus, for example, and "Tester is a guy who is trying to do outreach and collaboration," Simpson said.
Colorado's two U.S. senators are now Democrats, and the state's senior senator, Ken Salazar, is "very able," and "he knows the game," Simpson said. Colorado's new senator, Mark Udall, is "thoughtful about the West," he said. And New Mexico has two Democratic senators now, as well, Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman.
"I'm not concerned that we're going to be left in the cold," Simpson said. "Our pleas will be heeded, and we will have a voice."
For his part, the popular Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, said fears about Obama putting a crimp on energy development are unfounded. Instead, Obama has a "visionary" approach to energy in line with that of the Western Governors Association, Schweitzer said.
"He understands, like we do in the West, that we will also be producing domestic oil and gas; that's good," Schweitzer said. "He understands that we'd like to develop that oil, gas and coal on our own terms and not have Washington, D.C., determine how much sacrifice we should make. He understands what the western governors, including your visionary governor Dave Freudenthal understands, that the most important energy corridor on the planet is not the Persian Gulf, it's the American West."
Schweitzer, who, like Freudenthal, supported Obama, said the incoming president will collaborate with Western states to create a sound energy policy that will lead to energy independence.
Freudenthal, who declined to be interviewed for this story, said in his official endorsement of Obama: "Senator Obama has demonstrated an understanding of energy and environment issues both in person and in his public statements."
Freudenthal said in his endorsement that he does not necessarily agree with every position taken by Obama, "But I am comfortable that he will be open to reason and discussion." He added: "This openness is incredibly important since the exact nature of the particular Western issues over the next four years remains unknown."
Cabinet to be crucial
All those interviewed for this story agreed Obama's picks for cabinet-level and undersecretary posts will offer a great deal more insight into what the president-elect's public lands policies will be like.
In the U.S. president's cabinet, the secretary of the interior oversees the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management among other agencies. And the secretary of agriculture oversees the U.S. Forest Service.
Kemmerer rancher Truman Julian said the choices for those two posts will be "critical" for Wyoming residents and its ranchers.
"I guess my main concern is about whoever he appoints for secretary of interior or agriculture," Julian said. "It's important that he have an understanding of our lifestyle, cultural history, our heritage. I would hope it'd be somebody from the West, especially for secretary of the interior. Somebody who represents the West and Western issues, our lifestyle. Somebody who understands we can govern ourselves out here."
Ranchers tend to survive, Julian said, no matter who the president is, provided the rules and regulations remain "reasonable."
"The problem I have is with the Eastern establishment telling us how to live out here in the West," Julian said. "We don't need any more government, and that's what I am afraid we're going to get."
Julian said he'd feel a lot better if somebody such as Freudenthal were appointed secretary of the interior because Freudenthal understands how rules made in Washington, D.C., can affect the West and, he added, "He's pretty moderate."
Bill Taliaferro, a rancher in Sweetwater County, said he agreed the cabinet-level officials and their undersecretaries are critical appointments, but he said he's fairly sure the Obama administration will not get it right when it comes to managing public lands.
Too much emphasis on environmental regulations and rule-making, dating back to the Nixon administration, has put the United States on a dangerous path, Taliaferro said, and he doesn't expect anything different from Obama. Agricultural producers will likely continue to be put out of business during an Obama administration, Taliaferro said.
"I think we're going to head into a food crisis and I don't think Obama and city folks and the Chicagoans have a clue," he said. "I don't think McCain had a clue either."
Conservationists, logging groups optimistic
During his campaign, Obama released a position paper in which he pledged to "aggressively" pursue fire prevention on public lands and to address a long-standing funding issue that annually forces the U.S. Forest Service to dip into its general operating money to pay for ever-increasing wildfire management costs.
"Barack Obama will work with governors, Congress and local officials on a bipartisan basis to develop and enact reliable, dedicated funding sources to fight the most catastrophic fires so that public lands may continue to be managed for public access, fish, wildlife, recreation, forestry and other multiple uses," his Web site states.
Tom Troxel is director of the Rocky Mountain Division of the Intermountain Forest Association, an organization that advocates for the logging industry.
For Troxel, Obama's recognition that fire funding is broken is of critical importance. A broad coalition of "strange bedfellows," including loggers and conservationists, has long pushed for the agency's fire budget to be separated from its general operating budget.
Under the current system, national forests throughout the U.S. have been forced, annually, forgo or delay forest management projects and during the summer, shift funds into the firefighting kitty.
Obama has pledged to change that.
"That's not something that the administration can do by itself," Troxel said. "It would have to work with Congress to do that. I think it would be tremendously helpful if they could take the lead in advocating for that kind of a funding strategy."
Leaving the Forest Service's operating budget intact would help "virtually every national forest program and virtually every user group or advocacy group," he said.
It will also be essential that Obama follow through on his pledge to emphasize local input on forest management decisions, Troxel said.
"To me it's so important to recognize the input of states, counties and local communities in how the national forests are managed, and not have all the management strategies revolve around D.C.," he said.
Conservation groups seem to universally anticipate that an Obama administration will be more conservation-minded than the Bush administration was.
Bruce Pendery is the program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, a conservation organization. He said, "it seems likely the overwhelming emphasis on drilling will ease somewhat."
While Obama has made it clear that domestic energy production should be increased, "it seems likely" Pendery said, that his policies will include a greater degree of environmental protection than those of the Bush administration.
"During the last eight years we have seen a policy of drill at any cost," Pendery said. "Hopefully during the next four years we will see a policy of greater balance. Wyoming air, water, wildlife and open spaces need this."
However, Pendery said he doubts that public land management "has been on (Obama's) radar screen" of late, as he's been gearing up to deal with his higher-priority issues, such as the besieged economy and the prosecution of two wars.
Jared White, with the Wilderness Society, said if the Obama administration lives up to its pledge to govern from the center, it'll only help different "user" groups on public lands come together to form "lasting solutions."
"Regardless of the presidential administration, these coalitions will still be the way forward," White said. "The middle ground achieved by these coalitions -- they really are going to lead to lasting solutions, and I think the Obama administration will realize that, and we certainly realize that."
White said he also expects decisions about public lands to once again be based on science rather than politics.
Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie, said:
"The Bush administration will be doing more for wildlife by simply going away than anything else they could do. We expect the Obama administration will feature a lot more balance between industrial development and conservation. And do more than simply give lip service to wildlife protections and public lands conservation."
Contact environment reporter Chris Merrill at chris.merrill@trib.com or (307) 267-6722
A U.S. president can often have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of Cowboy State residents. And a president's cabinet has more direct sway in Wyoming, in some respects, than in most other states.
Nearly half of Wyoming -- about 47,000 square miles of it -- is owned and managed by the federal government. Only four states in the nation, all of them in the West, have a higher percentage of their landmasses owned by Uncle Sam.
The way that national parks, forests and other public lands are managed here has implications for individual residents, groups and industries. Among those who can be directly affected by a president's land management policies are ranchers, oil and gas drillers, miners, hunters, fishers, outdoors enthusiasts, loggers, sawmill operators and conservationists.
So, what does an incoming Barack Obama administration signal about the way Wyoming's public lands will be managed?
All interested parties seem to agree there will be a shift -- and perhaps a big one -- from the approach of the Bush administration. But fewer agree on what the ultimate effects of that shift will be.
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama pledged to govern from the "middle," and he emphasized the importance of local influence over decisions made on federal lands. He pledged to do more to protect national parks, forests and the environment, and at the same time to encourage domestic energy development.
Judging from the outcome of the Cowboy State's vote, residents here are skeptical.
Not a repeat of Clinton
In a state where 65 percent of voters filled in the bubble for Republican Sen. John McCain, many Wyomingites are viewing president-elect Barack Obama, a Democrat, with trepidation.
But some prominent Western leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, say those fears might be unfounded.
Former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, of Cody, said Wyoming residents can expect something quite different than they experienced under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president.
"The last one, with Clinton and (Al) Gore -- they really just didn't understand," Simpson said. "One was from Arkansas and the other was from Tennessee, and they had no public lands of any significance in their states. They didn't know the issues, they didn't know about abandoned mines, didn't know about coal."
This time around, Western Democrats will have more influence with the president, and Obama has shown more of a propensity to be sensitive to Western concerns, Simpson said.
If nothing else, sheer politics will force this administration to be more receptive to the interests of Western states, he said.
Obama visited with Wyoming's Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal, before the state's primary election, and Freudenthal asked Obama tough questions about how he would handle public lands and other Western issues, Simpson said.
Obama eventually won Gov. Freudenthal's support, and the governor recently campaigned for him in Pennsylvania.
"Obama comes from a state that produces a hell of a lot of coal," Simpson said. "He talked about coal research, gasification. There are things going on with oil and gas in Illinois. If they get his ear, he'll be listening. I'm not fearful at all."
This time around, as opposed to during the Clinton years, the West also has several "thoughtful" and forceful Democrats, including Freudenthal, who already have garnered the president-elect's attention.
Montana has Democratic Sens. John Tester and Max Baucus, for example, and "Tester is a guy who is trying to do outreach and collaboration," Simpson said.
Colorado's two U.S. senators are now Democrats, and the state's senior senator, Ken Salazar, is "very able," and "he knows the game," Simpson said. Colorado's new senator, Mark Udall, is "thoughtful about the West," he said. And New Mexico has two Democratic senators now, as well, Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman.
"I'm not concerned that we're going to be left in the cold," Simpson said. "Our pleas will be heeded, and we will have a voice."
For his part, the popular Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, said fears about Obama putting a crimp on energy development are unfounded. Instead, Obama has a "visionary" approach to energy in line with that of the Western Governors Association, Schweitzer said.
"He understands, like we do in the West, that we will also be producing domestic oil and gas; that's good," Schweitzer said. "He understands that we'd like to develop that oil, gas and coal on our own terms and not have Washington, D.C., determine how much sacrifice we should make. He understands what the western governors, including your visionary governor Dave Freudenthal understands, that the most important energy corridor on the planet is not the Persian Gulf, it's the American West."
Schweitzer, who, like Freudenthal, supported Obama, said the incoming president will collaborate with Western states to create a sound energy policy that will lead to energy independence.
Freudenthal, who declined to be interviewed for this story, said in his official endorsement of Obama: "Senator Obama has demonstrated an understanding of energy and environment issues both in person and in his public statements."
Freudenthal said in his endorsement that he does not necessarily agree with every position taken by Obama, "But I am comfortable that he will be open to reason and discussion." He added: "This openness is incredibly important since the exact nature of the particular Western issues over the next four years remains unknown."
Cabinet to be crucial
All those interviewed for this story agreed Obama's picks for cabinet-level and undersecretary posts will offer a great deal more insight into what the president-elect's public lands policies will be like.
In the U.S. president's cabinet, the secretary of the interior oversees the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management among other agencies. And the secretary of agriculture oversees the U.S. Forest Service.
Kemmerer rancher Truman Julian said the choices for those two posts will be "critical" for Wyoming residents and its ranchers.
"I guess my main concern is about whoever he appoints for secretary of interior or agriculture," Julian said. "It's important that he have an understanding of our lifestyle, cultural history, our heritage. I would hope it'd be somebody from the West, especially for secretary of the interior. Somebody who represents the West and Western issues, our lifestyle. Somebody who understands we can govern ourselves out here."
Ranchers tend to survive, Julian said, no matter who the president is, provided the rules and regulations remain "reasonable."
"The problem I have is with the Eastern establishment telling us how to live out here in the West," Julian said. "We don't need any more government, and that's what I am afraid we're going to get."
Julian said he'd feel a lot better if somebody such as Freudenthal were appointed secretary of the interior because Freudenthal understands how rules made in Washington, D.C., can affect the West and, he added, "He's pretty moderate."
Bill Taliaferro, a rancher in Sweetwater County, said he agreed the cabinet-level officials and their undersecretaries are critical appointments, but he said he's fairly sure the Obama administration will not get it right when it comes to managing public lands.
Too much emphasis on environmental regulations and rule-making, dating back to the Nixon administration, has put the United States on a dangerous path, Taliaferro said, and he doesn't expect anything different from Obama. Agricultural producers will likely continue to be put out of business during an Obama administration, Taliaferro said.
"I think we're going to head into a food crisis and I don't think Obama and city folks and the Chicagoans have a clue," he said. "I don't think McCain had a clue either."
Conservationists, logging groups optimistic
During his campaign, Obama released a position paper in which he pledged to "aggressively" pursue fire prevention on public lands and to address a long-standing funding issue that annually forces the U.S. Forest Service to dip into its general operating money to pay for ever-increasing wildfire management costs.
"Barack Obama will work with governors, Congress and local officials on a bipartisan basis to develop and enact reliable, dedicated funding sources to fight the most catastrophic fires so that public lands may continue to be managed for public access, fish, wildlife, recreation, forestry and other multiple uses," his Web site states.
Tom Troxel is director of the Rocky Mountain Division of the Intermountain Forest Association, an organization that advocates for the logging industry.
For Troxel, Obama's recognition that fire funding is broken is of critical importance. A broad coalition of "strange bedfellows," including loggers and conservationists, has long pushed for the agency's fire budget to be separated from its general operating budget.
Under the current system, national forests throughout the U.S. have been forced, annually, forgo or delay forest management projects and during the summer, shift funds into the firefighting kitty.
Obama has pledged to change that.
"That's not something that the administration can do by itself," Troxel said. "It would have to work with Congress to do that. I think it would be tremendously helpful if they could take the lead in advocating for that kind of a funding strategy."
Leaving the Forest Service's operating budget intact would help "virtually every national forest program and virtually every user group or advocacy group," he said.
It will also be essential that Obama follow through on his pledge to emphasize local input on forest management decisions, Troxel said.
"To me it's so important to recognize the input of states, counties and local communities in how the national forests are managed, and not have all the management strategies revolve around D.C.," he said.
Conservation groups seem to universally anticipate that an Obama administration will be more conservation-minded than the Bush administration was.
Bruce Pendery is the program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, a conservation organization. He said, "it seems likely the overwhelming emphasis on drilling will ease somewhat."
While Obama has made it clear that domestic energy production should be increased, "it seems likely" Pendery said, that his policies will include a greater degree of environmental protection than those of the Bush administration.
"During the last eight years we have seen a policy of drill at any cost," Pendery said. "Hopefully during the next four years we will see a policy of greater balance. Wyoming air, water, wildlife and open spaces need this."
However, Pendery said he doubts that public land management "has been on (Obama's) radar screen" of late, as he's been gearing up to deal with his higher-priority issues, such as the besieged economy and the prosecution of two wars.
Jared White, with the Wilderness Society, said if the Obama administration lives up to its pledge to govern from the center, it'll only help different "user" groups on public lands come together to form "lasting solutions."
"Regardless of the presidential administration, these coalitions will still be the way forward," White said. "The middle ground achieved by these coalitions -- they really are going to lead to lasting solutions, and I think the Obama administration will realize that, and we certainly realize that."
White said he also expects decisions about public lands to once again be based on science rather than politics.
Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in Laramie, said:
"The Bush administration will be doing more for wildlife by simply going away than anything else they could do. We expect the Obama administration will feature a lot more balance between industrial development and conservation. And do more than simply give lip service to wildlife protections and public lands conservation."
Contact environment reporter Chris Merrill at chris.merrill@trib.com or (307) 267-6722
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama will protect public lands, pursue green energy
Environmentalists will have more influence, but Western Democrats hope for a collaborative approach
Western Democrats and environmentalists will have more influence on federal land decisions in Idaho and the West under President Barack Obama.
Decision-makers will defer more to scientists on resource issues and spending priorities will shift toward protecting land, fish and wildlife, Democrats said Tuesday night.
But there is a tension between environmentalists who want him to reverse decisions made by the Bush administration and Western Democrats who hope Obama's pledge to govern in a "post-partisan" manner means he will bring a collaborative approach to public land issues.
"He's not going to make some of the mistakes of the past," said Cecil Andrus, former Idaho governor and Jimmy Carter's interior secretary. "He knows his history."
Issues like climate change and alternative energy - along with the economy - are going to get more attention in the new administration than public lands grazing, logging and motorized recreation. And the skyrocketing federal deficit could force a reorganization of land, water and wildlife agencies now spread out under three different Cabinet departments.
More than 63 percent of Idaho's land is owned by the federal government and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies. How these lands are managed is critical to the economies and quality of life in Idaho and all western states.
Several federal jobs in Idaho, including U.S. attorney, Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency state director and BLM state director are political jobs that can shift with the new administration. But the most important job to the West is interior secretary, now held by former Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, who controls more than 507 million acres of national parks, rangeland and wildlife refuges, along with 600 dams. The head of Interior is responsible for 68 percent of the nation's oil and gas reserves and millions of acres of federal mining lands.
Obama will choose Kempthorne's successor and that choice will be the first sign of how he will balance the political pressures from national environmentalists and Western Democrats.
Environmental groups want Obama to restore Clinton's rule that banned logging and road-building in most of 58 million acres of national forest; phase snowmobiles out of Yellowstone National Park; and reduce the number of wolves that can be killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
But five of eight interior West states now sport Democratic governors - and they have some different values from the environmentalists back East.
Daniel Kemmis, director of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana and an influential Democrat, said Obama should listen to Democratic elected officials who gained their offices by working with both environmentalists and industry and governing from the middle. Historically, Democrats wrote off the West and Republicans took it for granted. But this time wins in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico were crucial to Obama's victory.
"I think it would be foolish for a new Democratic administration to treat the West in the same way it has been treated in the past," Kemmis said.
Kemmis and Chris Wood, chief operating officer of Trout Unlimited, hope the Obama administration works with Western states, loggers, sportsmen and other land users to craft compromises like Idaho's own compromise on its 9 million acres of roadless national forest lands.
"The lesson of the last eight years is that when you listen to local people, you can still gain significant conservation benefits," Wood said.
Craig Gehrke, Idaho representative of the Wilderness Society, knows about working with local groups. He helped craft a bill to protect 500,000 acres of wilderness and ranching in Owyhee County by working with ranchers, motorized recreation groups and local officials. But he said he and other environmentalists are drawing a line in the sand with the roadless rule.
"We think there shouldn't be any more roads built in national forests," Gehrke said.
With budgets getting tighter, some Democrats are suggesting the Forest Service, the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and other land and water agencies be pulled under one Cabinet official with one overall mission.
"It's time for a federal policy that moves beyond the current fragmented approach," said John Kitzhaber, former Oregon governor and one of a dozen Democrats whose names have emerged for Interior. "Now, more than ever, we need strong and unified leadership around a common objective - healthy, functioning ecosystems."
"Alternative energy and climate change are totally going to be the dominant issues," said Don Barry, a former assistant interior secretary in the Clinton Administration. "You'll see some real leadership and creative thinking in these areas."
Obama's initiative on alternative energy offers Idaho, especially rural Idaho, great opportunity for economic development, said Rich Rayhill, a wind energy entrepreneur from Boise. Climate change legislation is going to make coal power, now imported into the state, more expensive.
"Clean tech and green tech are going to be the new dot-com," Rayhill said.
When Jimmy Carter took office in 1976, environmentalists pushed his administration to try eliminating 19 water projects that angered Western Democratic governors and senators. It also helped spawn what was called the "Sagebrush Rebellion" by ranchers, loggers and miners who were angry about decisions made in Washington. Clinton's efforts to reform grazing and mining rules without consultation with Congress triggered Republican's successful "War on the West" rhetoric and helped them take over Congress in 1994.
The Bush administration's aggressive oil and gas leasing program, which ignored concerns by ranchers, sportsmen and Western political leaders, helped Democrats rebuild state Democratic parties across the region. Barry said the people Obama will tap for the new administration, some involved in the past mistakes, have learned their lessons.
"They are not going to forget," Barry said. "They've got long memories."
The people placed not only at the secretary level but at jobs like Forest Service chief and BLM director will signal how well Western Democrats are heard by Obama, said John Freemuth, a Boise State University political scientist who specializes on public land issues. Ultimately, Westerners themselves will decide.
"We'll see that the Obama administration has gone in a different direction if we don't see another Sagebrush Rebellion," Freemuth said.
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
Environmentalists will have more influence, but Western Democrats hope for a collaborative approach
Western Democrats and environmentalists will have more influence on federal land decisions in Idaho and the West under President Barack Obama.
Decision-makers will defer more to scientists on resource issues and spending priorities will shift toward protecting land, fish and wildlife, Democrats said Tuesday night.
But there is a tension between environmentalists who want him to reverse decisions made by the Bush administration and Western Democrats who hope Obama's pledge to govern in a "post-partisan" manner means he will bring a collaborative approach to public land issues.
"He's not going to make some of the mistakes of the past," said Cecil Andrus, former Idaho governor and Jimmy Carter's interior secretary. "He knows his history."
Issues like climate change and alternative energy - along with the economy - are going to get more attention in the new administration than public lands grazing, logging and motorized recreation. And the skyrocketing federal deficit could force a reorganization of land, water and wildlife agencies now spread out under three different Cabinet departments.
More than 63 percent of Idaho's land is owned by the federal government and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies. How these lands are managed is critical to the economies and quality of life in Idaho and all western states.
Several federal jobs in Idaho, including U.S. attorney, Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency state director and BLM state director are political jobs that can shift with the new administration. But the most important job to the West is interior secretary, now held by former Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, who controls more than 507 million acres of national parks, rangeland and wildlife refuges, along with 600 dams. The head of Interior is responsible for 68 percent of the nation's oil and gas reserves and millions of acres of federal mining lands.
Obama will choose Kempthorne's successor and that choice will be the first sign of how he will balance the political pressures from national environmentalists and Western Democrats.
Environmental groups want Obama to restore Clinton's rule that banned logging and road-building in most of 58 million acres of national forest; phase snowmobiles out of Yellowstone National Park; and reduce the number of wolves that can be killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
But five of eight interior West states now sport Democratic governors - and they have some different values from the environmentalists back East.
Daniel Kemmis, director of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana and an influential Democrat, said Obama should listen to Democratic elected officials who gained their offices by working with both environmentalists and industry and governing from the middle. Historically, Democrats wrote off the West and Republicans took it for granted. But this time wins in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico were crucial to Obama's victory.
"I think it would be foolish for a new Democratic administration to treat the West in the same way it has been treated in the past," Kemmis said.
Kemmis and Chris Wood, chief operating officer of Trout Unlimited, hope the Obama administration works with Western states, loggers, sportsmen and other land users to craft compromises like Idaho's own compromise on its 9 million acres of roadless national forest lands.
"The lesson of the last eight years is that when you listen to local people, you can still gain significant conservation benefits," Wood said.
Craig Gehrke, Idaho representative of the Wilderness Society, knows about working with local groups. He helped craft a bill to protect 500,000 acres of wilderness and ranching in Owyhee County by working with ranchers, motorized recreation groups and local officials. But he said he and other environmentalists are drawing a line in the sand with the roadless rule.
"We think there shouldn't be any more roads built in national forests," Gehrke said.
With budgets getting tighter, some Democrats are suggesting the Forest Service, the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and other land and water agencies be pulled under one Cabinet official with one overall mission.
"It's time for a federal policy that moves beyond the current fragmented approach," said John Kitzhaber, former Oregon governor and one of a dozen Democrats whose names have emerged for Interior. "Now, more than ever, we need strong and unified leadership around a common objective - healthy, functioning ecosystems."
"Alternative energy and climate change are totally going to be the dominant issues," said Don Barry, a former assistant interior secretary in the Clinton Administration. "You'll see some real leadership and creative thinking in these areas."
Obama's initiative on alternative energy offers Idaho, especially rural Idaho, great opportunity for economic development, said Rich Rayhill, a wind energy entrepreneur from Boise. Climate change legislation is going to make coal power, now imported into the state, more expensive.
"Clean tech and green tech are going to be the new dot-com," Rayhill said.
When Jimmy Carter took office in 1976, environmentalists pushed his administration to try eliminating 19 water projects that angered Western Democratic governors and senators. It also helped spawn what was called the "Sagebrush Rebellion" by ranchers, loggers and miners who were angry about decisions made in Washington. Clinton's efforts to reform grazing and mining rules without consultation with Congress triggered Republican's successful "War on the West" rhetoric and helped them take over Congress in 1994.
The Bush administration's aggressive oil and gas leasing program, which ignored concerns by ranchers, sportsmen and Western political leaders, helped Democrats rebuild state Democratic parties across the region. Barry said the people Obama will tap for the new administration, some involved in the past mistakes, have learned their lessons.
"They are not going to forget," Barry said. "They've got long memories."
The people placed not only at the secretary level but at jobs like Forest Service chief and BLM director will signal how well Western Democrats are heard by Obama, said John Freemuth, a Boise State University political scientist who specializes on public land issues. Ultimately, Westerners themselves will decide.
"We'll see that the Obama administration has gone in a different direction if we don't see another Sagebrush Rebellion," Freemuth said.
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
Monday, November 3, 2008
Rift widens among area tribes, private landowners
GRANTS — Private landowners and businesses here have a double threat from state and federal traditional cultural property regulations. They are trying to stop the temporary designation of Mount Taylor as a traditional cultural property from becoming permanent, which they say has already violated their rights and stopped them from using their land for any commercial purposes. If made permanent, they say the Grants area economy will be destroyed.
Not only is the state Cultural Property Review Committee considering making a state-level traditional cultural property permanent, but the Forest Service has also temporarily designated Mount Taylor to be a traditional cultural property under the Historic Preservation Act and could move to make it permanent.
The land within the federal traditional cultural property is some 1,100 square miles and includes more than 200,000 acres of private land. Even though the listing is temporary, anyone using land within or nearby the boundaries of the area is required to follow regulations as if the listing were permanent. This means that if landowners wish to do anything with their land requiring a federal or state permit, they must consult with five area tribes, including the Navajo Nation and Pueblo of Acoma, before being allowed to use their land as they wish.
“They did this without public knowledge,” says Joy Burns, who owns land within the traditional cultural property boundaries.
Federal regulations do not require the public or even the landowners within a traditional cultural property boundary to be informed of any intention to designate property as a traditional cultural property. According to Forest Supervisor Nancy Rose, the main concern in creating the listing was the religious beliefs of Native American tribes.
In an op-ed in the Cibola County Beacon, Rose stated that the “determination of any particular activity on the traditional cultural property will generally be on a case-by-case basis in consultation with tribal governments.”
Rose also stated in the op-ed that the Forest Service was required by law to consult with the tribes on their religious beliefs or any other concerns, and that these considerations “extended beyond the scope of inclusion of other citizens, groups, or local governments.”
“My kids can’t have prayer in schools. Isn’t that a double standard?” says Grant resident Ronny Pynes.
The traditional cultural property will only include Forest Service land, according to Rose. But the regulations will also affect any activity on private land that could affect adjacent lands. This loophole will bring thousands of acres of private land under the traditional cultural property umbrella. But Rose says that the traditional cultural property will not prohibit any activity.
“What we’re really looking for is an agreement with a mitigating affect,” she explains.
This means that if a citizen or company is seeking a federal permit for a certain activity whether it is commercial or private, all five tribes must be notified and consulted before the permit is issued. If any one of the tribes has an objection, whatever the basis for the objection, the landowner must find a way to mitigate the concerns.
Rose says that there is no timeline on how long these discussions can last, which means that just about any activity could face so many delays that it’s no longer practical to pursue. Likewise, the traditional cultural property greatly increases the costs of certain permits.
Joe Lister, general manager of the Mount Taylor mine, says that he is required to get a permit to use a pipeline that crosses a small area of Forest Service land. In the past, the cost was $60. His costs for the permit have now increased to $600,000, most of which is because of delays from the traditional cultural property. He says that the designation will decimate the area’s economy.
“It’s beyond my comprehension why someone would shoot themselves in the foot economically,” Lister says.
The tribes had specifically sought the traditional cultural property designation in response to drilling permit applications from uranium companies. Even though the drilling is only exploratory and on private land, the tribes wanted a say in how the private land was going to be used.
Rose says that she understands that there are some questions that need to be addressed, and there were other considerations that the Forest Service did not take into account.
“If we were able to do it again, we’d do it differently. We’re learning here,” Rose says.
GRANTS — Private landowners and businesses here have a double threat from state and federal traditional cultural property regulations. They are trying to stop the temporary designation of Mount Taylor as a traditional cultural property from becoming permanent, which they say has already violated their rights and stopped them from using their land for any commercial purposes. If made permanent, they say the Grants area economy will be destroyed.
Not only is the state Cultural Property Review Committee considering making a state-level traditional cultural property permanent, but the Forest Service has also temporarily designated Mount Taylor to be a traditional cultural property under the Historic Preservation Act and could move to make it permanent.
The land within the federal traditional cultural property is some 1,100 square miles and includes more than 200,000 acres of private land. Even though the listing is temporary, anyone using land within or nearby the boundaries of the area is required to follow regulations as if the listing were permanent. This means that if landowners wish to do anything with their land requiring a federal or state permit, they must consult with five area tribes, including the Navajo Nation and Pueblo of Acoma, before being allowed to use their land as they wish.
“They did this without public knowledge,” says Joy Burns, who owns land within the traditional cultural property boundaries.
Federal regulations do not require the public or even the landowners within a traditional cultural property boundary to be informed of any intention to designate property as a traditional cultural property. According to Forest Supervisor Nancy Rose, the main concern in creating the listing was the religious beliefs of Native American tribes.
In an op-ed in the Cibola County Beacon, Rose stated that the “determination of any particular activity on the traditional cultural property will generally be on a case-by-case basis in consultation with tribal governments.”
Rose also stated in the op-ed that the Forest Service was required by law to consult with the tribes on their religious beliefs or any other concerns, and that these considerations “extended beyond the scope of inclusion of other citizens, groups, or local governments.”
“My kids can’t have prayer in schools. Isn’t that a double standard?” says Grant resident Ronny Pynes.
The traditional cultural property will only include Forest Service land, according to Rose. But the regulations will also affect any activity on private land that could affect adjacent lands. This loophole will bring thousands of acres of private land under the traditional cultural property umbrella. But Rose says that the traditional cultural property will not prohibit any activity.
“What we’re really looking for is an agreement with a mitigating affect,” she explains.
This means that if a citizen or company is seeking a federal permit for a certain activity whether it is commercial or private, all five tribes must be notified and consulted before the permit is issued. If any one of the tribes has an objection, whatever the basis for the objection, the landowner must find a way to mitigate the concerns.
Rose says that there is no timeline on how long these discussions can last, which means that just about any activity could face so many delays that it’s no longer practical to pursue. Likewise, the traditional cultural property greatly increases the costs of certain permits.
Joe Lister, general manager of the Mount Taylor mine, says that he is required to get a permit to use a pipeline that crosses a small area of Forest Service land. In the past, the cost was $60. His costs for the permit have now increased to $600,000, most of which is because of delays from the traditional cultural property. He says that the designation will decimate the area’s economy.
“It’s beyond my comprehension why someone would shoot themselves in the foot economically,” Lister says.
The tribes had specifically sought the traditional cultural property designation in response to drilling permit applications from uranium companies. Even though the drilling is only exploratory and on private land, the tribes wanted a say in how the private land was going to be used.
Rose says that she understands that there are some questions that need to be addressed, and there were other considerations that the Forest Service did not take into account.
“If we were able to do it again, we’d do it differently. We’re learning here,” Rose says.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sheepman appeals to neighbors for help
Forest Service plans to greatly reduce grazing to stop pasteurella spread
Sheepman Ron Shirts asked his neighbors for help here Thursday, Oct. 23, in a sometimes emotional meeting on alleged conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn.
At issue is a draft Environmental Impact Statement in which the U.S. Forest Service proposes to eliminate all domestic sheep grazing on the Payette National Forest except for one or two allotments.
The reason is the alleged transmission of pasteurella, a form of pneumonia, between domestic and bighorn sheep, said Alan Schroeder, a Boise attorney working with Ron Shirts and his brother Frank on the case.
The comment period continues until Jan. 2, said the attorney.
"Please protest this action," said Joe Shirts, another brother. "Don't do it just because Ron's a nice guy, or just to save his operation alone. He deserves your support because it's the right thing to do."
Four ranchers will lose their grazing permits under the proposed action, Joe Shirts said. They won't be the only losers.
"These ranchers spend $3 million to $4 million in western Idaho each year on feed, fuel, vehicle repairs and other supplies," he said. "They ship 30,000 lambs to market in New York, Los Angeles and other places every year. If that money doesn't come back to Idaho, it will go to Argentina, New Zealand and other production areas."
The Forest Service cannot prove domestic sheep transmit pasteurella to bighorn, Schroeder said. Research indicates bighorn already carry a variety of disease pathogens. More likely vectors of transmission already exist in the Hells Canyon region, including birds.
Telemetry data and herder experience show bighorn rarely mingle with domestic sheep on open range, he said. The potential for transferring disease pathogens between them is remote.
"One must assume that the bighorn is free of the offending pathogens, that there are no other vectors for those particular bugs and that domestic sheep are carriers," Schroeder said. "One also must assume contact actually occurs and that a viable dose of the offending pathogens is transmitted at that time.
"If each of these assumptions exist, you must assume that the pathogens express themselves in the bighorn," he said. "Science shows whether or not an exposed animal actually becomes ill relates to environmental stressors, such as weather, food, predators or others. If the pathogens reveal themselves, the next assumption is that the bighorn will die."
The Shirts brothers developed management strategies to keep their sheep separated from bighorn, increasing the number of herders and guard dogs with each band, Schroeder said.
Best management practices listed in the strategy include notifying the Payette National Forest and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game immediately if bighorn are observed within one mile of the domestic sheep.
"If no contact between bighorns and domestic sheep is suspected or observed, herders may, with the approval of the land management agency involved, alter trailing or grazing routes to avoid contact, and/or haze the bighorn away," the strategy said.
Beyond grazing on the Payette National Forest, domestic sheep are on adjacent private lands, Schroeder said.
Faced with litigation brought by environmentalists, the Forest Service is only willing to require or demand that the sheep rancher guarantee no contact 100 percent, Schroeder said.
Bighorn sheep disappeared from the Hells Canyon region by about 1940. They were reintroduced beginning in the 1970s.
Bighorn are not listed or protected under the Endangered Species Act, Schroeder said.
Staff writer Pat McCoy is based in Boise. E-mail: pmccoy@capitalpress.com.
Forest Service plans to greatly reduce grazing to stop pasteurella spread
Sheepman Ron Shirts asked his neighbors for help here Thursday, Oct. 23, in a sometimes emotional meeting on alleged conflicts between domestic sheep and bighorn.
At issue is a draft Environmental Impact Statement in which the U.S. Forest Service proposes to eliminate all domestic sheep grazing on the Payette National Forest except for one or two allotments.
The reason is the alleged transmission of pasteurella, a form of pneumonia, between domestic and bighorn sheep, said Alan Schroeder, a Boise attorney working with Ron Shirts and his brother Frank on the case.
The comment period continues until Jan. 2, said the attorney.
"Please protest this action," said Joe Shirts, another brother. "Don't do it just because Ron's a nice guy, or just to save his operation alone. He deserves your support because it's the right thing to do."
Four ranchers will lose their grazing permits under the proposed action, Joe Shirts said. They won't be the only losers.
"These ranchers spend $3 million to $4 million in western Idaho each year on feed, fuel, vehicle repairs and other supplies," he said. "They ship 30,000 lambs to market in New York, Los Angeles and other places every year. If that money doesn't come back to Idaho, it will go to Argentina, New Zealand and other production areas."
The Forest Service cannot prove domestic sheep transmit pasteurella to bighorn, Schroeder said. Research indicates bighorn already carry a variety of disease pathogens. More likely vectors of transmission already exist in the Hells Canyon region, including birds.
Telemetry data and herder experience show bighorn rarely mingle with domestic sheep on open range, he said. The potential for transferring disease pathogens between them is remote.
"One must assume that the bighorn is free of the offending pathogens, that there are no other vectors for those particular bugs and that domestic sheep are carriers," Schroeder said. "One also must assume contact actually occurs and that a viable dose of the offending pathogens is transmitted at that time.
"If each of these assumptions exist, you must assume that the pathogens express themselves in the bighorn," he said. "Science shows whether or not an exposed animal actually becomes ill relates to environmental stressors, such as weather, food, predators or others. If the pathogens reveal themselves, the next assumption is that the bighorn will die."
The Shirts brothers developed management strategies to keep their sheep separated from bighorn, increasing the number of herders and guard dogs with each band, Schroeder said.
Best management practices listed in the strategy include notifying the Payette National Forest and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game immediately if bighorn are observed within one mile of the domestic sheep.
"If no contact between bighorns and domestic sheep is suspected or observed, herders may, with the approval of the land management agency involved, alter trailing or grazing routes to avoid contact, and/or haze the bighorn away," the strategy said.
Beyond grazing on the Payette National Forest, domestic sheep are on adjacent private lands, Schroeder said.
Faced with litigation brought by environmentalists, the Forest Service is only willing to require or demand that the sheep rancher guarantee no contact 100 percent, Schroeder said.
Bighorn sheep disappeared from the Hells Canyon region by about 1940. They were reintroduced beginning in the 1970s.
Bighorn are not listed or protected under the Endangered Species Act, Schroeder said.
Staff writer Pat McCoy is based in Boise. E-mail: pmccoy@capitalpress.com.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Fire-charred NM mountains fuel policy debate
Nearly 30 years ago, a piece of property along a twisting dirt road in the heart of the Manzano Mountains caught Paul Davis' eye.
With a stream on one side and an expansive hill covered with towering pines on another, the spot seemed like the perfect place to build his family's home.
"This was a natural meadow so the insurance company actually thought it was well protected when they came out. I didn't clear any trees around the backside at all or that side," Davis said, pointing to an area of the now-blackened landscape where his home once stood.
The house was one of six destroyed by a lightning-sparked wildfire in June, the third to break out in the central New Mexico mountains in seven months. Each time, hundreds of residents were forced from their homes.
Environmentalists point to the Manzanos as an example of why the nation needs to change its thinking about wildfire preparation and the circumstances under which the federal government pays to put out the flames.
Bryan Bird, wildplaces program director for WildEarth Guardians, contends that land management agencies are throwing a lot of money at ineffective thinning projects and efforts to suppress most fires on forest land.
"I think we need to completely reassess that approach to fire-prone forests, especially with climate change and the unpredictability and uncertainty about the future of forests and how fire is going to behave," he said during a recent tour of the burned area.
Experts agree that fire seasons across the nation are lasting longer, blazes are burning hotter, and federal, state and local firefighting budgets are getting tighter.
The three Manzano fires cost the Forest Service more than $9 million. Nationally, the agency has said spending on fires could reach $1.6 billion this year, about half its budget.
While federal land management agencies have long recognized the need to allow fire to burn in some areas, the problem is transferring that philosophy to decision-making on the ground, said Stephen Pyne, a professor at Arizona State University who teaches courses on wildfire history and management.
Pyne said more than three decades have passed since the Forest Service and National Park Service began changing their policies to restore fire to the landscape and include it as a management tool.
"It's not a case of whether we burn or we suppress, that's not an issue any more. That's over," said Pyne, who began his career as a firefighter on the Grand Canyon's North Rim in the late 1960s and went on to do fire planning for the National Park Service before turning to writing and teaching.
He said land managers cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach to fire management. "To use a medical analogy, there are number of treatments — a little surgery, drugs, exercise, a mixtures of things," Pyne said.
The Oregon-based nonprofit Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology said the federal government will be taking a step in the right direction next year as it begins to implement the "Appropriate Management Response" policy for all federal lands. The policy calls for fire officials to consider multiple objectives and strategies and when managing a fire — for example, suppressing the flames on one side while letting them burn on the other.
"The new policy change recognizes that it is simply not humanly possible to attack all wildfires in all places at all times," said Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of FUSEE. "We must learn to work with and use the benefits of fire where we can, suppress it where we must, but become far more strategic and selective in the places and methods we choose to commit firefighters to aggressive suppression."
Shifting gears can't happen soon enough, according to Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. He said wildfires have charred some 58 million acres — or 90,000 square miles — across the nation in the past seven years.
"We are spending more, managing less, burning more and as a result, having to cut funds to other important resource programs such as recreation, fisheries and wildlife to battle these wildfires," Domenici said.
In the Manzanos and elsewhere, decades of mismanagement have resulted in overgrown forests that make reintroducing fire a difficult task, said Arlene Perea, a fire information officer with the Mountainair Ranger District.
The district has used prescribed fire and mechanical thinning, but Perea said wildfires can't be allowed to burn to clean out the forest because of the homes scattered throughout the area.
The condition of the Manzanos and inclement weather at the time of the three fires kept forest officials from doing much more than watch the flames eat up some 26,000 acres — or 40 square miles — and more than five dozen homes, Bird said.
He said some of the charred areas had been treated previously to reduce the fire risk, but the flames still burned through.
"It's the same scenarios we had with people living in the Mississippi River flood plain," he said. "If people are going to live in there, how do we plan for that and prepare for that?"
Bird said local governments should adopt building codes and zoning rules to help mitigate some of the danger. However, he said, homeowners also need to take responsibility.
Davis said he would not have done anything differently to prepare for the fire. Some of his neighbors cleared a swath of land around their homes and they still burned, while others did nothing and escaped the flames, he said.
"If I build again here, if I build again in a deep forest, I won't clear a tree again either," he said. "Fire's a risk and it just happened to hit."
Nearly 30 years ago, a piece of property along a twisting dirt road in the heart of the Manzano Mountains caught Paul Davis' eye.
With a stream on one side and an expansive hill covered with towering pines on another, the spot seemed like the perfect place to build his family's home.
"This was a natural meadow so the insurance company actually thought it was well protected when they came out. I didn't clear any trees around the backside at all or that side," Davis said, pointing to an area of the now-blackened landscape where his home once stood.
The house was one of six destroyed by a lightning-sparked wildfire in June, the third to break out in the central New Mexico mountains in seven months. Each time, hundreds of residents were forced from their homes.
Environmentalists point to the Manzanos as an example of why the nation needs to change its thinking about wildfire preparation and the circumstances under which the federal government pays to put out the flames.
Bryan Bird, wildplaces program director for WildEarth Guardians, contends that land management agencies are throwing a lot of money at ineffective thinning projects and efforts to suppress most fires on forest land.
"I think we need to completely reassess that approach to fire-prone forests, especially with climate change and the unpredictability and uncertainty about the future of forests and how fire is going to behave," he said during a recent tour of the burned area.
Experts agree that fire seasons across the nation are lasting longer, blazes are burning hotter, and federal, state and local firefighting budgets are getting tighter.
The three Manzano fires cost the Forest Service more than $9 million. Nationally, the agency has said spending on fires could reach $1.6 billion this year, about half its budget.
While federal land management agencies have long recognized the need to allow fire to burn in some areas, the problem is transferring that philosophy to decision-making on the ground, said Stephen Pyne, a professor at Arizona State University who teaches courses on wildfire history and management.
Pyne said more than three decades have passed since the Forest Service and National Park Service began changing their policies to restore fire to the landscape and include it as a management tool.
"It's not a case of whether we burn or we suppress, that's not an issue any more. That's over," said Pyne, who began his career as a firefighter on the Grand Canyon's North Rim in the late 1960s and went on to do fire planning for the National Park Service before turning to writing and teaching.
He said land managers cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach to fire management. "To use a medical analogy, there are number of treatments — a little surgery, drugs, exercise, a mixtures of things," Pyne said.
The Oregon-based nonprofit Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology said the federal government will be taking a step in the right direction next year as it begins to implement the "Appropriate Management Response" policy for all federal lands. The policy calls for fire officials to consider multiple objectives and strategies and when managing a fire — for example, suppressing the flames on one side while letting them burn on the other.
"The new policy change recognizes that it is simply not humanly possible to attack all wildfires in all places at all times," said Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of FUSEE. "We must learn to work with and use the benefits of fire where we can, suppress it where we must, but become far more strategic and selective in the places and methods we choose to commit firefighters to aggressive suppression."
Shifting gears can't happen soon enough, according to Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. He said wildfires have charred some 58 million acres — or 90,000 square miles — across the nation in the past seven years.
"We are spending more, managing less, burning more and as a result, having to cut funds to other important resource programs such as recreation, fisheries and wildlife to battle these wildfires," Domenici said.
In the Manzanos and elsewhere, decades of mismanagement have resulted in overgrown forests that make reintroducing fire a difficult task, said Arlene Perea, a fire information officer with the Mountainair Ranger District.
The district has used prescribed fire and mechanical thinning, but Perea said wildfires can't be allowed to burn to clean out the forest because of the homes scattered throughout the area.
The condition of the Manzanos and inclement weather at the time of the three fires kept forest officials from doing much more than watch the flames eat up some 26,000 acres — or 40 square miles — and more than five dozen homes, Bird said.
He said some of the charred areas had been treated previously to reduce the fire risk, but the flames still burned through.
"It's the same scenarios we had with people living in the Mississippi River flood plain," he said. "If people are going to live in there, how do we plan for that and prepare for that?"
Bird said local governments should adopt building codes and zoning rules to help mitigate some of the danger. However, he said, homeowners also need to take responsibility.
Davis said he would not have done anything differently to prepare for the fire. Some of his neighbors cleared a swath of land around their homes and they still burned, while others did nothing and escaped the flames, he said.
"If I build again here, if I build again in a deep forest, I won't clear a tree again either," he said. "Fire's a risk and it just happened to hit."
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Federal Agencies to Team with Landowners, Ranchers and Energy Industry to Protect and Restore Wildlife Habitat on State, Federal and Private Lands
FWS-Elizabeth Slown, 505-248-6909/363-9592 or elizabeth_slown@fws.gov
BLM-Hans Stuart, 505-438-7510
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management have proposed to enter into an innovative, voluntary conservation program that encourages landowners, energy companies and ranchers to join the agencies in protecting and restoring habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and sand dune lizard in southeast New Mexico.
Included in the program are agreements for participants to voluntarily undertake or fund conservation measures for the species, which are candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Service recommends using the agreements to encourage conservation, while providing greater certainty that if a species becomes listed as 'threatened' or 'endangered' despite their efforts, landowners will not be required to make significant additional changes in their activities on federal or non-federal lands.
Copies of the proposed agreements and an Environmental Assessment are available for public review and comment on the Service's website at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/. To receive a compact disc or paper copy of the agreements, contact New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113 or call 505-761-4707. Comments should be submitted to this address and are due by Nov. 20, 2008.
The lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard uses habitat on intermingled federal and non-federal lands. Under the program a Candidate Conservation Agreement applies to federal agencies and ranchers or energy companies that lease lands from the federal government. A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances applies to private landowners, state agencies, and entities leasing state lands.
"I encourage people to review these agreements and consider participating," said Benjamin N. Tuggle, Regional Director for the Service's Southwest Region. "Because of New Mexico's mix of federal, state and private lands, one conservation approach isn't enough. The voluntary agreements provide an avenue to integrate conservation efforts across these intermingled land ownerships."
Landowners who sign on to the Candidate Conservation Program could be asked to do some of the following: allow lesser prairie chickens to be placed on their lands; control mesquite which could impact habitat; make grazing modifications; modify fences to reduce collision by prairie chickens; avoid leasing
habitat to energy development; keeping new surface disturbances out of dune areas; removing abandoned powerlines; and, agreeing not to modify occupied and suitable shinnery oak habitat.
"This proactive, collaborative program represents a new era in conservation," said Linda Rundell, New Mexico State Director for the BLM in Santa Fe. "The measures we are taking for the two species will increase the likelihood of their recovery and serve as a model for other conservation partnerships."
The Bureau of Land Management will work with the Service and CEHMM to identify projects and mitigation measures for landowners and companies that participate in the agreements, Rundell added.
Earlier this year, the BLM completed a Resource Management Plan Amendment for public lands in southeastern New Mexico to protect the species. The conservation measures to be applied under the Candidate Conservation program announced today will add to these efforts, and multiply the benefits to the two species.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
-FWS-
About the Species:
Lesser prairie chickens are grouse that use habitats with sandy soils supporting shinnery oak-bluestem and sand sage-bluestem plant communities in the high plains. The birds were common in the early twentieth century, but their populations have declined due to wide-scale conversion of the native prairie.
The sand dune lizard prefers active and semi-stabilized sand dunes associated with shinnery oak and scattered sandsage. The oaks provide dune structure, shelter, and habitat for the species' prey base. Lizards are found in large dunes with deep, wind hollowed depressions called blowouts. They stay under vegetation or loose sand during the hot part of the day and at night.
FWS-Elizabeth Slown, 505-248-6909/363-9592 or elizabeth_slown@fws.gov
BLM-Hans Stuart, 505-438-7510
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management have proposed to enter into an innovative, voluntary conservation program that encourages landowners, energy companies and ranchers to join the agencies in protecting and restoring habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and sand dune lizard in southeast New Mexico.
Included in the program are agreements for participants to voluntarily undertake or fund conservation measures for the species, which are candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Service recommends using the agreements to encourage conservation, while providing greater certainty that if a species becomes listed as 'threatened' or 'endangered' despite their efforts, landowners will not be required to make significant additional changes in their activities on federal or non-federal lands.
Copies of the proposed agreements and an Environmental Assessment are available for public review and comment on the Service's website at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/. To receive a compact disc or paper copy of the agreements, contact New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113 or call 505-761-4707. Comments should be submitted to this address and are due by Nov. 20, 2008.
The lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard uses habitat on intermingled federal and non-federal lands. Under the program a Candidate Conservation Agreement applies to federal agencies and ranchers or energy companies that lease lands from the federal government. A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances applies to private landowners, state agencies, and entities leasing state lands.
"I encourage people to review these agreements and consider participating," said Benjamin N. Tuggle, Regional Director for the Service's Southwest Region. "Because of New Mexico's mix of federal, state and private lands, one conservation approach isn't enough. The voluntary agreements provide an avenue to integrate conservation efforts across these intermingled land ownerships."
Landowners who sign on to the Candidate Conservation Program could be asked to do some of the following: allow lesser prairie chickens to be placed on their lands; control mesquite which could impact habitat; make grazing modifications; modify fences to reduce collision by prairie chickens; avoid leasing
habitat to energy development; keeping new surface disturbances out of dune areas; removing abandoned powerlines; and, agreeing not to modify occupied and suitable shinnery oak habitat.
"This proactive, collaborative program represents a new era in conservation," said Linda Rundell, New Mexico State Director for the BLM in Santa Fe. "The measures we are taking for the two species will increase the likelihood of their recovery and serve as a model for other conservation partnerships."
The Bureau of Land Management will work with the Service and CEHMM to identify projects and mitigation measures for landowners and companies that participate in the agreements, Rundell added.
Earlier this year, the BLM completed a Resource Management Plan Amendment for public lands in southeastern New Mexico to protect the species. The conservation measures to be applied under the Candidate Conservation program announced today will add to these efforts, and multiply the benefits to the two species.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.
-FWS-
About the Species:
Lesser prairie chickens are grouse that use habitats with sandy soils supporting shinnery oak-bluestem and sand sage-bluestem plant communities in the high plains. The birds were common in the early twentieth century, but their populations have declined due to wide-scale conversion of the native prairie.
The sand dune lizard prefers active and semi-stabilized sand dunes associated with shinnery oak and scattered sandsage. The oaks provide dune structure, shelter, and habitat for the species' prey base. Lizards are found in large dunes with deep, wind hollowed depressions called blowouts. They stay under vegetation or loose sand during the hot part of the day and at night.
Idaho lawmaker skeptical of wildfire report
TWIN FALLS (AP) — Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is disputing a report that concluded the ferocity of a massive wildfire in southern Idaho last year wouldn’t have been diminished even if more cattle grazing had been allowed before the fire.
‘‘If you use it responsibly, grazing is a substantial component in controlling the fuel loads in upland grazing lands that the state of Idaho is so well known for,’’ Craig told The Times-News.
He said the lightning- and cheatgrass-stoked Murphy Complex fire that torched 1,000 square miles of Idaho and Nevada backcountry would have been less intense had federal land managers allowed more cattle grazing on public land.
‘‘While the study said grazing was a piece of the action, they gave higher credit to all these other elements,’’ he said. ‘‘What I look at in fighting fires and range management is, can you put it out once it starts? Are you capable for putting it out once you’ve gained control?’’ The 49-page report released last month concluded dry fuel from a drought, strong winds, near 100-degree temperatures and a violent lightning storm the evening of July 16, 2007, fueled the fire. The report said the blaze was so intense that almost nothing could have stopped it.
Craig, noting he’s had firsthand experience with range fires since he was a child, called the conclusions of the report ‘‘curious.’’
‘‘In talking with the people on the ground out there — and I’m talking ranchers that have been there and have hundreds of years of experience on the ground — it became very obvious to them and to me that in areas where grazing had occurred in a reasonable fashion the fire was less,’’ Craig said.
Immediately after the fire, grazing practices became the center of a political flare-up. Besides Craig, Gov. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter said the giant fire could have been avoided if more grazing had been allowed.
But environmentalists argue livestock are harmful, with the Western Watersheds Project saying drought and the Bureau of Land Management’s planting of grasses favored by cattle exacerbated the fires.The report was released by the universities of Idaho and Nevada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey and the BLM.
TWIN FALLS (AP) — Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is disputing a report that concluded the ferocity of a massive wildfire in southern Idaho last year wouldn’t have been diminished even if more cattle grazing had been allowed before the fire.
‘‘If you use it responsibly, grazing is a substantial component in controlling the fuel loads in upland grazing lands that the state of Idaho is so well known for,’’ Craig told The Times-News.
He said the lightning- and cheatgrass-stoked Murphy Complex fire that torched 1,000 square miles of Idaho and Nevada backcountry would have been less intense had federal land managers allowed more cattle grazing on public land.
‘‘While the study said grazing was a piece of the action, they gave higher credit to all these other elements,’’ he said. ‘‘What I look at in fighting fires and range management is, can you put it out once it starts? Are you capable for putting it out once you’ve gained control?’’ The 49-page report released last month concluded dry fuel from a drought, strong winds, near 100-degree temperatures and a violent lightning storm the evening of July 16, 2007, fueled the fire. The report said the blaze was so intense that almost nothing could have stopped it.
Craig, noting he’s had firsthand experience with range fires since he was a child, called the conclusions of the report ‘‘curious.’’
‘‘In talking with the people on the ground out there — and I’m talking ranchers that have been there and have hundreds of years of experience on the ground — it became very obvious to them and to me that in areas where grazing had occurred in a reasonable fashion the fire was less,’’ Craig said.
Immediately after the fire, grazing practices became the center of a political flare-up. Besides Craig, Gov. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter said the giant fire could have been avoided if more grazing had been allowed.
But environmentalists argue livestock are harmful, with the Western Watersheds Project saying drought and the Bureau of Land Management’s planting of grasses favored by cattle exacerbated the fires.The report was released by the universities of Idaho and Nevada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey and the BLM.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Anti-grazing activists take on BLM
Critics say grazing plan threatens some ecosystems
The Bureau of Land Management's proposal for long-term management of its land in southwest Wyoming has prompted plenty of debate over how much oil and gas drilling should be allowed.
But one group protesting the plan isn't concerned about energy development. The Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project says the BLM plans for both the Pinedale and Kemmerer areas lack sufficient study about the negative affects of livestock grazing on the ecosystem.
"Our angle is to speak up for the soil, the plants, the watershed function, the sage grouse, the mule deer, the kinds of things that can't speak up for themselves basically," Jonathon Ratner, director of the Wyoming office of the Western Watersheds Project, said in a telephone interview from Pinedale.
In response, ranching representatives say modern grazing practices actually enhance the ecosystem.
Ratner said the organization will be contesting about two dozen similar BLM plans in Utah, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, California and Oregon on the livestock issue.
"They all suffer from the same problems," he said.
Southwest Wyoming contains rich deposits of natural gas, habitat for wildlife and thousands of acres of grazing land.
The BLM is issuing new plans for the area that will guide the agency's long-term management of federal lands in the area, whether it be used for oil and gas development, grazing, recreation or other activities.
The agency is now in the phase of its planning where it considers protests of its plan before issuing a final decision. The most contentious plan involves the Pinedale area, encompassing about 1,875 square miles of mineral estate.
Kellie Roadifer, BLM planning and environmental coordinator for the Pinedale area, said the agency's Pinedale plan drew 13 protests, 12 of which deal with oil and gas and sage grouse issues.
Grazing used to be the overriding point of contention for BLM lands, but that has shifted with the oil and gas boom, Roadifer said.
"Attention has shifted from livestock grazing to oil and gas," she said. "Years ago it was common for a lot of the stuff that we got to be involving livestock grazing."
But the Western Watersheds Project is keeping the grazing issue alive. It contends grazing does slow, long-term damage to the sensitive ecosystem and over a vastly larger area than oil and gas development.
"Now I'm not discounting the impacts of oil and gas, but oil and gas at this point has severely impacted a tiny fraction of our public lands acreage in the state of Wyoming," Ratner said.
He said grazing alters the soil, upland and riparian areas, and affects how the ecosystem handles water, changing the land into more of a desert environment.
Western Watersheds Project maintains that if the BLM just enforced its regulations, it would result in a reduction in livestock grazing on federal land.
"In the long run livestock grazing in the arid West is neither economically feasible and sustainable, nor ecologically feasible or sustainable," Ratner said. "So in the long run it's got to go."
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said ranching in much of Wyoming isn't possible without grazing on federal land.
Losing the grazing allotments would force ranchers out of business. That could result in the subdivision of rural areas or force working ranchers to sell their land to recreational ranchers, Magagna said.
"From an economic perspective, maintaining agriculture in the state, most of which is livestock grazing, is critically important to a long term future," he said. "And then aside from those economics, I think you have to look at the fact that a lot of the local communities continue to be built around agriculture."
Magagna said overgrazing in the past did cause damage to ecosystems.
"But the livestock grazing that's done today is done under some very sound, well-established science as to impacting the resource," he said. "And in fact I would argue and I think there is plenty of information out there from range professionals to support it, that properly done it enhances the ecosystem. It does not degrade the ecosystem. And most livestock grazing today is done under those types of principles, both on federal land and on private land."
Critics say grazing plan threatens some ecosystems
The Bureau of Land Management's proposal for long-term management of its land in southwest Wyoming has prompted plenty of debate over how much oil and gas drilling should be allowed.
But one group protesting the plan isn't concerned about energy development. The Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project says the BLM plans for both the Pinedale and Kemmerer areas lack sufficient study about the negative affects of livestock grazing on the ecosystem.
"Our angle is to speak up for the soil, the plants, the watershed function, the sage grouse, the mule deer, the kinds of things that can't speak up for themselves basically," Jonathon Ratner, director of the Wyoming office of the Western Watersheds Project, said in a telephone interview from Pinedale.
In response, ranching representatives say modern grazing practices actually enhance the ecosystem.
Ratner said the organization will be contesting about two dozen similar BLM plans in Utah, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, California and Oregon on the livestock issue.
"They all suffer from the same problems," he said.
Southwest Wyoming contains rich deposits of natural gas, habitat for wildlife and thousands of acres of grazing land.
The BLM is issuing new plans for the area that will guide the agency's long-term management of federal lands in the area, whether it be used for oil and gas development, grazing, recreation or other activities.
The agency is now in the phase of its planning where it considers protests of its plan before issuing a final decision. The most contentious plan involves the Pinedale area, encompassing about 1,875 square miles of mineral estate.
Kellie Roadifer, BLM planning and environmental coordinator for the Pinedale area, said the agency's Pinedale plan drew 13 protests, 12 of which deal with oil and gas and sage grouse issues.
Grazing used to be the overriding point of contention for BLM lands, but that has shifted with the oil and gas boom, Roadifer said.
"Attention has shifted from livestock grazing to oil and gas," she said. "Years ago it was common for a lot of the stuff that we got to be involving livestock grazing."
But the Western Watersheds Project is keeping the grazing issue alive. It contends grazing does slow, long-term damage to the sensitive ecosystem and over a vastly larger area than oil and gas development.
"Now I'm not discounting the impacts of oil and gas, but oil and gas at this point has severely impacted a tiny fraction of our public lands acreage in the state of Wyoming," Ratner said.
He said grazing alters the soil, upland and riparian areas, and affects how the ecosystem handles water, changing the land into more of a desert environment.
Western Watersheds Project maintains that if the BLM just enforced its regulations, it would result in a reduction in livestock grazing on federal land.
"In the long run livestock grazing in the arid West is neither economically feasible and sustainable, nor ecologically feasible or sustainable," Ratner said. "So in the long run it's got to go."
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said ranching in much of Wyoming isn't possible without grazing on federal land.
Losing the grazing allotments would force ranchers out of business. That could result in the subdivision of rural areas or force working ranchers to sell their land to recreational ranchers, Magagna said.
"From an economic perspective, maintaining agriculture in the state, most of which is livestock grazing, is critically important to a long term future," he said. "And then aside from those economics, I think you have to look at the fact that a lot of the local communities continue to be built around agriculture."
Magagna said overgrazing in the past did cause damage to ecosystems.
"But the livestock grazing that's done today is done under some very sound, well-established science as to impacting the resource," he said. "And in fact I would argue and I think there is plenty of information out there from range professionals to support it, that properly done it enhances the ecosystem. It does not degrade the ecosystem. And most livestock grazing today is done under those types of principles, both on federal land and on private land."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Western group petitions for species protection
A tortoise, a hare, a mouse and a half-dozen mussels.
These are just some of the animals and plants that a Western conservation group is seeking protections for under the Endangered Species Act as part of several in-depth petitions filed Thursday with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
WildEarth Guardians said the petitions—filed as part of its "Western Ark" project to gain protections for more species in the region—cover a diverse group of 13 plants and animals with ranges that span more than a dozen states and stretch into Mexico and Canada.
"We deliberately wanted to petition at once for a variety of plants and animals and this is to underscore that the Endangered Species Act really is like Noah's ark," said Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. "We want as many species that are in need to board the ark as possible."
Elizabeth Slown, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, said officials will look over the petition to "see whether there is enough information and substantial argument for us to pursue determining whether these plants and animals should be under endangered species protection."
WildEarth Guardians reviewed the status of hundreds of species—including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates—looking for those that had the best cases for protection under the federal act.
"We really wanted a wide range just to demonstrate to the government and the public that that's what this law is all about," Rosmarino said. "The Endangered Species Act is all about protecting the rich tapestry of life."
The eight petitions filed Thursday are the latest salvo in the battle the group has been waging against the federal government over endangered species listings. WildEarth Guardians points out that the polar bear was the first U.S. species to be listed in over two years and that all of the listings under the Bush administration have been prompted by either citizen petitions or legal action.
WildEarth Guardians in the past year has petitioned for protections for hundreds of species, including prairie wildflowers, butterflies, amphibians, fishes, snails, trees and cactus.
The Fish and Wildlife Service vowed at the beginning of this year to make a dent in the backlog of species needing to be reviewed for possible ESA protection. In a step toward that goal, the agency announced last month it was taking a new, ecosystem-based approach to the endangered species list and proposing an all-at-once addition of 48 Hawaiian species to list.
Asked whether this new approach would help with petitions such as those filed by WildEarth Guardians, Rosmarino said the approach makes sense and is long overdue but the administration still has a lot of catching up to do.
She added that her group will keep plugging away with petitions and legal pressure.
"If nothing else, we're going to greet the next administration with a long line of passengers that urgently need to board the ark that the Endangered Species Act provides," she said.
Nearly all the species listed in the petitions filed Thursday face a common threat of climate change, including the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, the Jemez Mountains salamander, the white-sided jackrabbit and the Sonoran desert tortoise.
The tortoise, which ranges across southern Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, is the focus of one petition filed jointly by WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project. The groups say the tortoise's population has been reduced by more than half since 1987, and that urban sprawl, off-roading and grazing continue to put pressure on the species.
In addition, long droughts brought on by climate change are expected to result in less food and lower reproduction rates for the tortoise, the groups say.
Rosmarino said drought is also likely to have an impact on the white-sided jackrabbit's grassland habitat.
Without federal protection, Rosmarino said conservationists worry that the tortoise and the jackrabbit—like the other species listed in the petitions—might be lost.
She quipped that the tortoise and the hare are not racing each other but are "in a race with extinction and neither of them has an interest in winning that race."
A tortoise, a hare, a mouse and a half-dozen mussels.
These are just some of the animals and plants that a Western conservation group is seeking protections for under the Endangered Species Act as part of several in-depth petitions filed Thursday with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
WildEarth Guardians said the petitions—filed as part of its "Western Ark" project to gain protections for more species in the region—cover a diverse group of 13 plants and animals with ranges that span more than a dozen states and stretch into Mexico and Canada.
"We deliberately wanted to petition at once for a variety of plants and animals and this is to underscore that the Endangered Species Act really is like Noah's ark," said Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. "We want as many species that are in need to board the ark as possible."
Elizabeth Slown, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, said officials will look over the petition to "see whether there is enough information and substantial argument for us to pursue determining whether these plants and animals should be under endangered species protection."
WildEarth Guardians reviewed the status of hundreds of species—including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates—looking for those that had the best cases for protection under the federal act.
"We really wanted a wide range just to demonstrate to the government and the public that that's what this law is all about," Rosmarino said. "The Endangered Species Act is all about protecting the rich tapestry of life."
The eight petitions filed Thursday are the latest salvo in the battle the group has been waging against the federal government over endangered species listings. WildEarth Guardians points out that the polar bear was the first U.S. species to be listed in over two years and that all of the listings under the Bush administration have been prompted by either citizen petitions or legal action.
WildEarth Guardians in the past year has petitioned for protections for hundreds of species, including prairie wildflowers, butterflies, amphibians, fishes, snails, trees and cactus.
The Fish and Wildlife Service vowed at the beginning of this year to make a dent in the backlog of species needing to be reviewed for possible ESA protection. In a step toward that goal, the agency announced last month it was taking a new, ecosystem-based approach to the endangered species list and proposing an all-at-once addition of 48 Hawaiian species to list.
Asked whether this new approach would help with petitions such as those filed by WildEarth Guardians, Rosmarino said the approach makes sense and is long overdue but the administration still has a lot of catching up to do.
She added that her group will keep plugging away with petitions and legal pressure.
"If nothing else, we're going to greet the next administration with a long line of passengers that urgently need to board the ark that the Endangered Species Act provides," she said.
Nearly all the species listed in the petitions filed Thursday face a common threat of climate change, including the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, the Jemez Mountains salamander, the white-sided jackrabbit and the Sonoran desert tortoise.
The tortoise, which ranges across southern Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, is the focus of one petition filed jointly by WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project. The groups say the tortoise's population has been reduced by more than half since 1987, and that urban sprawl, off-roading and grazing continue to put pressure on the species.
In addition, long droughts brought on by climate change are expected to result in less food and lower reproduction rates for the tortoise, the groups say.
Rosmarino said drought is also likely to have an impact on the white-sided jackrabbit's grassland habitat.
Without federal protection, Rosmarino said conservationists worry that the tortoise and the jackrabbit—like the other species listed in the petitions—might be lost.
She quipped that the tortoise and the hare are not racing each other but are "in a race with extinction and neither of them has an interest in winning that race."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
NM approves cougar hunt changes, ID course
Mountain lion management in New Mexico is changing and wildlife advocates say it's for the better, with new protections for female cats and their kittens and the end of a cougar-snaring program.
But the changes aren't sitting well with ranchers and others in southeastern New Mexico.
The state Game Commission, at its meeting last week, approved a voluntary hunter education course to teach hunters the difference between male and female cats to ensure that more breeding females are left in the wild.
Commissioners also voted in favor of setting a limit on how many cougars can be harvested around the state and how many of those can be female cats. If the number of female kills comes within 10 percent of the limit in a given hunting unit, conservation officers can shut down hunting in that particular area.
"New Mexicans and the Game Commission understand that cougars are icons of majesty and wildness. These hunting reforms not only enhance conservation of the species, but reduce the ethical dilemma associated with orphaned cougar kittens," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of WildEarth Guardians.
The commission also approved a department recommendation to end the preventative cougar control program in southeastern New Mexico, which was aimed at reducing depredation of livestock.
Environmentalists criticized the program, saying the state was spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to benefit a few livestock owners.
But Debbie Hughes, whose family ranches along the Guadalupe Mountains in southeastern New Mexico and holds the contract to snare the cougars, argued that the program has helped ranchers maintain their livelihoods and it has led to an increase in the area's once-declining deer population.
"To get this program nearly 24 years ago, we had to suffer extreme economic losses," Hughes said. "We went to hundreds of meetings and took hundreds of pictures and wrote hundreds of letters to prove and document all of these losses. And it was like none of that mattered, they just threw it all out the window."
Hughes said she fears depredation of livestock and deer will increase without the control program. She noted that the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Carlsbad Caverns National Monument do not allow hunting and that cougars often fan out from the parks to the nearby ranches.
Hughes, who also serves as executive director of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts, said safety is another concern.
"We have had in this state three human attacks by mountain lions in the past six months," Hughes said, referring to cases near Albuquerque, Taos and Silver City. "That right there tells the whole story. The mountain lion population is totally out of control."
Wildlife activists, however, couldn't disagree more.
WildEarth Guardians and Animal Protection of New Mexico contend that the number of cougars killed on private land has more than doubled in recent years and too many female cats are being killed during hunting season, resulting in abandoned kittens and lost breeding opportunities for the species.
The groups also dispute the idea that cougar control programs would increase safety. Keefover-Ring said several studies have found no evidence that hunting or snaring reduces human attacks.
Game Commission chairman Tom Arvas acknowledged that ranchers are concerned about the cougar management changes, but said he believes the game department is doing a good job at managing the species' population.
"I think in some of the public's eye, we're still not doing enough," Arvas said. "We try to make everyone happy."
Mountain lion management in New Mexico is changing and wildlife advocates say it's for the better, with new protections for female cats and their kittens and the end of a cougar-snaring program.
But the changes aren't sitting well with ranchers and others in southeastern New Mexico.
The state Game Commission, at its meeting last week, approved a voluntary hunter education course to teach hunters the difference between male and female cats to ensure that more breeding females are left in the wild.
Commissioners also voted in favor of setting a limit on how many cougars can be harvested around the state and how many of those can be female cats. If the number of female kills comes within 10 percent of the limit in a given hunting unit, conservation officers can shut down hunting in that particular area.
"New Mexicans and the Game Commission understand that cougars are icons of majesty and wildness. These hunting reforms not only enhance conservation of the species, but reduce the ethical dilemma associated with orphaned cougar kittens," said Wendy Keefover-Ring of WildEarth Guardians.
The commission also approved a department recommendation to end the preventative cougar control program in southeastern New Mexico, which was aimed at reducing depredation of livestock.
Environmentalists criticized the program, saying the state was spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to benefit a few livestock owners.
But Debbie Hughes, whose family ranches along the Guadalupe Mountains in southeastern New Mexico and holds the contract to snare the cougars, argued that the program has helped ranchers maintain their livelihoods and it has led to an increase in the area's once-declining deer population.
"To get this program nearly 24 years ago, we had to suffer extreme economic losses," Hughes said. "We went to hundreds of meetings and took hundreds of pictures and wrote hundreds of letters to prove and document all of these losses. And it was like none of that mattered, they just threw it all out the window."
Hughes said she fears depredation of livestock and deer will increase without the control program. She noted that the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Carlsbad Caverns National Monument do not allow hunting and that cougars often fan out from the parks to the nearby ranches.
Hughes, who also serves as executive director of the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts, said safety is another concern.
"We have had in this state three human attacks by mountain lions in the past six months," Hughes said, referring to cases near Albuquerque, Taos and Silver City. "That right there tells the whole story. The mountain lion population is totally out of control."
Wildlife activists, however, couldn't disagree more.
WildEarth Guardians and Animal Protection of New Mexico contend that the number of cougars killed on private land has more than doubled in recent years and too many female cats are being killed during hunting season, resulting in abandoned kittens and lost breeding opportunities for the species.
The groups also dispute the idea that cougar control programs would increase safety. Keefover-Ring said several studies have found no evidence that hunting or snaring reduces human attacks.
Game Commission chairman Tom Arvas acknowledged that ranchers are concerned about the cougar management changes, but said he believes the game department is doing a good job at managing the species' population.
"I think in some of the public's eye, we're still not doing enough," Arvas said. "We try to make everyone happy."
Monday, October 6, 2008
Officers seek removal of game director
The head of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department has had his hunting license revoked for illegally killing a deer on private land. Now, conservation officers who work for him want him to step down or be replaced.
Director Bruce Thompson lost his hunting privileges in New Mexico and more than two dozen other states when the New Mexico Game Commission voted Thursday to revoke his license for two years.
Thompson was accused of shooting a deer on the Diamond T Ranch in southeastern New Mexico during a hunt last November. It's illegal to hunt on private property in New Mexico without permission from the landowner.
Thompson, who had a valid deer hunting license, said he believed he was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, based on coordinates entered in his global positioning system unit.
Thompson has taken responsibility, but members of the New Mexico Conservation Officers Association claim the director's handling of the incident has given the department a bad name.
''It's frustrating for us,'' Colin Duff, president of the association, told The Associated Press on Friday. ''For a guy to be in that position, he's been convicted and is still signing laws that pertain to everybody else's hunting privileges, we don't really see how he can keep doing that.''
A letter from the association was read at Thursday's commission meeting, outlining the group's feelings about Thompson's leadership. The letter states Thompson ''should step aside and let a qualified and trustworthy person take the reins.''
Thompson said Friday he had not seen the letter, and he defended his ability to lead the department.
''You should examine the accomplishments that the department and the Game Commission have demonstrated over many years,'' he said, pointing to expanded sportsmen's opportunities, resource management projects and the department's access to nature program.
Thompson said that throughout his case, he encouraged the appropriate judicial and administrative processes to be used and that he not receive special treatment.
''I just asked that this be handled as things would be applied to any sportsman,'' he said, adding that he was proud of the commission and department staff's professionalism and integrity in dealing with the case.
Thompson, who was appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson in 2003, works at the commission's pleasure.
Despite the officers' request that the commission replace Thompson, chairman Tom Arvas said the matter was closed with the decision to revoke the director's license.
A message seeking comment was also left with Richardson's office on Friday.
Arvas said he didn't believe the license revocation would interfere with Thompson's ability to do his job.
Duff disagreed, saying that officers and the public have become frustrated with Thompson.
Thompson was convicted earlier this year of unlawful hunting and illegal possession of a deer because of the 2007 incident. He was ordered to serve 182 days of unsupervised probation and pay fines as a result of his no contest plea to the charges.
Despite the convictions, the association claims the director fought the revocation process, forcing his own employees to testify against him.
Duff said similar violations involving wildlife officials in other states have resulted in resignations or terminations long before court action.
''Why has New Mexico's leadership acted so differently? Why has this leader been afforded the ability to disrespect his agency for an entire year?'' Duff said in the letter. ''These are truly sad times for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.''
The head of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department has had his hunting license revoked for illegally killing a deer on private land. Now, conservation officers who work for him want him to step down or be replaced.
Director Bruce Thompson lost his hunting privileges in New Mexico and more than two dozen other states when the New Mexico Game Commission voted Thursday to revoke his license for two years.
Thompson was accused of shooting a deer on the Diamond T Ranch in southeastern New Mexico during a hunt last November. It's illegal to hunt on private property in New Mexico without permission from the landowner.
Thompson, who had a valid deer hunting license, said he believed he was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land, based on coordinates entered in his global positioning system unit.
Thompson has taken responsibility, but members of the New Mexico Conservation Officers Association claim the director's handling of the incident has given the department a bad name.
''It's frustrating for us,'' Colin Duff, president of the association, told The Associated Press on Friday. ''For a guy to be in that position, he's been convicted and is still signing laws that pertain to everybody else's hunting privileges, we don't really see how he can keep doing that.''
A letter from the association was read at Thursday's commission meeting, outlining the group's feelings about Thompson's leadership. The letter states Thompson ''should step aside and let a qualified and trustworthy person take the reins.''
Thompson said Friday he had not seen the letter, and he defended his ability to lead the department.
''You should examine the accomplishments that the department and the Game Commission have demonstrated over many years,'' he said, pointing to expanded sportsmen's opportunities, resource management projects and the department's access to nature program.
Thompson said that throughout his case, he encouraged the appropriate judicial and administrative processes to be used and that he not receive special treatment.
''I just asked that this be handled as things would be applied to any sportsman,'' he said, adding that he was proud of the commission and department staff's professionalism and integrity in dealing with the case.
Thompson, who was appointed by Gov. Bill Richardson in 2003, works at the commission's pleasure.
Despite the officers' request that the commission replace Thompson, chairman Tom Arvas said the matter was closed with the decision to revoke the director's license.
A message seeking comment was also left with Richardson's office on Friday.
Arvas said he didn't believe the license revocation would interfere with Thompson's ability to do his job.
Duff disagreed, saying that officers and the public have become frustrated with Thompson.
Thompson was convicted earlier this year of unlawful hunting and illegal possession of a deer because of the 2007 incident. He was ordered to serve 182 days of unsupervised probation and pay fines as a result of his no contest plea to the charges.
Despite the convictions, the association claims the director fought the revocation process, forcing his own employees to testify against him.
Duff said similar violations involving wildlife officials in other states have resulted in resignations or terminations long before court action.
''Why has New Mexico's leadership acted so differently? Why has this leader been afforded the ability to disrespect his agency for an entire year?'' Duff said in the letter. ''These are truly sad times for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.''
Owyhees gets chance to pass the Senate, Congress this year
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he expects a vote on a lands bill after the election that includes protections for the Owyhee Canyonlands and ranching in Owyhee County.
The Senate will come back for a lame duck session Nov. 17.
"One thing we are going to move to is a land package," Reid said on the floor Wednesday soon after the passage of the financial rescue bill. "We have talked to everybody about this."
The bill includes Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo's Owyhee legislation which was sent to the floor by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Crapo has worked hard for six years to hold together the coalition of ranchers and environmentalists who back his Owyhees bill. The bill would protect 517,000 acres as wilderness, another 315 miles of rivers as wild and scenic and help ranchers with a series of land transfers, buyouts and the establishment of a science center.
The bill also includes a bill to protect 387 miles of the Snake River and its tributaries in Wyoming under the Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. Crapo worked out problems in the Wyoming provision of the bill raised by Sen. Larry Craig and the Idaho Water Users Association.
Overall the bill contains more than 90 titles, including more than a half dozen wilderness measures to protect more than 900,000 acres of wild land in Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Virginia and West Virginia.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he expects a vote on a lands bill after the election that includes protections for the Owyhee Canyonlands and ranching in Owyhee County.
The Senate will come back for a lame duck session Nov. 17.
"One thing we are going to move to is a land package," Reid said on the floor Wednesday soon after the passage of the financial rescue bill. "We have talked to everybody about this."
The bill includes Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo's Owyhee legislation which was sent to the floor by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Crapo has worked hard for six years to hold together the coalition of ranchers and environmentalists who back his Owyhees bill. The bill would protect 517,000 acres as wilderness, another 315 miles of rivers as wild and scenic and help ranchers with a series of land transfers, buyouts and the establishment of a science center.
The bill also includes a bill to protect 387 miles of the Snake River and its tributaries in Wyoming under the Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. Crapo worked out problems in the Wyoming provision of the bill raised by Sen. Larry Craig and the Idaho Water Users Association.
Overall the bill contains more than 90 titles, including more than a half dozen wilderness measures to protect more than 900,000 acres of wild land in Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Virginia and West Virginia.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Bruce Thompson's Hunting Privileges Revoked
The New Mexico Game Commission on Thursday revoked state Game and Fish Department director Bruce Thompson's hunting privileges for two years, the result of Thompson's shooting a deer on private property nearly a year ago in Lincoln County.
Thompson, who has headed Game and Fish since 2003, maintained that he inadvertently used incorrect Global Positioning System coordinates that put him on the privately owned Diamond T Ranch instead of adjacent public land.
In New Mexico, it is illegal to hunt on private property without written permission from the landowner. Although Thompson had a valid hunting license, he did not have the required permission to hunt on the Diamond T.
Thompson unsuccessfully contested the citation, issued by a Game and Fish officer, before a hearing officer last month. Though the Game Commission could have suspended Thompson's hunting privileges for three years, Joe Canepa, a Santa Fe attorney who served as the hearing officer, recommended a two-year suspension.
Thompson confirmed that the Game Commission, at its Thursday meeting in Alamogordo, accepted Canepa's recommendation and suspended his hunting privileges for two years.
"I'm pleased and proud of the department and the commission for allowing the appropriate judicial and administrative processes to work as they would be applied to any sportsman," Thompson said Thursday evening via phone. "That was completed today, and we should move on with conserving wildlife in New Mexico."
Thompson was fined $500 in state District Court in June after pleading no contest to a combined charge of unlawful hunting and illegal possession in connection with the November hunt.
The incident raised concerns among members of the New Mexico Conservation Officers Association about Thompson's leadership.
The New Mexico Game Commission on Thursday revoked state Game and Fish Department director Bruce Thompson's hunting privileges for two years, the result of Thompson's shooting a deer on private property nearly a year ago in Lincoln County.
Thompson, who has headed Game and Fish since 2003, maintained that he inadvertently used incorrect Global Positioning System coordinates that put him on the privately owned Diamond T Ranch instead of adjacent public land.
In New Mexico, it is illegal to hunt on private property without written permission from the landowner. Although Thompson had a valid hunting license, he did not have the required permission to hunt on the Diamond T.
Thompson unsuccessfully contested the citation, issued by a Game and Fish officer, before a hearing officer last month. Though the Game Commission could have suspended Thompson's hunting privileges for three years, Joe Canepa, a Santa Fe attorney who served as the hearing officer, recommended a two-year suspension.
Thompson confirmed that the Game Commission, at its Thursday meeting in Alamogordo, accepted Canepa's recommendation and suspended his hunting privileges for two years.
"I'm pleased and proud of the department and the commission for allowing the appropriate judicial and administrative processes to work as they would be applied to any sportsman," Thompson said Thursday evening via phone. "That was completed today, and we should move on with conserving wildlife in New Mexico."
Thompson was fined $500 in state District Court in June after pleading no contest to a combined charge of unlawful hunting and illegal possession in connection with the November hunt.
The incident raised concerns among members of the New Mexico Conservation Officers Association about Thompson's leadership.
Cougar attack recounted for game commission
Bogged down in public comment, the New Mexico State Game Commission listened to opinions about a single issue all afternoon.
The commission met in Alamogordo Thursday with the big game hunting rules for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons on the agenda. When agenda tem No. 11 came up, so did the speakers. The item was on the adoption of amendments to a bear and cougar rule.
Commissioner Leo Sims of Hobbs handed out an adjusted amendment which offered more support to area ranchers.
During the comment period Charlotte Salazar stood with her 5-year-old son Jose Salazar Jr.
"My son was attacked," Charlotte said.
As the Salazar family walked a well-used path on May 17 in the Sandia Mountains above Albuquerque, the boy ran ahead a little bit, she said.
"A mountain lion jumped out of a bush, jumped on him and started clawing his body," she said. "He was grabbed by the head and dragged 300 feet down a hillside."
The boy's father, Jose Salazar, dove after the child and lion. Damaging his ankle and breaking his thumb, Jose reached the lion and child and was able to grab the boy as the animal ran away.
"He had his scalp ripped back and puncture wounds were all over his back and neck," Charlotte said.
In response to a board member's earlier comment that it had not been proven the incident was caused by a mountain lion, Charlotte said they pulled fur from the child's clothing and saliva from his shoe. The DNA tests showed a 95 percent chance the animal actually was a mountain lion.
Charlotte said the commission should not limit year-round cougar hunting and should focus on reducing the number of animals as there are too many in the state.
A number of Guadalupe mountain area ranchers from the southeastern corner of New Mexico talked about the problems involved with increasing cougar numbers in their area.
They said it is nearly impossible to hunt mountain lions with dogs as the scent can't be easily followed and prints don't show up on rocks.
An increase in the cougar population is responsible for the reduction of sheep farmers in a land traditionally perfect for raising sheep, farmers alleged.
Also, challengers said changing the year-round hunting capability to a specific season will harm the ranchers' ability to protect their stock.
"Taking away year-round hunting would hurt the ranchers," Otero Mesa rancher Bebo Lee told the commission.
Mike Cassebonne, president of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council, said there are still quite a few ranchers who raise sheep in Guadalupe mountain area.
"The precipitation cycle is creating an increase in predators generally," Cassebonne said. "The need still exists for this predation program. I can't see the benefits in managing for an increase in lion population."
Cassebonne said when the game commission makes a decision it should be consistent with wildlife management practices.
State Sen. Tim Jennings from the southeastern corner of the state said he was once a sheep man himself.
"It was better for everybody when we had sheep," Jennings said. "We were driven out by the game department. Mountain lions were the main problem."
Jennings said rules prohibiting the animals from being trapped or snared are silly.
"I like to make my living off the land and you guys have ruined the land," he said.
Many ranchers, Jennings pointed out, raise stock on land leased from the federal government.
"What are we going to do with a law that says you can only trap on private land?" Jennings asked. "You get to sell the permits and I get to pay for it. It's not fair.
"I've watched you ruin one of the best sheep countries in the whole world."
Another part of the new game hunting rule involves killing fewer female cougars and more males.
Wendy Keefover-Ring with the WildEarth Guardians said her organization would like to see more encouragement of a program to educate hunters on how to tell male and female mountain lions apart.
She also talked about mandating a female sub-limit on hunting and said the group would like to encourage it.
Jess Gilliland of Tularosa was offended by the idea. He said his family has been hunting cougars and hasn't killed a female in 20 years.
"We don't want to kill females," he said.
One of the game commissioners said the education element is not only for those who know how to identify females but to help those new to hunting the animal.
Gilliland also said that shortening the bear season would be unfair.
In the end the game commission voted to adopt the suggested amendments to the bear and cougar rules and added adjustments to the amendments as suggested by Sims.
The meeting continued past presstime Thursday.
Bogged down in public comment, the New Mexico State Game Commission listened to opinions about a single issue all afternoon.
The commission met in Alamogordo Thursday with the big game hunting rules for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons on the agenda. When agenda tem No. 11 came up, so did the speakers. The item was on the adoption of amendments to a bear and cougar rule.
Commissioner Leo Sims of Hobbs handed out an adjusted amendment which offered more support to area ranchers.
During the comment period Charlotte Salazar stood with her 5-year-old son Jose Salazar Jr.
"My son was attacked," Charlotte said.
As the Salazar family walked a well-used path on May 17 in the Sandia Mountains above Albuquerque, the boy ran ahead a little bit, she said.
"A mountain lion jumped out of a bush, jumped on him and started clawing his body," she said. "He was grabbed by the head and dragged 300 feet down a hillside."
The boy's father, Jose Salazar, dove after the child and lion. Damaging his ankle and breaking his thumb, Jose reached the lion and child and was able to grab the boy as the animal ran away.
"He had his scalp ripped back and puncture wounds were all over his back and neck," Charlotte said.
In response to a board member's earlier comment that it had not been proven the incident was caused by a mountain lion, Charlotte said they pulled fur from the child's clothing and saliva from his shoe. The DNA tests showed a 95 percent chance the animal actually was a mountain lion.
Charlotte said the commission should not limit year-round cougar hunting and should focus on reducing the number of animals as there are too many in the state.
A number of Guadalupe mountain area ranchers from the southeastern corner of New Mexico talked about the problems involved with increasing cougar numbers in their area.
They said it is nearly impossible to hunt mountain lions with dogs as the scent can't be easily followed and prints don't show up on rocks.
An increase in the cougar population is responsible for the reduction of sheep farmers in a land traditionally perfect for raising sheep, farmers alleged.
Also, challengers said changing the year-round hunting capability to a specific season will harm the ranchers' ability to protect their stock.
"Taking away year-round hunting would hurt the ranchers," Otero Mesa rancher Bebo Lee told the commission.
Mike Cassebonne, president of the New Mexico Federal Lands Council, said there are still quite a few ranchers who raise sheep in Guadalupe mountain area.
"The precipitation cycle is creating an increase in predators generally," Cassebonne said. "The need still exists for this predation program. I can't see the benefits in managing for an increase in lion population."
Cassebonne said when the game commission makes a decision it should be consistent with wildlife management practices.
State Sen. Tim Jennings from the southeastern corner of the state said he was once a sheep man himself.
"It was better for everybody when we had sheep," Jennings said. "We were driven out by the game department. Mountain lions were the main problem."
Jennings said rules prohibiting the animals from being trapped or snared are silly.
"I like to make my living off the land and you guys have ruined the land," he said.
Many ranchers, Jennings pointed out, raise stock on land leased from the federal government.
"What are we going to do with a law that says you can only trap on private land?" Jennings asked. "You get to sell the permits and I get to pay for it. It's not fair.
"I've watched you ruin one of the best sheep countries in the whole world."
Another part of the new game hunting rule involves killing fewer female cougars and more males.
Wendy Keefover-Ring with the WildEarth Guardians said her organization would like to see more encouragement of a program to educate hunters on how to tell male and female mountain lions apart.
She also talked about mandating a female sub-limit on hunting and said the group would like to encourage it.
Jess Gilliland of Tularosa was offended by the idea. He said his family has been hunting cougars and hasn't killed a female in 20 years.
"We don't want to kill females," he said.
One of the game commissioners said the education element is not only for those who know how to identify females but to help those new to hunting the animal.
Gilliland also said that shortening the bear season would be unfair.
In the end the game commission voted to adopt the suggested amendments to the bear and cougar rules and added adjustments to the amendments as suggested by Sims.
The meeting continued past presstime Thursday.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
NM judge rules on Mexican gray wolf ordinance
A federal judge has dismissed environmentalists' concerns over a western New Mexico county's ordinance regarding endangered Mexican gray wolves, saying the county amended the measure to remove provisions that would have allowed it to immediately trap or remove wolves from the wild.
WildEarth Guardians had sued Catron County in U.S. District Court in Santa Fe, alleging that an ordinance passed last year by the county violated the federal Endangered Species Act and was invalid.
U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez issued a ruling Tuesday that said the group's claims were moot since the county had amended the ordinance to remove provisions that authorized county officials to take action against wolves that were deemed to be threats to people.
However, Vazquez did not rule on WildEarth Guardians' claim that the county commission allegedly violated federal law when it targeted a pair of wolves for trapping last year.
WildEarth Guardians sees the ruling as a partial victory.
"What the court did was provide much needed clarity that the current law in Catron County does not authorize unilateral wolf removals," Melissa Hailey, an attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said Wednesday.
The group had complained that the county's original ordinance, adopted in February 2007, permitted county officials to immediately trap or remove wolves even though the animals were the responsibility of the federal government.
The county commission adopted an amended ordinance in April 2007 that allows it to demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service remove a wolf that is determined to be a threat or that the agency authorize a designated county officer to remove the wolf.
County Manager Bill Aymar said Wednesday commissioners have a responsibility to keep residents safe.
"We're not playing a game, we're just trying to protect the citizen who has a bunch of little kids," he said. "It isn't going to do us any good to play political games if a wolf comes and bites one of those kids."
Aymar pointed to a recent case in which a Cruzville mother reported that an uncollared wolf killed family pets and attacked a horse on her property.
After sending a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the wolf be removed, Aymar said federal officials put up an electric wire and flags around the woman's property to dissuade the animal from returning. He said the county is waiting to see if that works.
"We're dealing with the reality of the situation as opposed to the nice esoteric discussion about the theoretical side of it," he said. "We have wolves here going on people's property attacking their pets, attacking their animals. Do we allow it to come to the place where a wolf attacks a child? No, we can't."
WildEarth Guardians pointed out that the court has yet to rule on whether the county violated federal law by trying to trap a pair of wolves in June and November 2007. The group has asked for a permanent injunction to stop the county's trapping activities.
"We remain committed to keeping Mexican wolves in the wild," said Rob Edward, carnivore recovery director for WildEarth Guardians. "Each and every Mexican wolf is essential to the survival of this critically endangered population."
The federal government has been reintroducing the wolves to the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area—more than 4 million acres of the Gila and Apache Sitgreaves national forests in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona plus Arizona's White Mountain Apache reservation, interspersed with private land and towns.
The program began in March 1998 when the Fish and Wildlife Service released 11 wolves that were bred in captivity. Officials with the reintroduction program had predicted that by now, there would be a self-sustaining wild population of 100 wolves.
The recovery area had 52 wolves as of January 2008, and that number has fluctuated with wolf deaths and removals, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency conducts one count of wild wolves annually.
A federal judge has dismissed environmentalists' concerns over a western New Mexico county's ordinance regarding endangered Mexican gray wolves, saying the county amended the measure to remove provisions that would have allowed it to immediately trap or remove wolves from the wild.
WildEarth Guardians had sued Catron County in U.S. District Court in Santa Fe, alleging that an ordinance passed last year by the county violated the federal Endangered Species Act and was invalid.
U.S. District Judge Martha Vazquez issued a ruling Tuesday that said the group's claims were moot since the county had amended the ordinance to remove provisions that authorized county officials to take action against wolves that were deemed to be threats to people.
However, Vazquez did not rule on WildEarth Guardians' claim that the county commission allegedly violated federal law when it targeted a pair of wolves for trapping last year.
WildEarth Guardians sees the ruling as a partial victory.
"What the court did was provide much needed clarity that the current law in Catron County does not authorize unilateral wolf removals," Melissa Hailey, an attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said Wednesday.
The group had complained that the county's original ordinance, adopted in February 2007, permitted county officials to immediately trap or remove wolves even though the animals were the responsibility of the federal government.
The county commission adopted an amended ordinance in April 2007 that allows it to demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service remove a wolf that is determined to be a threat or that the agency authorize a designated county officer to remove the wolf.
County Manager Bill Aymar said Wednesday commissioners have a responsibility to keep residents safe.
"We're not playing a game, we're just trying to protect the citizen who has a bunch of little kids," he said. "It isn't going to do us any good to play political games if a wolf comes and bites one of those kids."
Aymar pointed to a recent case in which a Cruzville mother reported that an uncollared wolf killed family pets and attacked a horse on her property.
After sending a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the wolf be removed, Aymar said federal officials put up an electric wire and flags around the woman's property to dissuade the animal from returning. He said the county is waiting to see if that works.
"We're dealing with the reality of the situation as opposed to the nice esoteric discussion about the theoretical side of it," he said. "We have wolves here going on people's property attacking their pets, attacking their animals. Do we allow it to come to the place where a wolf attacks a child? No, we can't."
WildEarth Guardians pointed out that the court has yet to rule on whether the county violated federal law by trying to trap a pair of wolves in June and November 2007. The group has asked for a permanent injunction to stop the county's trapping activities.
"We remain committed to keeping Mexican wolves in the wild," said Rob Edward, carnivore recovery director for WildEarth Guardians. "Each and every Mexican wolf is essential to the survival of this critically endangered population."
The federal government has been reintroducing the wolves to the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area—more than 4 million acres of the Gila and Apache Sitgreaves national forests in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona plus Arizona's White Mountain Apache reservation, interspersed with private land and towns.
The program began in March 1998 when the Fish and Wildlife Service released 11 wolves that were bred in captivity. Officials with the reintroduction program had predicted that by now, there would be a self-sustaining wild population of 100 wolves.
The recovery area had 52 wolves as of January 2008, and that number has fluctuated with wolf deaths and removals, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency conducts one count of wild wolves annually.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Like polar bear, wolverine is threatened by global warming, Montana lawsuit claims
Charging that politics have trumped science, conservationists are challenging the federal government’s refusal to provide wolverines with Endangered Species Act protections.
“The wolverine is facing serious threats to its survival in the Lower 48 states, yet the Bush administration made a political decision not to protect this species,” said Tim Preso.
Decisions regarding sensitive species, he said, “are supposed to be based on science, not politics.”
Preso serves as counsel at Earthjustice, and is representing a coalition of 10 environmental groups in a lawsuit on behalf of the wolverine. On Tuesday, he filed the action in Missoula’s U.S. District Court.
According to Preso, plaintiffs have unearthed documents showing that federal officials overruled biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including scientists who had concluded wolverines are “warranted” for protections.
The Bush administration, plaintiffs charge, meddled with the science in order to avoid a second Endangered Species Act listing related to climate change. (In May, the polar bear was listed as threatened, largely due to habitat loss resulting from a warming planet.)
Wolverines, the groups allege, are likewise at risk from climate change because the animals depend on areas that remain snowbound well into spring, when females dig snow dens to give birth.
But spring snowpack, scientists say, is in decline, a trend that is predicted to worsen.
Wolverine populations also are threatened by trapping and human encroachment into mountain habitat, plaintiffs charge.
The secretive and wide-ranging members of the weasel family resemble small bears, and are most often associated with remote alpine country that remains snow-covered much of the year.
“Recent scientific studies,” the suit alleges, “document that areas of wolverine habitat have already lost up to 30 percent of their historic spring snowpack, and reductions could increase to 60 percent of historic levels by 2090.”
Largely isolated from Canadian populations by human development, the animals are thought to be declining in the Lower 48.
In their review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists acknowledged those concerns, stating that “the small effective population size [e.g., the number of breeding pairs] in the contiguous U.S. wolverine population has led to inbreeding and consequent loss of genetic diversity.”
Over time, the review concludes, local populations could be at risk of extinction.
In denying protections, however, Fish and Wildlife Service brass said ample wolverines persist in Canada, and the U.S. population is not significant to survival of the overall species.
“I can’t comment on the lawsuit,” said agency spokesperson Diane Katzenberger, “but I would say that the Fish and Wildlife Service stands by its finding.”
The problem with a listing, she said, is that the U.S. population is not distinct from Canadian wolverines, nor is the U.S. population critical to the overall North American population.
But conservationists contend that reasoning represents an “about-face” from other listing decisions, including lynx, grizzly bears and wolves, all of which enjoy strong populations in Canada’s wilds.
The groups n which include Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Clearwater, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Wyoming Outdoor Council n expressed their concerns in a July letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but have not yet received a response.
“This leaves us no choice but to file suit and try to reverse the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision before it is too late for wolverines in the West,” said David Gaillard, of Defenders of Wildlife.
The 32-page action filed Tuesday asks the court to void Fish and Wildlife’s March 11 denial, and require the agency to reconsider.
Katzenberger said the Fish and Wildlife Service has no intention of abandoning its earlier decision, but did say “if new information becomes available, we certainly would look at that.”
Charging that politics have trumped science, conservationists are challenging the federal government’s refusal to provide wolverines with Endangered Species Act protections.
“The wolverine is facing serious threats to its survival in the Lower 48 states, yet the Bush administration made a political decision not to protect this species,” said Tim Preso.
Decisions regarding sensitive species, he said, “are supposed to be based on science, not politics.”
Preso serves as counsel at Earthjustice, and is representing a coalition of 10 environmental groups in a lawsuit on behalf of the wolverine. On Tuesday, he filed the action in Missoula’s U.S. District Court.
According to Preso, plaintiffs have unearthed documents showing that federal officials overruled biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including scientists who had concluded wolverines are “warranted” for protections.
The Bush administration, plaintiffs charge, meddled with the science in order to avoid a second Endangered Species Act listing related to climate change. (In May, the polar bear was listed as threatened, largely due to habitat loss resulting from a warming planet.)
Wolverines, the groups allege, are likewise at risk from climate change because the animals depend on areas that remain snowbound well into spring, when females dig snow dens to give birth.
But spring snowpack, scientists say, is in decline, a trend that is predicted to worsen.
Wolverine populations also are threatened by trapping and human encroachment into mountain habitat, plaintiffs charge.
The secretive and wide-ranging members of the weasel family resemble small bears, and are most often associated with remote alpine country that remains snow-covered much of the year.
“Recent scientific studies,” the suit alleges, “document that areas of wolverine habitat have already lost up to 30 percent of their historic spring snowpack, and reductions could increase to 60 percent of historic levels by 2090.”
Largely isolated from Canadian populations by human development, the animals are thought to be declining in the Lower 48.
In their review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists acknowledged those concerns, stating that “the small effective population size [e.g., the number of breeding pairs] in the contiguous U.S. wolverine population has led to inbreeding and consequent loss of genetic diversity.”
Over time, the review concludes, local populations could be at risk of extinction.
In denying protections, however, Fish and Wildlife Service brass said ample wolverines persist in Canada, and the U.S. population is not significant to survival of the overall species.
“I can’t comment on the lawsuit,” said agency spokesperson Diane Katzenberger, “but I would say that the Fish and Wildlife Service stands by its finding.”
The problem with a listing, she said, is that the U.S. population is not distinct from Canadian wolverines, nor is the U.S. population critical to the overall North American population.
But conservationists contend that reasoning represents an “about-face” from other listing decisions, including lynx, grizzly bears and wolves, all of which enjoy strong populations in Canada’s wilds.
The groups n which include Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Clearwater, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Wyoming Outdoor Council n expressed their concerns in a July letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service, but have not yet received a response.
“This leaves us no choice but to file suit and try to reverse the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision before it is too late for wolverines in the West,” said David Gaillard, of Defenders of Wildlife.
The 32-page action filed Tuesday asks the court to void Fish and Wildlife’s March 11 denial, and require the agency to reconsider.
Katzenberger said the Fish and Wildlife Service has no intention of abandoning its earlier decision, but did say “if new information becomes available, we certainly would look at that.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)