In The Media

May25

Settlement Reached In Conservation Groups’ Wolf Suit

Wallowa County Chieftain 
May 25, 2013
 
Conservation groups, Governor John Kitzhaber, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the livestock industry have reportedly reached a compromise settlement agreement that resolves conservationists' October 2011 lawsuit against ODFW's lethal control of depredating wolves.
 
One of the conservation groups, Oregon Wild, announced the agreement in a May 24 press release.
 
"Oregonians treasure our state's wildlife and want to see it protected," said Dan Kruse, an attorney for Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands. "This settlement will put in place, for the first time, clear standards and public accountability for what must happen before ODFW or livestock interests can kill an endangered wolf, and measures that should reduce conflict between wolves and livestock.”
 
On Oct. 5, 2011, a coalition of conservation organizations filed a legal challenge against the state's killing program that targeted endangered gray wolves. The groups believed the state's actions violated both the state's Wolf Plan and Endangered Species Act. That same day an appellate commissioner with the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an injunction suspending the state's ability to kill wolves on behalf of the livestock industry.
 
According to Oregon Wild, the settlement agreement resolves this legal conflict by establishing a new management framework which more clearly outlines steps that must be taken before the state can again consider killing endangered wolves. The agreement emphasizes the employment of responsible livestock husbandry practices and requires thorough use of proactive, non-lethal techniques to preempt conflict between wolves and livestock.
 
"We went to court because ODFW was breaking its own rules and state endangered species laws," said Rob Klavins, Oregon Wild's Wildlife Advocate. "This settlement is far from perfect, but it requires more transparency from the state and responsibility from the livestock industry. Now it's up to the agency to honor the terms of the agreement and ensure wildlife management lives up to Oregon's proud conservation values."
 
The Oregon Cattlemen's Association also issued a release about the agreement.
 
“The Oregon Cattlemen's Association (OCA) has been involved in settlement talks beginning in 2012 in efforts to resolve the lawsuit and the injunction filed on October 5, 2011 which enjoined the lethal take of wolves involved with chronic depredation of livestock in Oregon,” the statement read, and went on to note that the industry “has invested over $250,000 and countless volunteer hours in wolf related research, education and this litigation since the migration of wolves to Oregon. OCA engaged in this case to ensure fair representation of the ranching community in Oregon's wolf management policy. OCA is content with the settlement that was finally reached on Thursday, May 23rd.”
 
OCA's statement continued: “In the last month; while the OCA, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Department of Justice, Governor's office and petitioners worked through concerns towards finalizing a settlement agreement, the cattle ranchers in Wallowa County have suffered several more depredations, injuries of livestock and missing livestock. OCA Wolf Committee Chair, Rod Childers, said: 'The unsung heroes of this entire process have been the ranchers whom have patiently waited for a resolution to this ongoing wolf depredation problem, and have 
applied non- lethal measures that were applicable to their operations as directed by ODFW. As a rancher, I am relieved to see we now have all the tools in the box necessary for effective implementation of Oregon's Wolf Conservation Plan.'”
 
In a phone interview Friday night with the Wallowa County Chieftain, Childers explained that the industry had agreed to an increase in the number of depredations a pack must commit before ODFW is allowed to take lethal measures. Where the current rule specifies a minimum of two depredations, the new rule takes that level to four. The rule is expected to be adopted when the state's fish and wildlife commission meets July 3.
 
Under the raised threshold, members of the Imnaha Pack could be subject to lethal measures after the pack's next depredation incident, assuming that incident occurs within the next few months.
 
Childers said the deal also calls for passing a permit-less take measure (House Bill 3452) that includes language allowing ranchers to shoot wolves that have been chasing livestock, a more workable threshold for ranchers than an earlier-introduced Senate bill's requirement that ranchers catch wolves in the act of attacking.
 
“The agreement is through Phase One of the (Oregon) Wolf Plan,” Childers said. “It doesn't go through perpetuity.”
 
He said wolf population growth in Oregon is currently on track to reach the target for ending Phase One – four breeding pairs for three consecutive years – on Jan. 1, 2015.

Link to Article 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, In The Media, News, Oregon Wolves

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

May25

Deal reached on managing Oregon wolves

 

By Jeff Barnard 

The Associated Press
May 24, 2013
 
GRANTS PASS — Conservation groups and cattle ranchers have agreed to a landmark settlement in a lawsuit that, for the past year and a half, has kept the state of Oregon from killing wolves that prey on livestock.
 
The agreement announced Friday by the governor’s office creates a new rule book for wolf management in Oregon that makes killing the ones that prey on cattle and sheep a last resort after nonlethal protections have been tried and livestock attacks have become chronic. It also gives ranchers greater authority to kill wolves that attack or chase their herds as long as certain conditions are met.
 
Brett Brownscombe, the governor’s natural-resources adviser, said the agreement will help bring peace to a longstanding and bitter conflict.
 
“Before, there had always been a lot of rhetoric about, ‘We can’t tolerate wolves here, and all this nonlethal stuff won’t work,’ ” Brownscombe said. “Now the reality is wolves are here, and we have to be able to protect our property through reasonable means. Nonlethal techniques are going to be part of the expected approach forward. People are going to have assurances that if there are problems, they will have some recourse and things won’t be stuck in the courts.”
 
Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the state in October 2011 after the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a kill order for two wolves in the Imnaha Pack, the first pack to form in Oregon from wolves crossing the Snake River from Idaho, and the one blamed for more livestock kills than any other. The lawsuit claimed the kill order violated the state Endangered Species Act and would doom the pack.
 
Saying conservation groups were likely to win, the Oregon Court of Appeals barred the state from killing wolves until the lawsuit was resolved, making Oregon the only state with wolves where authorities could not kill those that preyed on livestock.
 
During the course of that court order, the numbers of wolves went up in Oregon, while the number of livestock killed went down. In neighboring Idaho, hunting brought down the numbers of wolves, but livestock attacks went up.
 
The Center for Biological Diversity dropped out of the settlement because it allowed wolves to be killed.
 
“This is going to become the most progressive management plan in the country for avoiding these conflicts before they happen,” said Steve Pedery, conservation director for Oregon Wild.
 
“If everybody stays true to the agreement, I think you will see lethal control very rarely,” said Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild.
 
Wallowa County cattle rancher Rod Childers, a longtime hard-liner on wolves and chairman of the wolf committee for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said the agreement formalizes standards that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife had already been following.
 
He added that the numbers of wolf attacks had been rising in May, and cattlemen agreed to the settlement to bring back the ability of state biologists to manage wolves. Ranchers also get new authority to shoot wolves that chase their herds.
 
“This does not bring resolution to everybody,” he said.
 
The settlement was filed with the court Thursday night, Brownscombe said. The original kill order on the Imnaha Pack has been lifted, but if the pack is blamed for one more livestock attack, members of the pack will be eligible for a kill order under the new rules.
 
The new rules update a wolf-management plan adopted in 2005. Under the new rules, a pack would have to be linked by hard evidence to four separate attacks on livestock over six months before becoming eligible for lethal control.
 
For an attack to count, ranchers must have used basic nonlethal protections, such as alarm boxes and low strings of plastic flags known as fladdery. The state must conduct an open and thorough investigation.
 
Ranchers would get statutory authority to kill wolves attacking their livestock. They could shoot wolves seen chasing livestock if they have taken nonlethal steps to protect herds and they are the victims of chronic attacks.
 
The department has adopted a temporary rule putting the new lethal-control standards into effect, but they must still be adopted permanently by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, Brownscombe said.
 
The Legislature still has to enact a law to put the authority to kill wolves attacking and chasing herds into effect.
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Oregon Wolves, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

May20

Decision on wolf protections in Lower 48 delayed

 

by The Associated Press

May 20, 2013
 
BILLINGS — Federal wildlife officials are postponing a much-anticipated decision on whether to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states.
 
In a court filing Monday, government attorneys say “a recent unexpected delay” is indefinitely holding up action on the predators. No further explanation was offered.
 
Gray wolves are under protection as an endangered species and have recovered dramatically from widespread extermination in recent decades.
 
More than 6,000 of the animals now roam the continental U.S. Most live in the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes, where protections already have been lifted.
 
A draft proposal to lift protections elsewhere drew strong objections when it was revealed last month.
 
Wildlife advocates and some members of Congress argue that the wolf’s recovery is incomplete because the animal occupies just a fraction of its historical range.
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Oregon Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

2 Comments

Keep Reading →

May16

Predatory Nonprofit?

 

Fight over cougars and finances

By Camilla Mortensen
May 16, 2013 
 
It all seemed so easy to businessman Steven Chapman — an avid hunter, he wanted to influence the Oregon Legislature on its hunting bills. The deer and elk herds in Oregon are too small, Chapman said, and wanted to do something about it. It takes millions of dollars in California to influence legislation, according to Chapman, but only thousands in Oregon. 
 
In only a few years, the lobbying group he helped form, Oregon Outdoor Council (OOC), shot from obscurity to a legislative force, but now Chapman finds himself pitted against fellow hunters as he alleges misspent money and ethical wrongdoings by the lobbying-oriented OOC and its non-lobbying partner, the Oregon Outdoor Council Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Chapman says he wants to expose OOC and OOCF because he feels that he created a “haphazard” group that isn’t targeting the real source of problems for the animals he hunts.
 
Together with Pendleton-based media-group owner Jerod Broadfoot, Wayne Endicott of Springfield’s Bow Rack and others, Chapman formed OOC with goals that included repealing Oregon’s Measure 18, which keeps hunters from chasing cougars with dogs. OOC was also behind a push on Oregon House Bill 3437, which required that gubernatorial nominees to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission have held some form of fishing or hunting licenses for 10 consecutive years. This would leave nonhunters out of wildlife decisions. 
 
Chapman, OOC and the long-established Oregon Hunters Association (OHA) all share similar goals — to improve the herds for hunters in Oregon — but Chapman says he is no longer 100 percent certain that targeting predators and pushing bills allowing hound hunting or bear baiting are the answer. The problem lies with lands lost to grazing and roads built for logging, he says, not cougars and wolves. That’s not a popular stance to take among conservative hunting organizations that have long blamed and targeted predators.
 
But Chapman’s stance on what could be reducing deer and elk herds isn’t what has him at odds with the nonprofits that he was once part of. Chapman alleges that the OOC and the OOCF unethically misspent funds, misrepresented information and are not acting “in the best interests of hunting, angling or wildlife,” and he lays out a litany of problems. 
 
Chapman says that OOC got $25,000 from the Oregon Hunters Association to conduct a poll in support of legislative initiatives and a potential constitutional amendment, and that part of the reason OOC got the money was because Broadfoot told the group and the OHA that $500,000 in donations would be coming in from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Safari Club International. That money never materialized. Chapman further alleges that Broadfoot misrepresented the results of the poll. Chapman says this damages OOC’s credibility.
 
Chapman, who was the OOC’s secretary-treasurer, also worries that the foundation, OOCF, jeopardized its nonprofit status when out of its $33,000 budget in 2012, it spent $16,000 on a poll relating to a prospective ballot initiative and legislative actions. The IRS limits small nonprofits to spending less than 20 percent of their budget on lobbying. 
 
Chapman also alleges that Broadfoot diverted nonprofit funds for personal use for himself and his wife on a trip to Las Vegas where they stayed in a luxury hotel, pointing to posts on the Broadfoot Media Group website. He had an accountant review the books, and the CPA wrote that “it appears that proper expense authorization and follow up procedures are not being followed carefully, if at all” and called some of the expenditures “highly questionable.”
 
When asked for comment, Broadfoot referred EW to OOC’s attorney Ross Day. Day is also Chapman’s personal attorney, and when asked if that was a problem due to a conflict of interest, Day said,  “Not that I’m aware of.” 
 
Chapman has contacted the Department of Justice over the money issue and says that in turn, OOC board members have sent a state police officer to Chapman’s doorstep.
 
Day says the OOC board has concluded that Chapman’s allegations are unfounded and that “We have a disagreement here, whether or not money was spent, I don’t want to say wisely, but as efficiently as possible. It doesn’t mean anything untoward has occurred.”
 
But in a July 2012 email to the OOC board, Day wrote “when OOC pays for a trip to attend a conference, speaking engagement, whatever, the person can only be there on OOC business, not promoting any other organization/business/cause or otherwise. When money from a c(4) is spent, it can only be spent on purposes related to the c(4). If someone goes to a conference, for instance, on OOC’s dime, and then promotes another organization (say, Oregonians In Action), there could be problems down the road with the IRS (which I, as OOC’s lawyer, am responsible for avoiding).” 
 
Later in August, Day wrote, “It is my job to advise OOC on how to avoid enforcement actions by agencies like the IRS and the Oregon DOJ. The easiest and surest way to avoid enforcement actions is by making sure your books are clean to begin with; that way you do not have to agree to ‘follow the law’ if and when the government comes knocking at your door.”
 
The July email from Day also detailed a report from former Republican state senator-turned NRA lobbyist Roger Beyer, who had been asked to join the OOC board but declined. Beyer discussed a “breakdown” in the relationship between OOC and OHA, citing among other things the claims of funding that didn’t materialize and that the OHA was given only abstract data from the poll and not the actual poll results. Broadfoot had sent an email to the OOC board saying, “Do not share. We need to discuss this tonight. Numbers are not good overall but it does provide us with good information to move forward with.”
 
Day says, “Taken out of context I know what that email looks like,” but says OOC was under no obligation to release the results of the poll. Duane Dungannon of the OHA says that there were “differences of opinions about the results that were obtained” but that OHA thought it made sense that the poll results would be held close and not sent out to wind up in the hands of opponents or on websites.
 
But in the end, whether OOC survives and whether it works with OHA on future hunting legislation or not, Chapman says he feels culpable for having created an organization that by targeting predators and not the true culprits — grazing and road building — is doing a disservice to the hunting community. 
 

Posted by bob in In The Media, News

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

May02

County Votes Against Anti-mining Effort

Eugene Weekly by Camilla Mortensen
May 2, 2013
 
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife killed sea lion number CO22 (or as activist group Sea Shepherd dubbed him, Brian) April 16, for eating too many salmon, but conservationists say that it’s suction dredge mining, sucking up riverbeds in giant vacuums, that poses a bigger threat to Oregon’s rivers and their fish.

There are currently two bills in the Oregon Legislature that could protect Oregon’s rivers from suction dredging and the Lane County commission’s conservative majority recently voted not to support one of them, Senate Bill 401. The other one, SB 838, did not come up for county vote.

SB 401 started off as a bill to put a Scenic Waterway designation on more of Oregon’s rivers and tributaries. Portions of the McKenzie River are already protected as an Oregon Scenic Waterway, but SB 401 would protect the water of the lower McKenzie and its summer steelhead, endangered spring Chinook salmon, endangered bull trout, rainbow trout and cutthroat trout.

Scenic waterways protection means that the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department must be notified of activities proposed within a quarter mile of the bank, such as cutting trees, mining and constructing roads, railroads, utilities, buildings or other structures. The conservative majority of the County Commission bristled at this during their April 23 meeting. They also appeared to not be up-to-date on the current version of SB 401, which according to Josh Laughlin of Cascadia Wildlands, as it has been amended would only require the state of Oregon to review a list of 30 stretches of waterways named in the bill and make a recommendation in two years whether they should be included as scenic waterways.

Commissioner Jay Bozievich said at the meeting he thought that if the parks department “can’t seem to maintain their current parks,” citing issues with Glass Bar Island, then adding more rivers to the list would be problematic. Farr agreed, but specified he was not opposed to protecting drinking water. Commissioner Faye Stewart said he had been contacted by people up the McKenzie concerned about how the river protection might affect “what they can and cannot do on their property.” Pete Sorenson was the only commissioner to vote that the county should endorse SB 401 and look to protecting the river. “Voting against the bills means they are voting against clean water and wild salmon recovery. That is not a popular position this day and age,” Laughlin says.

Stewart also brought up a moratorium on suction dredge mining, but that moratorium is actually part of SB 838, which the county did not vote on. Laughlin says 838 would put a five-year moratorium on suction dredging in state-designated essential salmon habitat until a modernized suction dredge system was implemented.

Laughlin says not only is suction dredging bad for salmon, it can affect human health when mercury becomes converted into methyl mercury, a form that’s toxic to humans and moves easily through the food chain. He says he finds it “incredible that Oregon takes great efforts to protect and restore salmon, like shutting down the commercial fishery periodically or shooting sea lions at Bonneville Dam, but we allow gas-powered vacuums to suck up river bottoms in critical salmon streams.”

Posted by Josh in Campaign News Updates, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, News, Protecting Forests and Wild Places, Save Our Wild Salmon Heritage, Suction Dredging and High Banking for Gold, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Apr29

Southern Oregon miners file injunction to stop legislation on motorized mining moratorium

By Yuxing Zheng, The Oregonian 
April 26, 2013
 
SALEM — A southern Oregon mining group is seeking an injunction in federal court to stop bills under consideration in the Legislature that would place a moratorium on motorized mining.
 
Galice Mining District and four representatives filed the request in U.S. District Court in Eugene on Tuesday. It names Gov. John Kitzhaber; Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem; Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland; and Sen. Alan Bates, D-Medford.
 
The group argues that the federal General Mining Law of 1872 protects the rights of miners to extract minerals. They seek to stop four Senate bills, two of which are still alive in this session.
 
Senate Bill 838 would place a moratorium on motorized mining, including suction-dredge mining, until January 2018. Senate Bill 401 would require the State Department of Parks and Recreation to study adding additional rivers and streams to the list of scenic waterways.
 
 "It is the position of Galice Mining District that these bills are not only unlawful and unconstitutional, but also constitute possible criminal activity," the complaint said.
 
Dozens of environmentalists and miners testified for four hours during an April 15 public hearing on the two bills.
Jeff Manning, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of Justice, questioned the case's legal merits.
 
"We can safely say we are unaware of any mechanism that would allow a party to challenge a not-yet law," Manning said. "It wouldn't be ripe for adjudication."
 
Legislative immunity also provides that lawmakers "can't be sued for what they do in their capacity as a legislator," Manning said.
 
Bates, a leading supporter of both bills, said he was notified of the filing Thursday afternoon and had not had a chance to review it in detail.
"I have a hunch it's not going to be upheld," Bates said. "My bottom line is that I want to see those streams and rivers protected. If there's some middle ground, that's fine, but right now, I haven't seen that middle ground yet."
 
Kitzhaber's spokesman called the injunction request "unusual" and declined further comment.
 
The Galice Mining District was established in 1853 and serves the miners of Douglas, Josephine and Jackson counties, according to its website. A spokeswoman for the district declined to answer questions when reached by phone and e-mail Friday.
 
 
Background Links Related to Article Comments
 
FONSI not Fonzie (explanation on suction dredging impacts)
 
 
 
 
Actions to Take
 

Posted by bob in In The Media, News, Save Our Wild Salmon Heritage, Suction Dredging and High Banking for Gold, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Apr25

U.S. plans to drop gray wolves from endangered list

 

U.S. plans to drop gray wolves from endangered list
The planned ruling would eliminate protection for the top predators, but scientists and conservationists say the proposal is flawed.
 
By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

April 25, 2013, 6:20 p.m.
 
Federal authorities intend to remove endangered species protections for all gray wolves in the Lower 48 states, carving out an a exception for a small pocket of about 75 Mexican wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, according to a draft document obtained by The Times.
 
The sweeping rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would eliminate protection for wolves 18 years after the government reestablished the predators in the West, where they had been hunted to extinction. Their reintroduction was a success, with the population growing to the thousands.
 
But their presence has always drawn protests across the Intermountain West from state officials, hunters and ranchers who lost livestock to the wolves. They have lobbied to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list.
 
Once those protections end, the fate of wolves is left to individual states. The species is only beginning to recover in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. California is considering imposing its own protections after the discovery of a lone male that wandered into the state's northern counties from Oregon two years ago.
 
The species has flourished elsewhere, however, and the government ended endangered status for the gray wolf in the northern Rockies and Great Lakes regions last year.
 
Mike Jimenez, who manages wolves in the northern Rockies for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said delisting in that region underscored a "huge success story." He said that while wolves are now legally hunted in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the federal agency continues to monitor pack populations and can reinstate protections should numbers reach levels that biologists consider to be dangerously low.
 
Scientists and conservationists who reviewed the plan said its reasoning is flawed. They challenged how the agency reconfigures the classification of wolf subspecies and its assertion that little habitat remains for wolves.
 
Jamie Rappaport Clark, the former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and now the president of Defenders of Wildlife, said the decision "reeks of politics" and vowed that it will face multiple legal challenges.
 
"This is politics versus professional wildlife management," Clark said. "The service is saying, 'We're done. Game over. Whatever happens to wolves in the U.S. is a state thing.' They are declaring victory long before science would tell them to do so."
 
The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to release its decision to delist the wolves in coming weeks and it could become final within a year. Brent Lawrence, a Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman, said Thursday that the agency would not comment.
 
The proposed rule is technically a draft until it is entered into the Federal Register.
 
Some scientists agreed with the decision to delist the wolves. But several took exception to some of the findings that the agency included in the document, including the scientifically disputed issue of defining wolf subspecies.
 
"It's a little depressing that science can be used and pitched in this way," said Bob Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at UCLA.
 
Wolves were once common and ranged across much of the continental United States, a vestigial symbol of the Old West and its expanse of open, wild country.
 
But as the West became urbanized and ranching spread, government-subsidized hunting that offered bounties for wolf kills virtually wiped out the animals by the 1930s.
 
 

Posted by bob in Bring Back Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Restoring Wolves and Other Species

2 Comments

Keep Reading →

Apr24

Opinion: Unlabeled GE salmon

 

by Gabe Scott, Cascadia Wildlands – for the Cordova Times

April 23, 2013
 
Well here is something useful. Alaskans are united in defending our wild salmon heritage against Frankenfish. From Don Young to Mark Begich, Cascadia Wildlands and Greenpeace, we are leading the fight on one of the most consequential environmental issues of our time. It's not often we're this united around such a contentious issue. I think it's creeping the bad guys out. Some accuse us of selfishly looking to protect our own bottom line. But Alaskans are united against GE salmon for good reasons.
 
Quick background. The biotech firm AquaBounty spliced a Pacific King salmon gene into an Atlantic salmon to make it grow faster. The F.D.A. is on the cusp of giving approval to commercially farm the things. This is a huge international deal — the first genetically modified animal approved for human consumption, by anyone, anywhere, ever. What happens here will set the pattern globally. This is the crossroads.
 
The big fear is that that escaped GE fish could threaten wild salmon runs. The FDA works on the assumption that there is no way GE Fish would escape contained pens along rivers on land. I'm reminded of earlier assumptions that farmed salmon wouldn't escape ocean net pens, and that GE crops wouldn't contaminate neighboring fields. If GE Fish do escape — and they inevitably would — these freakishly fast-growing salmon could interbreed with or out-compete wild salmon runs.
 
Rather than study the issues scientifically and make decisions democratically, the FDA is pushing a secretive, reckless approach. The Environmental Analysis is shamelessly shoddy. They brush aside deep scientific uncertainty, choosing instead to simply trust AquaBounty Inc.. They don't even pretend to confront social and economic impacts. Your average highway widening project undergoes more careful study.
 
Rather than operate above the table, the biotech company wants to manufacture eggs in Canada and grow their fish at a secret facility in Panama, then sell their product labeled only as "Atlantic Salmon" to unwary consumers in the United States. In other words, they don't want to follow our laws or employ our citizens. They just want to take our money.
 
Consumers loudly object to the lack of labeling. Surveys show most people don't want GE Fish on their plates, and even more think they should be labeled in the store. Over 2,500 grocery stores across the country, including major chains like Whole Earth and Trader Joe's, have pledged not to sell GE Fish.
 
Commercial fishermen and coastal residents express an array of concerns. Providing wholesome seafood from sustainable stocks is a responsibility fishermen take seriously. Alaska Trollers Association's Dale Kelley told me, "[t]he FDA has a long way to go before it can truthfully say that the risks of genetically engineered salmon have been fully evaluated and that this is a safe choice for consumers or the environment."
 
And what of the market effects? Copper River salmon command a premium price because they are high-quality, wild, and sustainable. That's good for us, consumers, and the planet. Unlabeled GE salmon in the market could undermine Copper River's good name and Alaska's hard-won wild fish economy.
 
Politicians spanning the political spectrum are standing up for their constituents in wild salmon territory. Our delegation of Begich, Murkowski and Young have lead the fight, introducing several pieces of legislation to stop, or at least improve, commercial GE salmon production.
 
Alaska's state legislature, in an incredible display of bipartisanship, unanimously passed a resolution opposing GE Fish. On April 18, Alaska state rep. Geran Tarr is visiting the AquaBounty facility in Canada, and meeting with local opponents as well. Turns out folks there also are proud of their local salmon. Working together, we can stop this thing.
 
We Alaskans are proud of our wild salmon, and should be proud to stand up for them on the international stage! We learned from past mistakes and have (more-or-less) successfully stewarded one of nature's greatest bounties. This is our heritage. Never apologize for defending it. If we don't, nobody else will.
 
 
Gabe Scott is Alaska field director for Cascadia Wildlands, and has a private maritime law practice in Cordova.
 

Posted by bob in Halting the "Frankenfish" Experiment, Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, Save Our Wild Salmon Heritage, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Apr19

Lawmakers mull gold dredging moratorium

 

 
By Jeff Barnard The Associated Press

April 19, 2013
 
A bill to put a five-year moratorium on using suction dredges to mine for gold in key salmon streams is moving through the Oregon Legislature.
 
By a 3-2 vote Wednesday night, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee referred Senate Bill 838 to the Joint Ways and Means Committee for further consideration.
 
Co-sponsor Sen. Alan Bates, a Medford Democrat, said new federal permit requirements in Idaho and a state moratorium in California are pushing thousands of small-scale gold miners to Oregon, primarily the southwestern corner of the state that was home to the 1850s Gold Rush.
 
He said the moratorium will give time to study how the motorized dredges affect water quality and salmon.
 
“I still think there is a middle ground, that will allow a place for miners to go if they are careful, and follow the right regulations,” Bates said. “Neither side is willing to come together and talk to each other. People sitting before the committee were raising their voices. The miners feel strongly. I understand that.”
 
Bates said he was not sure the bill had the votes to clear the Senate, but he was particularly moved by a report from scientists with the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society who pointed out threats to salmon from the dredges.
 
In written testimony submitted to the committee, miners said fish and water quality already are protected by existing regulations, a moratorium would kill an industry worth millions of dollars and put a financial hardship on miners who depend on gold to feed and clothe their families. They said the state had no authority to restrict work on mining claims on federal land.
 

Posted by bob in In The Media, News, Success Stories, Suction Dredging and High Banking for Gold, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Apr09

Excerpt from:Sucking Up Riverbeds–Is suction dredging ruining your favorite trout stream?

 

Excerpt from: 

 
Sucking Up Riverbeds–Is suction dredging ruining your favorite trout stream?
By Ted Williams Fly Rod and Reel Magazine Spring 2013
 
“Part of the [suction dredgers’] pitch seems to be that mucking up rivers flowing through public lands is an honest-to-goodness, Don’t-Tread-On-Me, all-American right,” submits Cascadia Wildlands director Bob Ferris. “Poppycock . . . . Suction dredging is not a ‘right’ nor is mucking up the water for the rest of us—particularly in streams and rivers that run though public lands or hold imperiled species such as coho and Chinook salmon or bull trout.”
 
Feeding the flow of what Ferris calls “poppycock” are retired EPA scientists Joe Greene and Claudia Wise, both officers in the mining support group Millennium Diggers and both self-proclaimed experts on the effects of suction dredging. According to Ferris, they don’t initially disclose their passion for dredging or their mining affiliations. He chides the more loquacious Greene for quoting “laughable” conclusions from a nearly 75-year-old water-chemistry study and making public statements that are “deceptive, unprofessional in nature, and politically and personally motivated.”
 
Nothing I have read by Greene and Wise has led me to disagree with Ferris’s assessment of their credibility. Still, they were the spokespeople the dredgers turned to after the Karuk tribe filed a 2005 complaint in Superior Court of Alameda County against the California Department of Fish and Game, for allowing suction dredgers to damage the habitat of listed fish in the Klamath, Scott and Salmon rivers and specified tributaries.
 

Posted by bob in Home Page Hot Topic, In The Media, News, Save Our Wild Salmon Heritage, Suction Dredging and High Banking for Gold

5 Comments

Keep Reading →

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS