Posts Tagged ‘endangered species act’

What’s The Beef, Part Two: How Lawsuits Shape Land Management Policies

Posted: February 3, 2016 by gamegetterII in .gov bullshit, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

 

Range management is more a result of lawsuit than science…Special interest groups sue the land management agencies and they agree to settle on terms that do not benefit the general public and are almost never disclosed…

Victor Iverson in Deseret News, January 22, 2016

Sue and Settle

Back in the heyday of clear-cutting, over-grazing, strip-mining, etc, when a generation of passionate environmentalists were inspired by Hayduke and his Monkey Wrench Gang, it seemed that the only way to bring attention to the problems of over-use and degradation of lands was with aggressive, sometimes dangerous, protest actions.  From removing survey stakes and tree spiking to bombings and arson labeled as eco-terrorism, considered one of the greatest threats of terrorism in the United States, environmentalists wanted to be heard.  In desperation to save what they loved, they demanded change in the only ways they felt were left to them.  But then another way was found to effect change in land use policies.

We decided, let’s just sue instead.  It got settled with the Service agreeing to do a wolf study, which led to reintroduction.

That was the moment when we looked at it and said, ‘Wow.’  The environmental movement spent a decade going to meetings and demanding action and getting nothing done.  They were asking powerful people for something from a position of no power.  We realized that we can bypass the officials and sue, and that we can get things done in court.

Kieran Suckling of the Center For Biological Diversity in an interview with High Country News

The use of lawsuits to force the agency overseeing the land or wildlife in question to act has proven to be effective.  And it has been steadily increasing.  When the agency agrees to reach a settlement in these lawsuits, the terms are negotiated behind closed doors, outside of the public’s view, away from the public’s input.  It is referred to as ‘sue and settle.’  Here is a short definition from a report from the US Chamber of Commerce:

Read the whole thing,including embedded links here

 

 

What’s The Beef? Part One: The Anger Over Federal Land Management

Posted: February 3, 2016 by gamegetterII in .gov bullshit, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

IMG_20160125_150217

The land out here is vast, in some places stretching as far as the eye can see in between homes, towns, any signs of humanity.  It is rugged and dry, and holds a sense of emptiness, of loneliness.  But to the observant wanderer, it is in fact a place full of life, from the twisted juniper trees to the strange-colored lichens spreading over the ground.  One can find traces of the animals that have passed through, coyote scat, rabbit tracks, the remnants of a cougar kill up in a tree, huge bird nests up in the craggy cliff bands.  And, of course, the evidence of people, shotgun shells, broken glass, old appliances, and cows.

People seem to have a habit of taking what they have for granted until threatened with its loss.  It is certainly true when it comes to land use.  We have a long history of over-use, it is evident in any industry that involves using or extracting natural resources.  It begins with discovery, then fortunes are made, and more and more people jump on board, and then, the resource begins to run out.  That is the point at which people either destroy the resource altogether, or take steps to protect and manage it.

It is undeniable that humans impact the environment, our proliferation around the world has clearly changed the land.  It is also undeniable that natural resources are required for our survival.  We need food, water, shelter, just like every species.  And this need, and all the times we’ve allowed it to devolve into excessive over-use of resources, along with the desire to protect what we don’t want to lose, has left us with a decades-old, emotional, sometimes violent debate.

Once again, this debate has exploded out of its usual confines of rural America and into the national spotlight with the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife refuge in Harney County.  Ignoring the very basic fact that nature seeks balance, the media is frantically fueling the polarizing rhetoric.  Either you are an angry, spoiled white guy with lots of guns attempting to grab all of the public land, or you are against the occupation and want the spoiled white guys arrested, maybe even bombed with drones.  Few seem willing to pause long enough in the argument to really listen to each other.  Just what is the beef with Federal land management?

The situation in Harney County presents a good starting place to look at this question because there is a long history of problems there.  Anyone who has paid any attention to the story of the refuge occupation knows that it began with a protest rally in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were sentenced for arson under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for starting two fires on their land that spread to BLM land, burning a total of 140 acres.  The group occupying the refuge want the Hammonds freed from prison, among other things.  The Hammonds’ battle with the BLM has been going on for decades, long before they lit the two fires that got them branded as terrorist arsons.  And they aren’t alone.

Read the whole thing,including embedded links here

Western States Move Forward with Potential Yellowstone-area Grizzly Hunts

Posted: January 7, 2016 by gamegetterII in hunting
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Pay close attention to this issue-when the public comment period starts-get as many people as you can to comment in favor of hunting grizzlies,or the animal “rights” whackos and enviro-nazis will flood the comments in opposition to hunting grizzlies.

Time to beat ’em at their own game-they’ve been using the comment period on any proposed changes of any wildlife management issue to oppose hunting of any animal. Look what they did with the wolf “re-introduction” fiasco-they flooded every public comments forum,and filed a blizzard of legal paperwork to oppose any wolf hunting or trapping,and the elk herds suffered,many have been decimated by unchecked wolf numbers.

Time to get the animal “rights”whackos and enviro-nazis out of our government’s agencies such as USFS,USFWS,BLM,EPA,etc.

Don’t let these nutcases dictate policy any longer-their goal is to ban ALL hunting and trapping on PUBLIC land-hunters ARE a huge part of the public,and it is hunters who fund well over 90% of ALL wildlife conservation in the U.S. It’s time hunters get a voice in policy making,not just the animal “rights” and enviro whackos.

Via Field & Stream

After 40 years of federal protection, grizzly bears may become fair game for hunters, as a handful of Western states push for the responsibility of managing the animals.

The Associated Press reports that a plan drafted by wildlife officials from the greater Yellowstone states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana estimates how many grizzly bears could be harvested while still maintaining viable populations if the species were no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Though the proposal doesn’t specify the number of bears each state would permit to be harvested, it does specify a 19,300-square-mile management zone that includes the wilderness and national forests near the Yellowstone National Park. Further, the proposal allocates a 58-percent share of the permitted harvests to Wyoming—likely because it’s home to most of the region’s grizzlies—while Montana would get 34 percent and Idaho 8 percent.

Officials estimate that there are more than 700 grizzlies in the defined management zone, though biologists say that there are likely more living outside the borders, as the bears have expanded their range as their populations have grown.

In a December 4, 2015, joint letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, the states’ wildlife directors urged the federal government to retract the bear’s threatened status. “It is critically important that we capitalize on our tremendous progress and momentum. . . by proceeding with a long overdue delisting,” the letter stated.

The last legal grizzly hunt in the Lower 48 was in the early 1970s, and a total of 58 bears were harvested in the five years leading to the species’ being listed as threatened, in 1975, as the AP notes. Since that time, the bear’s numbers have rebounded. Opponents to the proposal, however, argue that it’s too soon to consider hunting as a management tool because grizzly populations are still too low.

Quentin Kujala, chief of wildlife management for Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, says that the harvest quotas will likely be modest and on a sliding scale to help maintain viable bear populations and to avoid any chance of the species reverting back to federal protection. Hunting will be allowed if there were more than 675 bears, and it will be barred if the number drops to fewer than 600, Kujala said. Likewise, Wyoming Game and Fish spokesman Renny MacKay told the AP: “We’re definitely not talking about a large number. We’re not talking hundreds or anywhere near that.”

The Christian Science Monitor points out that tourism is a $1-billion industry in the greater Yellowstone area, and that, according to research, the park could lose $10 million without the potential of spotting bear near the roadside.

If the FWS removes grizzlies from federal protection and the states proceed with the plan, the proposition will need to undergo a public-comment period. The FWS is expected to make a decision on whether to release grizzlies from federal protection early this year, but barring any court challenges, it could take up to a year for any rule changes to go into effect.