Posts Tagged ‘Oregon’

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 →

Mar07

Don Peay: the Man Who Would Be King… Baron

by Bob Ferris
 
Rudyard Kipling wrote a tale once about two pals in the British army serving in India who figured they could travel north to Kafiristan in present-day Afghanistan and essentially create their own mini-kingdom.  The tale was fanciful and was eventually turned into a popular 1975 movie starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine called “The Man who would be King” named after Kipling’s novella.
 
But the absurd nature of this fictional exercise of kingdom creation has not stopped Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Utah Chapter of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, and Full Curl Society as well as co-founder of Big Game Forever LLC from seeing this as a model for taking the first steps towards bringing that oh-so-modern concept of feudalism to the United States.  And—wait for it—having the taxpayers make significant contributions to the diminishment of their rights and privileges.  Want details?
 
Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Peay believes that our current constitutional construct established under the 10th Amendment where the individual states have control and ownership of wildlife and hold it in the Public Trust is Socialism.  Ouch—strong words for a system that was established so that everyone, not just royalty and gentlepersons, could enjoy this public resource without being branded, beaten or hung for simply hunting, trapping or fishing.  (Mr. Peay should understand that both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are the functional equivalents of emancipation documents expressly written in response to past abuses and to protect us from future peril.)
 
"One state at a time, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife is dismantling the very idea of a public wildlife resource, and replacing it with special privileges for the privileged." Ben Long in High Country News
 
There are some nuances and spins to what Mr. Peay and his colleagues like Corey Rossi—past head of Alaska’s wildlife agency—recently ousted for a dozen wildlife violations—are trying to do, but the “nose under the tent” on their grand scheme is creating programs that privatize wildlife and grant “special” people “special” rights to wildlife owned by all of us.  Those special rights would include hunting outside of hunting seasons, creating areas free of predators, and providing economic incentives for creating super-productive areas on private lands that could include food plots and supplemental feeding (read large-scale baiting) which would likely act to draw game off surrounding public lands.  
 
The introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf into Northern Rocky Mountains was a wildlife management expirement (sic) which has gone horribly wrong. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls it "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds".  Quote from David Allen former NASCAR executive on Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife website
 
The ecological, economic and social pitfalls of this approach are myriad.  We—with the exception of trophy hunting groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation—have seen the folly of creating feeding grounds for species such as elk and deer.  This scheme taken to its conclusion creates large, fenceless game farms with greatly reduced biodiversity.  It also creates a dynamic to spread more wildlife diseases faster.  If you want chronic wasting disease and Brucellosis hot spots—please sign on the dotted line.
 
The economics are dicey, too.  Right now many people derive income from hunting and fishing from guides and hotel owners to gas stations and restaurants.  Game species are spread rather than concentrated and hunting licenses and access are managed in a manner that optimizes participation and spreads income across a broad base.  What happens to this dynamic when portions of the harvestable game base are drawn away from their current distribution pattern into large, private refugia that can easily accommodate and would welcome their own, on-site facilities including private air strips?   To understand this potential impact think about what Wal-Marts on the outskirts of towns have done to Main Street, America.  
 
Socially this is a case where quality experiences become more and more reserved for people of quality.  In Mr. Peay’s world the biggest and best would be reserved for the “knights” of industry in the land of corporate jets and the rest of us would simply have to suffer along with the leavings and obey rules.  
 
This would also further enhance what are now huge ranches almost exclusively in the West.  Given that these private ranchlands were made possible in large part because of past federal largess like the Homestead Act, made practical through past federal actions displacing their former native and human inhabitants, and made richer by current federal benefits such as farm subsidies and nominal federal grazing fees, you would think that these ranchers, Peay and their allies would first drop a little of their anti-federal rhetoric.  Their near schizophrenic irony of uber-patriotic ranchers hating and badmouthing of the very hand that made their lives possible has always struck me as strange.  
 
And you would also think that they would not be so quick about asking state legislatures and game agencies for privileges and monies that would further their campaigns to create what would essentially be modern-day Baronies—subsidized by the generosity of the “King” and enjoying a rarified legal setting.  Mr. Peay’s recent request from the state of Utah for $300,000 so he could lobby the federal government on wolves is a perfect example of this entitled attitude and has drawn considerable ire from a number of quarters (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
 
“The delisting of the wolf is critical for the recovery and safeguarding of our precious big game assets in America." —Ted Nugent on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Also Baron Von Peay should also understand—as many of us do—that the most vocal and visible opponents of Socialism are typically Fascists.  But Mr. Peay’s dealings are a little bit more complex than first meets the eye and it is a mistake to simply characterize him as a politically motivated hater of wolves and serial founder of conservation organizations.  In addition to his “conservation” actions, he has manufactured an intricate spiders’ web of non-profits and for-profits that has put hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own coffers (see page 7 and page 8 for examples).  
 
“We have been in the business of selling big game hunting packages to high end clients who sought to hunt with the top tier big game outfitters.” World Trophy Outfitters profile
 
Spider’s web may even be an understatement.  One rapidly gets tired and fuzzy when looking at the mélange of entities set up by this ambitious chemical engineer and petroleum industry consultant turned wildlife entrepreneur.  From his first attempts as a hunting impresario with World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. to his current, more successful efforts to do essentially the same thing in his non-profit empire, this has been a story of building a well-connected—yet cryptic—universe.   
 
Some of these relationships are easy to sort out and some are more complicated.  Take for instance the relationship with Chris Carling and Brand X Communications in Salt Lake City.  Brand X does the web work for several of Peay’s non-profit ventures and Mr. Carling is also the public relations contact for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife.  Brand X is apparently connected with the domain Donpeay.com in some manner as well as the website for the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export facility near Coos Bay which will be facilitated by fracking in the very states where Peay’s groups are most powerful.  The business suite where Brand X is located is also the business address listed for Big Game Forever LLC and the former address of record for Sportsmen for Romney.  
 
“As of March 31, 2007, we had acquired fourteen Dall Sheep hunts for the 2007 and 2008 seasons with Kelly Hougen of Arctic Red River Outfitters, ten of which have been resold. The relationship between Arctic Red River Outfitters and WTO is that of a purchaser and seller of services and these organizations are not affiliated.”  World Trophy Outfitters Inc. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Form 10-KSB for Fiscal year 2007 page 4  
 
And then there is the whole issue with Arctic Red River Outfitters which appears to be owned in part by Peay but also partially owned by Sportsmen for Habitat with officers in common.  And yet on their IRS 990 forms SFH claims no business relations with current or former board members.  What? It is all very interesting but I will leave this to some ambitious investigative reporter who has the time and energy to sort out this can-o-worms or a similarly motivated IRS or SEC agent who ought to be asking some questions.  
 
“As a conservationist, it outrages me that animal rights extremists are using wolves as biological weapons to destroy 100 years of conservation in the western United States.” Jeff Foxworthy—Comedian on Big Game Forever LLC website
 
Peay’s business model is unfortunately a simple one that we have seen before: pedal wolf hatred to those most vulnerable to the messaging and then take millions of dollars’ worth of public resources (in the form of game permits) and sell them to the rich, privileged and influential.  His one variation from this is when he and his entourage sell chances for a coveted permit—letting hundreds act as a virtual “person of privilege”—keeping the myth of equality alive.
 
"My MacMillan River Adventure partner Keith Mark and I are extremely proud of our relationship with Big Game Forever because they are the one organization that recognized the damage that was occurring and the potential total devastation that would occur to our precious wildlife if the wolf issue was not addressed.”  Shawn Michaels WWE Hall of Fame on Big Game Forever website
 
He has been quite effective using the Four Horsemen of American Ignorance (i.e., NASCAR, Wrestling, Redneck Humor, and Ted Nugent) in recruiting an army of willing wolf killers.  The Montana Chapter of the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, for instance, gives away free memberships to individuals who furnish pictures of themselves with dead wolves.  SFW-MT is careful, however, to point out that they do not want pictures of wolves in traps.  Apparently, they understand that there are limits.  
 

There are a lot of chicken and egg issues with Peay and his operations.  Is he trying to forward big game recovery or trying to maximize his connections and curry favor with rich donors to forward his political fundraising?  Why is the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo run by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Mule Deer Foundation a non-profit event rather than a for-profit enterprise because it looks like there is a whole lot more commerce taking place than conservation?  And where is the non-profit argument of public good and benefit in creating better hunting opportunities for folks with an extra $20,000 or $100,000 rolling around in their jeans and in making sure outfitters are fully booked and taxidermists busy?  The charitable purposes of these entities simply seem swamped by the commercial and the political undertones.  And this impression is only magnified by the public financial reporting which lacks a certain openness in detail.  
Like Kipling’s Daniel Dravot and Peachy Carnehan, Peay is of humble beginnings.  When you read his self-narrative you almost feel sorry for the boy whose family lacked the $35 to let him play football, but when he compensates for that missing “sport” in his life by taking 500-yard shots at rare animals the sympathy factor melts away quickly.  He is all about trophies whether it is being photographed next to whatever carcass he has recently created or standing near Dick Cheney, George W. Bush or Orin Hatch.
 
Peay should realize in all of this that the Kipling tale is also a cautionary one.  It describes the ultimate consequences to one who climbs too high and then falls when the myths he has created and promoted are shown to be without merit.   What will happen in all of this when the enabling state wildlife agencies realize that they would probably get more value and benefit if they sold these game permits themselves instead of allowing them to be used to build this convoluted financial empire and thinly disguised political machine?  And when will the everyday hunters out there understand that they are complicit in enriching these groups who are aggressively creating a system designed expressly to grant their precious rights to the privileged few while they are left with the leavings?   
 
So what needs to happen?  Folks need to tell their wildlife agencies in western states that they do not want their precious wildlife in the form of hunting tags and permits given to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Sportsmen for Habitat, Big Game Forever, or the Full Curl Society to be used in their campaigns to enrich themselves and privatize wildlife.  We also need to remind these agencies of their Public Trust responsibilities to manage wildlife for the public and not just for wealthy trophy hunters and ranchers.  And we need also to remind these wildlife agencies and their governing boards that wildlife should be managed based on the best available science.  In other words, let wildlife agency employees use the degrees that they worked so long and hard to earn.  Here are the electonic links (e-mails and forms) as well as the snail mail and phone for Wyoming.  Please let them know how you feel and pass this blog post around so that others do the same.  Thank you!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wyoming:
 
Wyoming Game & Fish Department Headquarters
5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006
ph: (307) 777-4600
 

 

News and Editorial Coverage:

 

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial: Just cry wolf

Posted by bob in Blog, Bring Back Wolves, California Wolves, Home Page Hot Topic, Northern Rockies Wolves, Oregon Wolves, Restoring Wolves and Other Species, Uncategorized, Washington Wolves

15 Comments

Keep Reading →

Mar06

Congress Members Seek Continued Wolf Protections

Peter DeFazio » Congress members seek continued wolf protections

Associated Press By John Flesher Mar. 5, 2013 
 
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Dozens of U.S. House members urged federal regulators Tuesday to retain legal protections for gray wolves across most of the lower 48 states, saying the resilient predator could continue expanding its range if humans don't get in the way.
 
A letter signed by 52 representatives urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to drop wolves from the endangered species list in areas where it hasn't already been done. The wolf has been designated as recovered in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies after rebounding from near-extinction in the past century.
 
The comeback is "a wildlife success story in the making," the lawmakers said in a letter distributed by Reps. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. But it added that because of lingering human prejudice, "federal protection continues to be necessary to ensure that wolf recovery is allowed to proceed in additional parts of the country."
 
The Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to return wolves to the Southwest, despite court battles and resistance from ranchers. It's also reviewing the status of wolves and their potential habitat in the Pacific Northwest, where perhaps 100 of the animals are believed to roam, and in the Northeast, which has no established population although occasional sightings have been reported.
 
"The outcome of these reviews will identify which, if any, gray wolves should continue to receive protections under the Endangered Species Act outside of the boundaries of the recovered populations and the Southwest population," agency spokesman Chris Tollefson said.
 
A recommendation is expected in the next few months, he said.
 
An agency report last year proposed dropping the wolf from the endangered list in most locations where none are known to exist. In their letter, the lawmakers said that could prevent wolves from migrating to places where they once lived and where enough habitat and prey remain to support them.
 
They noted that lone wolves have wandered into northern California, Utah, Colorado and several Northeastern states. If re-established there, they would help restore ecological balance and boost the economy by drawing tourists, DeFazio said in a phone interview.
 
"I think a heck of a lot of Americans would be thrilled to hear or see a wolf in the wild," he said. "It's part of our natural heritage."
 
About 2 million wolves once lived in much of North America but were all but wiped out in the lower 48 states by the mid-1900s. The areas where they have recovered represent only 5 percent of their original range, said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity.
 

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

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Feb28

Extractive Industries are Killing the Planet–Eugene Rally March 3rd

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 27, 2013

Extractive Industries are Killing the Planet
 
Eugene, Ore.—March 3 at 1 p.m. A rally will be held in the University of Oregon EMU amphitheater proceeded by a march against the fossil fuel industry. The march is follow-up to the “End All Extraction” march on February 17, since the demands from the first march were not met.
 
The event is to coincide with the end of the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC), which begins on February 28. Hundreds will gather and march against governments and businesses that support fossil fuels and other extractive industries.
 
“The people need to hold corporate extractors accountable since government has not,” said Jim Flynn of the Cascadia Forest Defenders, sponsors of the march.
The rally is in solidarity with local and national groups such as Idle No More, Tar Sands Blockade, and No Coal Exportation.
 
These movements include thousands of environmental and social justice activists from many varied groups such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), first nations, minority justice groups, small businesses, labor unions and concerned citizens of all varying political backgrounds.
 
This event features a large collaboration of national and local organizations and people coming together to stand up and say “no” to tar sands extraction, “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, “no” to coal extraction and exportation, while simultaneously saying “yes” to equality for all life, “yes” to challenging governments and businesses for sustained forms of energy and, “yes” to clean air, water and land/space for future generations to live.
 
The event will kick off with a rally that will include speeches by Tar Sands Blockade spokesperson *Ramsey Sprague*; executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center *Lauren Regan*; and *Sam Kopf* of the Cascadia Forest Defenders.
 
The Erb Memorial Union (EMU) amphitheater is located on the northwest side of the EMU at the University of Oregon.
 
For more information on the groups we are in solidarity with, please visit these websites:
 

Posted by bob in Combating Climate Change, No Coos Bay Coal Terminal, No Pacific Connector LNG Pipeline!, Press Room, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Feb22

Scenic rivers run through it

 

Oregon, that is — and Bates' bill would protect some of them from being dredged
 
February 22, 2013
 
Medford Mail Tribune
 
State Sen. Alan Bates, D-Medford, has introduced a bill that would restrict suction dredge gold mining on some parts of some creeks and rivers in the state. The measure is not the all-out attack on dredging that some miners will make it out to be, nor is it a threat to streamside property owners. It is a reasonable response to a surge in suction dredging and it deserves support.
 
Suction dredging uses gasoline-powered motors to vacuum up gravel and silt from the beds of creeks and rivers. Gold fragments are separated from the gravel, which is then returned to the stream.
 
State agency officials and environmental groups say dredging harms sensitive streambeds and threatens salmon and other fish that lay eggs in the gravel. Gravel and silt increase the turbidity of the water when returned to rivers and streams, which also threatens fish.
 
The state of California issued a moratorium on all suction dredge mining in 2009 over just those concerns. Some miners who had been dredging in California streams moved their operations into Oregon. At the same time, the rapidly rising price of gold drew more people to try dredging.
 
The number of permits issued by the Department of Environmental Quality rose from 934 in 2009 to nearly 2,000 in 2012.
 
A permit allows suction dredging in any waterway where it is not specifically restricted. State law already prohibits suction dredging in portions of 19 rivers designated as Oregon State Scenic Waterways. Bates' bill, Senate Bill 401, would add more sections of rivers and streams to the Scenic Waterways list.
 
Southern Oregon is a popular place for suction dredging. DEQ figures indicate portions of the Rogue, South Umpqua, Applegate, Little Applegate and Illinois account for more than half of the primary locations in Western Oregon.
 
Oregon voters created the State Scenic Waterways system 1970. Today, portions of 19 rivers and Waldo Lake are on the list, representing about one-third of 1 percent of all Oregon waterways. SB 401 would add one-quarter of 1 percent. In this area, the bill would add portions of the Rogue,
 
Some riverside landowners have expressed concern that portions of the Scenic Waterways law might affect their rights to use their property. In fact, property owners along Scenic Waterways are allowed to make any legal change to their property. The law requires only that they do so in consultation with the state Parks and Recreation Department.
 
The state law is not the same as the federal Wild & Scenic Rivers designation.
 
SB 401 would add segments of the Rogue, South Umpqua and Illinois rivers to the Scenic Waterways list. That is a modest step to protect Oregon's most precious and vulnerable waterways, leaving plenty of places where suction dredging can still occur. SB 401 deserves support.
 
 

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

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Nov16

USFWS Catch 22: Embrace Flawed and Dated Science or Do the Right Thing for Wolves

By Bob Ferris
 
Catch-22 (Logic)
 
A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation in which an individual cannot or is incapable of avoiding a problem because of contradictory constraints or rules.  Wikipedia
 
In Joseph Heller’s classic book Catch 22 the protagonist was caught between the horns of a dilemma.  He, Captain John Yossarian, was a B-25 bombardier attempting to get out of his service in World War II on the grounds that he was crazy, but if he wanted to leave he was not technically crazy.  Wolf Recovery in the United States is often not that different from a war, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, like Captain Yossarian, is not to blame for wanting to get out.  However, in order for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to remove itself from wolf recovery and avoid the controversy, they must demonstrate that the wolf is recovered.  There would be no grounds for controversy, if the wolf has truly recovered.  Nevertheless, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting to make this claim, a claim that is not technically or morally defensible and full of Catch 22’s.
 
Catch 22s you ask? Take the Northern Rockies wolf program, for example.  This recovery plan was originally constructed around the concept of recovering a subspecies of wolves.  The recovery area and therefore the recovery goals were predicated on the historic range of this particular subspecies of wolf.   Subsequent morphometric (species determinations derived from skull or body part measurements) and genetic analyses have clouded this once crystal-clear picture from a classic taxonomic tome.  What’s more, the population goals were determined prior to the wide-spread acceptance and use of minimum viable population analyses (MVPs) in looking at recovery goals.  MVPs or population habitat viability analyses (PHVAs) are now commonly used to estimate needed populations.
 
So, if the US FWS is arguing that they have recovered this “subspecies,” then they need to take steps to protect and recover the other subspecies in the Pacific Northwest and the Southern Rockies.  But if they quietly sweep the subspecies argument under the rug and make a “Canus soupus” argument (i.e., wolves are wolves), common sense as well as science would argue that recovery goals would have to be adjusted to reflect the greatly enlarged recovery area, not just the Northern Rockies.  Regardless, nowhere in these scenarios is there a scientific justification for the USFWS to step away from wolf recovery in the Western US.  In short, they like Heller’s Yossarian cannot simply opt out of an unpleasant situation, because they no longer want to be there.
 
Continued federal involvement also makes sense because the threats that led to endangerment—as evidenced by behavior in the Northern Rockies states—has not diminished or been corrected.  Then there is the mobile nature of the wolf and wolf packs which frequently cross state and international borders and spend a good portion of their time on the matrix of federal public lands that dominate the western landscape.  Both these conditions are strong arguments for continued federal oversight and protections.  Add to these two arguments the fact that recovery of the wolf in the West is really a federal public lands issue (please see Oregon, California, and Washington map)
 
But there is another argument here that is rarely raised and that is the question of responsibility and past sins.  The US FWS—through their precursor the Biological Survey—was the agency largely responsible for endangering the wolf in the first place.  Their agents did not stop until wolves were truly and nearly annihilated in the lower 48 states.  This historic exuberance by the agency should be mirrored in recovery.  Brave and innovative wolves are trying diligently to restore themselves to their former haunts in the Pacific Northwest and Southern Rockies and their efforts need to be supported by like courage and adherence to the best available science by the US FWS.  The mission is not yet accomplished.  
 
For all of the above reasons and more, we ask that wolf supporters in the US and elsewhere join with us to send a clear message to the US FWS that the wolf recovery job in the West is not finished.  Federal protections must remain in place and wolves expanding into western Washington and Oregon as well as northern California need and deserve federal protection.  And we feel the same way for wolves recolonizing Colorado and Utah.  Therefore we ask that wolf supporters sign a petition to that effect here.  
 
Thank you.  Working together we can fully recover the wolf in Cascadia and other promising areas.  Pioneering wolves like OR-7, also known as Journey, should not become immediate targets because the road to recovery difficult and political expediency trumps science and compassion.  Let's work for wolves and keeping it wild.
 

 

Posted by bob in Blog, Home Page Hot Topic, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Oct31

Comments on Coyote Island Terminal Permit

Cascadia Wildlands submitted the following comments on the Coyote Island Terminal Permit Application (Port of Morrow):

Click below to view the PDF file.  

CascWild – Comment on APP0049123 Coyote Island Terminal Permit Application

Posted by bob in Combating Climate Change, Uncategorized

0 Comments

Keep Reading →

Oct31

Are Cows and Sheep the Sea Urchins of the Cascadian Forests?

By Bob Ferris

I have always liked sea otters—in part—because they are the quintessential keystone species or critters that materially determine some of the character of their habitat for them and others.  And now as new research emerges about the trophic cascade effects (i.e., the side benefits of having top predators present) associated with the otter’s control of sea urchins and the resultant macro-algae (kelp) growth, we also begin to understand that they are effective and needed warriors in the battle against climate change and ocean acidification.   How?  Kelp forests—like terrestrial forests—sequester carbon and CO2 is one of the leading causes of these phenomena affecting our air and seas. 
 
This almost obvious finding leads me to speculate: If urchins need the otter’s controlling influence for us to have robust aquatic forests, what are the terrestrial equivalents?  To begin to answer this question, let’s look at what sea urchins actually do.  Urchins don’t just eat large kelps such as bladder, boa and bullwhip kelp, they destroy the holdfasts which are essentially kelp “roots” and clearcut themselves into the oceanic pastures—known as urchin barrens—they most like to graze.  Urchin dominated “marine-scapes” look like denuded plains.  And without the three-dimensional volume provided by these large and long kelps they lack the structure and escape habitat needed for young fish (including salmon, smelt and rock fish) and a host of other sea life.  They essentially become oceanic deserts—great for urchins but not for kelp forest denizens or overall biodiversity.  
 
Urchin (Noun):
1) A mischievous young child, esp. one who is poorly or raggedly dressed.
2) A goblin.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 

When we look at the current and past large grazing guild for Cascadian forests and wildlands we have elk, deer, bison, caribou, moose, big horn sheep, mountain goat and the two new-comers cattle and domestic sheep.  Who are the sea urchins in this equation and why?  Well, deer and elk as well as the other less plentiful native ungulates do not have a history of knocking ecosystems irreparably out of whack—particularly in the presence of wolves and other apex predators.  The same cannot be said, however, of cattle and domestic sheep. 
 
Why are cattle and sheep different?  For one thing it is a numbers and carrying capacity issue.  Cattle and sheep—particularly on public lands—are brought in at and purposely over-stocked at levels that could not be supported year-round.  This bovine and ovine host, therefore, eat more, faster than their natural counter-parts ever could.  They are essentially like the guests who visit in large numbers, eat you out of house and home then move on leaving you starving.  Additionally, they are critters that evolved in the Old World rather than North America in systems more prone to annual plants rather than perennials.  
 
Bison exhibit a stronger preference for the perennial grasses that form the prairie matrix, and they are strongly attracted to open landscapes during the growing season. Cattle include more forbs in their diet, and they use wooded areas and riparian zones more intensively.  From: Comparative Ecology of Bison and Cattle on Mixed-Grass Prairie.
 
Cattle grazing habits and regimes as well as the spread of European annuals through seeds in cattle droppings have altered vegetative make ups.  This annual versus perennial issue is a large one—particularly as we look at carbon sequestration.  Perennials sequester more carbon than annuals because their root structures are more substantial and longer-lasting and more roots in the ground means more below surface carbon.  Add to the root structure loss, the flatulence factor from too many cattle farting methane—a greenhouse gas—by the hot-air balloon full and you have another rationale for adjusting your dietary choices.  
 
And for those thinking that cattle and bison are functionally the same.  The cattle’s use of wooded areas and riparian habitats not used by bison indicates an encroachment into the elk and deer realm and a departure from the co-evolved, ecological niche separation exhibited by the bison.  This direct competition with elk and deer for space and food makes the alliances between hunters groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Safari Club International and ranchers all the more puzzling as the livestock industry’s interests are clearly in conflict with those of wildlife including game species and fish.  And this further impact on native wildlife species cements cattle and domestic sheep as land urchins.  
 
So what should we derive from all of this?  First, efforts to broaden and emphasize sea otter restoration all along Cascadia should be re-accelerated and expanded particularly along the coasts of Oregon and Washington.  We need also to open our eyes on cattle and sheep grazing—particularly on public lands—and honestly and realistically assess the benefits as well as the full spectrum of implications relating to federal ranching subsidies, wildlife impacts, and compromised ecological services such as clean water and carbon sequestration.  And lastly we need to continue to work towards ecological literacy so that more people come to understand these complex ecological relationships for a host of natural systems and critters from otters to orcas and from wolves to wolverines.  They all help us keep it wild.

 

Posted by bob in Blog, Combating Climate Change, Sea Otters

3 Comments

Keep Reading →

Sep28

General Response to Joe Greene

[Editor's note: When the New 49er's griped about the bias of scientists involved in the public advisory committee for suction dredging in California, the State eventually acquiesced allowed the New 49ers to invite two people with science degrees from their camp.  They selected Joe Greene and Claudia Wise retired EPA scientists from Oregon and current officers in the Millennium Diggers organization.  These parties were invited by virtue of their positions on the issue rather than their expertise on the topics at hand.  Both have made comments characterizing themselves as "experts" and not initially disclosing their memberships in Millennium Diggers or their participation in or passion for suction dredging.  Ms. Wise has posted few comments, but Mr. Greene has posted numerous comments to both suction dredging posts (Suction Dredging...Sucks and Dredging Up The Truth) requiring a general statement to him personally]

 
Dear Joe,
 
Since I did not mention you by name in my Dredging Up the Truth blog, I can hardly see how my post was a personal attack.  It becomes a personal attack only because you see yourself in those comments.  But since you have opened the door here, let’s play. 
 
Former EPA scientist Joe Greene, an avid gold prospector who has been suction dredging since the 1960s, is less than impressed with the EPA’s propaganda and Tomten’s claim that dredging is illegal under the CWA (see here)
In the first place, certainly I agree with free speech.  I have defended that right my entire life.  But that is separate from the concept of professional ethics.  You have been involved in dredging for nearly 50 years, so you—as a scientist offering scientific opinions—have a huge conflict of interest.  Your access point to this debate is as a suction dredging advocate.  You have crossed a professional line with your comments and attacks on scientist with actual credentials in this field.  But in addition to the concept of professional ethics there is also a question of the extent of your credentials in this specific arena and the quality and thrust of your commentary.  
 
Having worked as an ecological consultant in 1980s—sometimes on fisheries matters—I was often asked to synthesize masses of studies that dealt either directly or indirectly with the species or habitat in question and draw my best conclusions based on the body of work available and those studies that were most applicable.  Where there were conflicts and confusion I had to dig deeper until I felt comfortable with my ultimate conclusion about that element.  A lot enters into this including examining experimental design and dealing with changing evaluation methodologies and scientific standards.  This was the same careful and considered process that was conducted by Dr. Moyle.  His logic was sound and his use of the literature, cautionary remarks, and conclusions were all appropriate. 
 
On the flip side we have you.  I found it interesting that in your initial comments that you made derisive remarks about Dr. Moyle using the work of his former graduate student (i.e., “So, Moyle stated for science he was relying on data published by his former grad student Bret Harvey.  Great move.”)  Using Dr. Harvey’s work in the context of what Dr. Moyle was asked to do was totally appropriate and you should know that.  What was inappropriate was your comment.  It was both disrespectful and incorrect.
 
So let’s deal with the thrust and quality of your work as exemplified by your traveling power point presentation and advocacy.  Words fail me when I look at this.  It is hard to find a single slide in this presentation that is not purposely misleading or dangerously paranoid.  Working for the EPA you should be well aware that there is a difference between sequestered toxics and those re-suspended in the water column—shame on you.  You also know fully well that the arguments about “very little” becomes a big deal when talking about suspended materials and chemicals that are often measured in parts per million.  And your quoting of water chemistry conclusions from a nearly 75-year old study is pretty much laughable—what professional scientist would do that?  Taken in sum, your presentation is deceptive, unprofessional in nature, and politically and personally motivated.  I could do a slide by slide critique but after about slide 40, it makes me sad that you have slipped so low.
 
So Joe, I can absolutely live with disappointment from you.  I might actually wear it as a badge.  And I am glad that you get reinforcement and compliments from the mining community because you certainly will not get them from your former peers or from the scientific community where it actually counts.  I suspect it is also gratifying that your contrarian views and emerging status in the mining community affords you a notoriety that you never enjoyed during your career as a federal bureaucrat—I hope it is worth it.  
 
–Bob Ferris
 
P.S. In terms of your characterization of my qualifications as being non-biological, my undergraduate degree is in Environmental Studies and Biology which means that I completed the degree requirements for both majors.  Moreover, my exit requirement for biology involved being above the 75% mark on the subject GRE which was easy and why I later was accepted into masters and PhD programs.  Much of this is not on my LinkedIn profile because the later 20 years of my career are more relevant.  So I left out paid teaching assignments (not unpaid courtesy appointments) at San Jose State University and UC Santa Cruz (full courses not short courses) as well as my ecological consulting and research experience in the 1980s.  
 

Posted by bob in Blog, Save Our Wild Salmon Heritage, Suction Dredging and High Banking for Gold, Uncategorized

6 Comments

Keep Reading →

we like it wild. Follow us Facebook Twiter RSS