News

Aug21

OR-7 The Journey : Film Premiere

"OR-7 The Journey"

September 18, 2014 at 7:00pm

Bijou Art Cinemas on 13th Ave. Eugene, Oregon

 
OR-7 The Journey, documentary film presented by Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, and film producer Clemens Shenk. Eugene, OR film premiere at Bijou Art Cinemas on 13th Avenue on Sept. 18, 2014 at 7pm

Join Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild on September 18, 2014 at 7pm in welcoming Oregon filmmaker Clemens Schenk for the Eugene premiere of "OR-7: The Journey".

 

 

RSVP HERE on the event page.

 

Buy TICKETS ONLINE.

 

"OR-7: The Journey" is an inspiring documentary chronicling the remarkable dispersal of a young male wolf – OR-7, also known as Journey – from northeast Oregon down into California who has recently formed a pack southwest of Crater Lake to become the first wolf pack in the Oregon Cascades in nearly 70 years.
 
Come celebrate wolf recovery, wildlife, Oregon's conservation values, and OR-7's epic journey. This film tells the story not just of Journey, but also of his species. It is a story of survival and inspiration. But even as most Americans have come to appreciate native wildlife and wild places, 21st century science and values are coming head to head with old prejudices that put the future of wolves – and OR-7 – in jeopardy.
 
  • The showing will be held at the Bijou Theater at 492 E. 13th Ave in Eugene, OR at 7:00pm. 
  • Tickets are $10 and are available through the Bijou’s website HERE. There is limited seating and the show is expected to sell out, purchasing tickets in advance is strongly encouraged.
  • A Q&A session will take place after the movie with wolf advocates and the filmmaker. 
  • Cascadia Wildlands merchandise will be available for purchase at the event.
 
For more info about the movie specifically, please follow this link.
 
Learn more about OR-7.
 

 

Maximize the impact of your donation to our wolf fund today, by taking advantage of the

 

Mountain Rose Herbs Matching Gift for Wolf Donations!
 
 
 
 
Donations_Wolf_MtnRoseHerbs_graph_DRAFT_C.3_21AugTry

Aug13

Guest Opinion: Why Hunters Should Oppose Sale of Elliott State Forest

By Marnie Allbritten, guest opinion for the Oregonian
August 8, 2014
 
Elk and deer hunters are obsessive about our chosen pastime.  We invest countless hours in scouting and preparing for the fall hunt.  We travel hundreds of miles in search of elk, deer and other game animals. We spend thousands of dollars every year on equipment, optics, fuel and gadgets. Yet without access to high quality lands to hunt on, all this expense and preparation is wasted.
 
Oregon hunters are facing the very real threat that we could lose access to hundreds of thousands of acres of quality hunting lands within our state. Weyerhauser, the giant logging corporation that owns 2.6-million acres in Oregon and Washington, recently announced it was closing much of its forestlands to the general public.  From now on, hunters will have to buy a special permit DSCN2174costing up to $350 if they want to hunt on those lands even though the elk and deer belong to the public.
 
But Weyerhauser's new "pay to play" arrangement isn't the worst threat to access for hunting in Oregon. The Oregon State Land Board, made up of Gov. John Kitzhaber, state Treasurer Ted Wheeler, and Secretary of State Kate Brown, is seriously considering a proposal to privatize the 93,000-acre Elliott State Forest just east of Coos Bay. In future years, hunters visiting the Elliott may be greeted by locked gates and "no trespassing" signs rather than open public access. Three parcels of this public forest, totaling over 1,400 acres, have already been sold to logging companies and at least one of them has been posted with "private property" signs.
 
I have explored and enjoyed the Elliott for many years, and the countless miles I have walked in this beautiful place have showed me just how special it is. For those willing to work for it, the Elliott provides fantastic opportunities for elk and deer hunting—free of charge. It also contains spawning streams for some of the strongest salmon and steelhead runs left in the Oregon Coast Range.  This forest is also unique among Oregon's state public lands in that it contains more than 41,000 acres of old-growth forest over 100 years old.  The opportunity to hunt and explore among these giants is an experience to be treasured — and passed down to our children and grandchildren.
 
But all this is being jeopardized by politicians in Salem.
 
The Oregon Land Board is considering privatizing the Elliott because of a dispute over logging levels.  A portion of the revenues from the Elliott go to support the Oregon Common School Fund, and though the actual dollar amount that makes it to classrooms is tiny, logging also pays for a huge state bureaucracy. In 2011, an effort to nearly double logging levels on the Elliott sparked a fight with environmental interests.  The state lost that battle, and now rather than crafting a balanced, sustainable approach to managing the Elliott, Oregon is considering selling it off to private corporations so they can log it instead.
 
Hunters tend to be politically conservative people, and we are reluctant to get involved in battles over logging and environmental rules.  But the debate over privatizing the Elliott State Forest — and losing access to even more quality hunting lands — is an issue that should hit home for every hunter on Oregon.  We have too much at stake to sit this one out.
 
Hunters concerned about the loss of access to quality hunting lands should get in touch with Gov. John Kitzhaber, Secretary of State Kate Brown and Treasurer Ted Wheeler and tell them to end any further consideration of privatizing the Elliott State Forest.  Instead, they should be focusing on developing a balanced, sustainable plan for this forest.  The Elliott should be managed for the conservation of values like elk, salmon, and old-growth, for human needs like clean water, recreation, and responsible timber harvest.  
But above all, the Elliott should remain in public hands, for all Oregonians to use and enjoy.  No hunter should ever encounter a "no trespassing" sign when visiting the Elliott State Forest.
 
Marnie Allbritten of Roseburg is a retired Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist and a former board member for the Umpqua chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association.
 
Here is a link to the original article.

Aug12

Fish and Wildlife Service Plays Politics With Wolverine Survival

For Immediate Release, August 12, 2014
 
Contacts: 
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, (314) 482-3746
Drew Kerr, WildEarth Guardians, (312) 375-6104 
Matthew Bishop, Western Environmental Law Center, (406) 324-8011 
 
Fish and Wildlife Service Plays Politics With Wolverine Survival
Conservation Groups Decry Withdrawal of Proposed Endangered Species Act Listing
 
MISSOULA, MONT. — Bowing to political pressure, today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) formally withdrew its proposal to list wolverines under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), despite the species’ small WolverineSnowpopulation and serious threats to its continued existence. Only 250 to 300 wolverines call the contiguous U.S. home, living in small populations scattered across the West. Scientists unanimously acknowledge the greatest threat to the species’ survival in the U.S. is habitat loss resulting from climate change.
 
Following the Service’s announcement, a coalition of conservation groups will take steps to initiate a federal lawsuit challenging the wolverine listing decision. The Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) will send the government a formal notice of their intent to sue and public records request on behalf of the coalition.
 
“The Service is improperly prioritizing political appeasement over science in the wolverine Endangered Species Act listing decision,” said Drew Kerr, carnivore advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “The Endangered Species Act requires listing decisions be made on the basis of best available science alone.”
 
After reviewing wolverine population data, the Service’s scientists and an independent panel unanimously identified climate change impacts on the species’ habitat as the primary threat to its continued existence. To den and rear their young, wolverines rely on deep, high-elevation snow pack long into the spring and summer. Scientists largely agree climate change will increasingly affect snowfall patterns throughout wolverine range over the next 75 years, reducing available habitat by up to 63 percent.
 
Service Director Dan Ashe’s decision to withdraw the proposed listing not only goes against the recommendations of his own agency’s scientists, but also the law, Supreme Court precedent, and Obama administration Executive Order 13563. The ESA mandates species listing decisions be based solely on the best available science. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in making listing decisions, species should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.
 
After rampant politicization of the ESA listing process under the George W. Bush administration, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum and Executive Order directing administrative agencies to reprioritize science-based decision-making. The withdrawal of the proposed wolverine listing flouts these edicts by prioritizing natural resource extraction and industry profits over the wellbeing of a rare native carnivore.
 
“This is another example of the Service and Director Ashe caving to political pressure from the special interests preventing sound wildlife management in the western states,” said Western Environmental Law Center’s Rocky Mountain office director Matthew Bishop. “It is obviously time for the Service to employ the precautionary principle and protect a clearly imperiled species before it’s doomed to extinction.”
 
In February 2013, the Service acknowledged climate change is “threatening the species with extinction.” According to scientists, snowpack in wolverine habitat will decrease; the only uncertainty is precisely how much snow will disappear and exactly where snowfall will decline most. In July, a leaked memo from Service Region Six Director Noreen Walsh to biologists in the agency’s Montana field office relied on that sole area of uncertainty to call for the proposed listing’s withdrawal.
 
“The Service knows the house is on fire, but is deciding to wait until it is absolutely certain which room will burn first before doing anything to put out the blaze,” said Nick Cady, legal director for Cascadia Wildlands. “The degree of certainty the administrators want before protecting wolverines is ridiculous and illegal.”
 
###
 
BACKGROUND
 
Wolverines, hardy and solitary members of the weasel family, traverse huge, high-elevation territories. Tenacious hunters capable of taking much larger prey than their medium stature would suggest, wolverines also scavenge carrion as they cover vast distances through boreal forest and over snowcapped mountain ranges. American wolverines reside mostly in the Northern Rockies and Cascades, where small populations rely on individual dispersers to maintain healthy genetic diversity. Adolescent males disperse farthest, with breeding females holding smaller territories closer to their birthplaces. In recent years, a single male settled in Colorado, and confirmed sightings place wolverines in Oregon, northeast Utah, and southwest Wyoming. It remains unclear whether these intrepid wolverines are establishing new territories and breeding populations, or simply passing through.
 
Matthew Bishop and John Mellgren of the Western Environmental Law Center, and Sarah McMillan of WildEarth Guardians will represent Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Cascadia Wildlands, the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, Footloose Montana, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Wild Swan, George Wuerthner, Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Native Ecosystem Council, Oregon Wild, the Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians.
 
WildEarth Guardians is a nonprofit conservation organization working to protect and restore the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers and health of the American West.
 
The Western Environmental Law Center is a nonprofit, public-interest environmental law firm that uses the power of the law to defend and protect the American West’s treasured landscapes, iconic wildlife, and rural communities.
 
Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ non-profit mission is to secure the ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies bioregion through citizen empowerment, and the application of conservation biology, sustainable economic models and environmental law.
 
Cascadia Wildlands educates, agitates, and inspires a movement to protect and restore Cascadia's wild ecosystems.
 
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center is a non-profit law firm and conservation organization dedicated to protecting the people, forests, water and wildlife in the West.
 
Footloose Montana's mission is to promote trap-free public lands for people, pets and wildlife.
 
Friends of the Bitterroot is a non-profit environmental organization founded in 1988 and dedicated to environmental protection of the northern Rockies based on ecological principles, environmental law, and citizen activism.
 
Friends of the Wild Swan is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to preserving and, where necessary, restoring the water quality, fisheries, scenic values, wildlife and wildlands in the Swan Valley and northwest Montana.
 
Kootenai Environmental Alliance is the oldest non-profit conservation organization in Idaho, and works to conserve, protect and restore the environment, with a particular emphasis on the Idaho Panhandle and the Coeur d’Alene basin.
 
Native Ecosystem Council is a conservation group based in Montana.
 
Oregon Wild works to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife and waters as an enduring legacy for all Oregonians.
 
Swan View Coalition’s work and play are dedicated to conserving community and quiet habitat for fish, wildlife and people.
 
###
 

Aug12

DeFazio, Wyden take wrong tack on timber

By Josh Laughlin in the Register Guard 
August 11, 2014
 
After four straight years as the runner-up, United Van Lines named Oregon as the state with the nation’s highest percentage of inbound moves in 2013. I’d bet a pitcher of Ninkasi the great migration hasn’t been for the clear-cuts that pock our mountainsides and pollute our streams, but rather for the unparalleled quality of life Oregon offers — including its awe-inspiring natural environment.
 
Why, then, are Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Ron Wyden working to push clear-cutting legislation through Congress that threatens to further degrade our public forests and renowned waterways in Western Oregon? They say it is to boost county revenue. But the federal logging-to-fund-local-counties strategy was rightly decoupled nearly 15 years ago because the arrangement was bad for water quality and salmon, bad for terrestrial species teetering on the brink of extinction, and bad for the quality of life in Oregon.
 
And they say it is to increase jobs. Yet shiploads of raw logs (and jobs) being exported to Shanghai and Tokyo from Coos Bay and Astoria are not being taxed to help counties. And Oregon mills are continuing to automate so as to be able to consume more logs with fewer workers. The milling capacity of Oregon sawmills is 25 percent greater today than in 1995.
 
ly 1 million acres of our federal public forestlands just east and west of the Interstate 5 corridor to the point that the nation’s leading scientists at the American Fisheries Society and Society for Conservation Biology have written letters to the senator and expressed serious concern over the bill’s impacts.
 
Wyden’s legislation follows on the heels of DeFazio’s even more egregious logging plan, which would effectively privatize 1.5 million acres of our federal lands in Western Oregon to ensure that clear-cutting proceeds unabated into the future. The two policy makers are trying to marry their reckless schemes in order to move them through Congress.
 
Our public forestlands in Western Oregon can no longer serve as ATMs for struggling counties. It is these rainforests that largely define our state. They give us some of the best and most plentiful drinking water in the world, stabilize our climate by storing more carbon per acre than any other ecosystem on Earth, give us fresh air to breath, provide habitat for imperiled species, offer unparalleled recreation opportunities, and attract cutting-edge employers and skilled employees — all at no cost to us. They are the ecological and economic lifeblood of our region.
 
Rather than recycle failed strategies for county funding, a fresh approach is in order. Lawmakers in Salem ought to raise the timber tax on private industrial timberlands to be in line with California and Washington. It’s time for the Weyerhaeusers of the world to pay their fair share when doing business in Oregon.
 
A few counties in Western Oregon most affected by budgetary woes have the lowest property taxes in the state and some of the lowest in the nation. Yet county leaders clamor for increased sheriff patrols and road repair dollars when federal subsidies are cut. Property tax rates must be modernized in these counties if basic services are desired. The cut-over public forests of Western Oregon shouldn’t have to continue to shoulder the county funding burden.
 
At a time when our region’s salmon and wildlife are facing extinction, climate change is rearing its ugly head through erratic weather events, and public desire for forest and water protection is high, we should be doing all we can to secure the integrity of our watersheds, not stripping their protections. It is these forestlands that make Oregon so special, and I’m ready to double down on that pitcher that they are a great part of the reason we’re trending so high on United Van Lines’ data sheets.
 
Josh Laughlin is the campaign director of Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands
 
 
 

Aug01

State Fish and Wildlife Commission Denies Petition to Require Nonlethal Steps to Manage Washington Wolves

For Immediate Release, August 1, 2014
 
Contacts: 
 
Amaroq Weiss, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 779-9613
Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, (314) 482-3746
Tim Coleman, Kettle Range Conservation Group, (509) 775-2667
Rebecca Wolfe, Washington Chapter of Sierra Club, (425) 750-4091
 
State Fish and Wildlife Commission Denies Petition to Require Nonlethal Steps to Manage Washington Wolves
Eight Petitioning Groups Will Appeal to Governor
 
2019372475
OLYMPIA, Wash.— The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today denied a petition filed by eight conservation groups seeking to limit when wolves can be killed in response to livestock depredations, and to require livestock producers to exhaust nonlethal measures to prevent depredations before lethal action can be taken. The petition was filed to prevent lethal actions such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 2012 decision to kill seven wolves in the Wedge Pack despite the fact that the livestock producer who had lost livestock had taken little action to protect his stock. Petitioners plan to appeal the commission’s decision to the governor.
 
“Washington needs to make legally enforceable commitments to ensure the state’s vulnerable, fledgling wolf population is treated like the endangered species that it is,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The state has made some headway, but without clear rules to prevent the department from pulling the trigger too quickly, Washington’s wolves will be at great risk.”
 
Conservation groups filed a similar petition in the summer of 2013 but withdrew it based on promises from the department to negotiate new rules governing lethal methods of wolf management. A year later, with no negotiations having taken place, the department gave notice to the commission it was going to introduce its own, far-less-protective lethal wolf-control rule, leading the groups to refile their petition.
 
“The conservation community has asked the department to engage an outside, unbiased, professional mediator so that stakeholders can negotiate rules language to address wolf-livestock conflict prevention and produce standards for the department to adhere to before resorting to lethal control of wolves,” said Nick Cady, legal director for Cascadia Wildlands. “Until that mediated negotiation has taken place, we will continue to send a message to the state that Washington residents want their wolves protected.”
 
In 2011 the Commission formally adopted a state wolf plan, which was crafted in a five-year process with input from a 17-member stakeholder group, more than 65,000 written comments from the public, and a peer review by 43 scientists and wolf managers. However, commission and department officials have publicly stated that they view the plan as merely advisory. Its lack of legal enforceability resulted in the department’s mishandling of the Wedge pack in 2012 and in the adoption of rules by the commission in 2013 that allow wolves to be killed under circumstances the wolf plan does not permit.
 
“It’s time to put a stake in the ground and stop the state’s backsliding on the wolf plan,” said Tim Coleman, executive director for The Kettle Range Conservation Group. “We can all see what happens when nonlethal conflict prevention methods are used — they work.” 
 
Washington’s wolves were driven to extinction in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. Since the early 2000s, the animals have started to make a comeback by dispersing into Washington from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia. But wolf recovery is still in its infancy.  According to the department’s annual wolf report, Washington’s wolf population grew by only one wolf, from a population of 51 wolves to 52 wolves from the end of 2012 to the end of 2013. In the past year, three wolves were killed by mountain lions, one wolf was illegally poached, and another was killed by a deer hunter. In the face of these threats, it is essential that more wolves are not lost from the state’s tiny wolf population because of state-sanctioned lethal control actions that ignore the proven, nonlethal methods of conflict prevention.  
 
“Wolf-livestock conflicts are so rare and, what’s more — they are preventable,” said Rebecca Wolfe, Wolf Advisory Group member for the Washington Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Let’s get some rules in place to reflect that reality and also to recognize that lethal control of an endangered species should be an absolutely last resort.”
 
The petition to ensure protections for wolves was filed by groups representing tens of thousands of Washington residents, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Environmental Law Center, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The Lands Council, Wildlands Network, Kettle Range Conservation Group and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club.
 
Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of an official commission document denying the petition to file their appeal with Governor Inslee. Upon receipt of the appeal, the governor’s office has 45 days to respond with a final decision.
 
###
 
 
 

Jul28

Two Talking Wolves, Conservation and Ted Turner—conversations with Todd Wilkinson and Bob Ferris

We–Todd Wilkinson (at right) and Bob Ferris (at left below)–are in the planning stages for a speaking tour tentatively scheduled for a one or two-week period sometime between October 15th and Todd-Wilkinson1-284x300November 15th in 2014 and covering the geography from San Francisco north to Vancouver, British Columbia.  
 
Our reasons for doing this are many but revolve around promoting model approaches to conservation action that come from our respective, multi-decade work as a journalist covering conservation issues and a wildlife biologist working in species restoration, habitat conservation and sustainability.  
 
Our tour is timed to coincide with the release of the paperback version of Last Stand: Ted Turner's Quest to Save a Troubled Planet, and the approaching 20th anniversary of the first wolves being captured and then released into Yellowstone and central Idaho.  This latter event also marks the beginning of our long association and friendship.  
Todds cover350
What we are hoping to do in the next two months is schedule a collection of radio interviews, bookstore events, class discussions, college lectures and speaking engagements where we can talk about the successes and failures of past conservation actions as well as the biodiversity challenges and opportunities that we face in the present and future.  In all instances we are looking for activities where we can tell these important stories and fully engage audiences the discussions. 
 
Bob Talking
We are currently considering stops at the following cities: San Francisco (CA), Sacramento (CA), Ashland (OR), Eugene (OR), Corvallis (OR), Portland (OR), Seattle (WA), Bellingham (WA), and Vancouver (BC).   Suggestions of other locations along this general path or additional events at these stops will be welcomed and considered.   
 
If you have suggestions about venues we should investigate or people we should contact, we would be most appreciative.  We are also flexible in terms of presentation format and audiences.  Carolyn Candela at Cascadia Wildlands will be helping with logistics on this tour, but please feel free to contact any of us about opportunities or interest (bob@cascwild.org), (tawilk@aol.com) or (carolyn@cascwild.org).   
 
Thanks for your help and interest,
 
Todd Wilkinson and Bob Ferris 
 

Jul21

Observations from the BLM’s Buck Rising Timber Sale Field Tour

By Rory Isbell, Cascadia Wildlands Legal Intern
 
Fellow intern Rance and I recently joined Cascadia Wildlands’ Conservation Director Francis Eatherington on a public tour of the Buck Rising timber sale on BLM land east of Myrtle Creek, Oregon.  The tour was organized by the BLM Roseburg District office in order to demonstrate the results of the timber sale and gain feedback from the public.  Officially, the project is called the Buck Rising Variable Retention Regeneration Harvest (VRH), and is one of four demonstration projects currently underway on BLM lands in Western Oregon.  The demonstration projects are mandated by the Secretary of the Interior in order to increase logging on O&C lands.  The Buck Rising project was initially proposed and sold as a thinning project that would cut and harvest 60 year old trees originally planted as a plantation to accelerate the development of
Buck Rising unit 3

Buck Rising unit 3, a clearcut by most definitions.

late-successional habitat necessary to the survival of the Northern Spotted Owl – habitat now drastically underrepresented on public lands in Western Oregon.  In order to appease political pressures for increased logging on O&C lands, however, the Buck Rising thinning project was re-sold as a secretarial demonstration project.  The project’s silvicultural prescription, VRH, was developed by Drs. Johnson and Franklin, professors of forestry at Oregon State University.
 
The BLM-hosted field tour provided a first look at the aftermath of a “variable retention regeneration harvest."  Because Senator Ron Wyden’s O&C Bill utilizes the VRH method, and because all BLM districts in Western Oregon are considering the VRH method in the development of new Resource Management Plans that set the standards and guidelines for timber harvest in Oregon, the Buck Rising project is especially significant.  The tour began by passing through a locked gate on adjacent private industrial forestry land and ascending to an overlook where all three units of the Buck Rising project are visible.
 
Questions immediately arose form the public regarding the Buck Rising project’s compliance with the Northwest Forest Plan and the current BLM Roseburg District Resource Management Plan.  Those concerns came to a head upon crossing the boundary into unit three of the Buck Rising VRH.
 
While some clumps of trees were retained, most retention occurred in buffers along riparian areas.  In non-riparian areas, only 10% of trees were retained.  The BLM stresses the ecological benefits of early-successional habitat development, including flowers, nectars, fruits, and forage herbs for wildlife, and refuses to call the harvest a clearcut.  Many concerned members of the public, however, noted the lack of snags and remnant dead wood necessary to healthy and natural early-successional habitat development.  Cascadia Wildlands’ own Francis Eatherington continually noted how one of three BLM project objectives includes creating forage foliage for elk and deer, yet within a mile away on private
Buck rising slide

One of the tour stops was at a landslide in one of the Buck Rising logging units.

industrial timber land, timber companies recently petitioned ODFW for a public deer hunt in order to curb the abnormally high deer populations feeding on the omnipresent early-successional conditions on their post-clearcut plantations.
 
After lunch and a short drive to Buck Rising Unit 2, we saw the remnant debris of the slope failure event that occurred in February following timber harvest and heavy rains (http://www.cascwild.org/wyden-style-clearcut-causes-mudslide-on-oc-lands/).
 
By the end of a tour full of adversarial discussion, consensus was decisively lacking.  Understanding, however, was plentiful.  The concerned public understands the tough position that the Roseburg District BLM finds itself.  While the Northwest Forest Plan calls for the restoration of the range of the Northern Spotted Owl by limiting timber harvest on federal lands, the O&C Act along with political pressures from Senator Wyden and the Department of the Interior call for increased timber harvest as a short term economic benefit.  The BLM also understands that the concerned public wants tall, biodiverse forests on our public lands, and streams clear of sediment and full of salmon, and that we are dedicated to holding our public lands agencies accountable to those goals.
 
 

Jul11

Press Release: Bull Trout Harmed by Years of Agency Inaction, Legal Action Initiated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Nick Cady, Cascadia Wildlands, 314-482-3746
John Meyer, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, 406-587-5800
Travis Bruner, Western Watersheds Project, 208-788-2290
Sarah Peters, WildEarth Guardians, 541-345-0299
 
Bozeman, MT – Nearly four years after critical habitat protection was granted to bull trout, federal land management agencies have still not determined whether existing land management plans are compatible with protecting the fish. Today, conservation groups Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, and Cascadia Wildlands sent a notice of intent to sue to both the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service over failures to properly evaluate the consequences of actions taken within bull trout critical habitat.
 
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) formerly ranged throughout the Columbia River and Snake River basins, extending east to headwater streams
bull_trout (US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Bull trout require cold, clear water for survival. (Photo by USFWS)

in Montana and Idaho, into Canada, and in the Klamath River basin of south-central Oregon. Unfortunately, human activities have driven the trout close to extinction. Activities adjacent to streams, such as logging, grazing, road construction, and off-road vehicle use, increase water temperature and add sediment to bull trout habitat. Of all fish species found in western rivers and streams, bull trout need the coldest and cleanest water, making them particularly vulnerable to water quality impacts.
 
“It isn’t just the logging, grazing, road construction and ORV use that threatens these fish,” said John Meyer, Executive Director of Cottonwood Environmental Law Center and attorney on the case. “Those threats are compounded by increasing water temperatures due to climate change. The agencies really must address impacts in critical habitat if bull trout are going to survive.
 
Bull trout were protected as a threatened species in 1999 and critical habitat was designated in 2010. Designated critical habitat for the bull trout includes 19,729 miles of stream and 488,251.7 acres of reservoirs and lakes in the States of Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. With this designation, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management were required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultation requires the agency to take a step back from on-going and proposed management actions to make sure bull trout are recovering in these specially protected areas.
 
 “Unfortunately, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have continued with business as usual,” said Travis Bruner, Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project “We hope that this notice causes them to change course and start protecting bull trout.”
 
“Bull trout are the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for water quality and water quantity in western states,” said Sarah Peters of WildEarth Guardians. “Protecting them protects a whole suite of aquatic species as well as the watersheds on which human communities increasingly depend.”
 
 "The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management need a 'time out' until they talk to fish  experts about the impacts of their landscape management projects on the imperiled bull trout," says Nick Cady, Legal Director with Cascadia Wildlands. "Otherwise, this iconic fish will continue its perilous journey towards extinction."
                                                         ####

Jun09

Press Release: Petition Filed to Require Nonlethal Steps to Control Washington Wolves

For Immediate Release, June 9, 2014
 
Contacts:
Amaroq Weiss, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 779-9613
Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands, (541) 844-8182
Mike Petersen, The Lands Council, (509) 209-2406
John Mellgren, Western Environmental Law Center, (541) 525-5087
 
OLYMPIA, Wash.— Eight conservation groups filed a petition late Friday requesting that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife enact rules that sharply limit the use of lethal control of wolves to respond to livestock depredations. Most prominently the petition asks the state to require livestock producers to exhaust nonlethal measures to prevent depredations before any lethal action can be taken. In 2012 the Department killed seven wolves in the Wedge Pack despite the fact that the livestock producer who had lost livestock had taken little action to protect his stock.2019372475
 
“The killing of the Wedge Pack in 2012 was a tragic waste of life that highlights the need for clear rules to limit the killing of wolves, which remain an endangered species in the state,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer with the Center for Biological Diversity. “There are effective nonlethal measures proven to protect livestock that can, and should, be used before killing wolves is ever considered.”
 
The groups filed a similar petition last summer. They withdrew it based on a promise from the Department to negotiate rules — in an advisory committee established to help implement Washington’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan — that would encourage the use of nonlethal measures by ranchers as well as produce standards for the Department to adhere to before itself resorting to lethal control of wolves. But livestock producer and sports-hunting groups on the committee refused to consider the petitioners’ proposals, and the Department has indicated it plans to move forward and introduce its own far-less-protective lethal wolf-control rule.
 
The groups also argue that rules are needed to ensure adherence to Washington’s wolf plan, which was crafted with input from a 17-member stakeholder group, more than 65,000 written comments from the public, and a peer review by 43 scientists and wolf managers. Despite the plan’s formal adoption by the Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2011 as official state policy, Department officials and the Commission have publicly stated they view the plan as merely advisory and key provisions of the plan were ignored when the Wedge Pack was killed. The Commission also adopted a rule last summer that allows wolves to be killed under circumstances the wolf plan does not permit, and the Department has proposed additional changes and definitions of terms to allow even more wolf killing.
 
“The return of wolves is a boon for Washington,” said Mike Petersen, executive director for The Lands Council. “Not only is it good for the forest and mountains of Washington that need the balance provided by top predators, but a fledgling tourist industry is developing around the viewing of this majestic creature.”
 
Wolves were driven to extinction in Washington in the early 1900s by a government-sponsored eradication program on behalf of the livestock industry. They began to return from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia in the early 2000s, and their population has grown to 52 wolves today. Yet Washington’s wolves are far from recovered and face ongoing threats. Last fall a wolf in Pasayten was killed by a deer hunter, and in April of this year, a reward was offered by state officials and conservation groups for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for the illegal shooting of a wolf found dead in February in Stevens County. 
 
The petition to increase protections for wolves was filed by groups representing tens of thousands of Washington residents, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Environmental Law Center, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The Lands Council, Wildlands Network, Kettle Range Conservation Group and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club.
 
Today’s filing of the petition with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission starts the clock ticking on a 60-day statutory period within which the state must respond. If the petition is denied, groups intend to appeal for a final decision by Governor Inslee.
 
                                                              ####
 

Jun09

Cascadia Wildlands and Colleagues File Petition for Rulemaking Over Lethal Control on Wolves in Washington

On June 9, 2014, Cascadia Wildlands and allies filed a petition for rulemaking urging the Washington Department of Fish and Wildife Commission to adopt a rule that outlines the non-lethal steps that must be taken prior to lethal control being used on wolves.

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS