Park Service plan muddies wilderness protections

Written by Mike on March 10th, 2011

For Immediate Release: Thursday, March 10, 2011

Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1463

PARK SERVICE PLAN MUDDIES WILDERNESS PROTECTIONS

Confusing, Conflicting Guidance on Climbing Anchors and Other Topics

Washington, DC — The National Park Service is circulating new wilderness guidance that in some cases weakens existing protections, sends mixed messages and appears to violate the Wilderness Act itself, according to comments filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). One major departure in the NPS plan would allow fixed rock climbing anchors in designated wilderness, a position not embraced by any other land management agency.

Today ends the comment period on the plan which is in the form of a Director’s Order (a DO provides guidance to Park Service managers). This proposed DO on Wilderness Stewardship would be layered on top of, but supersede, existing agency guidance. Among problems highlighted by PEER is that the DO –

· Authorizes fixed climbing anchors to be embedded in rock in designated wilderness, a step which appears to violate the Wilderness Act precept that wilderness lands be left “untrammeled” by humans. Moreover, NPS cannot adopt such a major policy change by a DO; any change of such magnitude requires formal rulemaking, including public comment and administrative review;

· More than triples road corridors for unpaved roads (from the current 30 to 100 feet) , thus reducing wilderness protections while creating thorny implementation issues; and

· Puts out conflicting, confusing guidance on topics such as cultural resources in wilderness, application of Indian treaty rights, and recommended wilderness.

“Many of these provisions are written as if the Park Service did not even realize it was opening a new can of worms with each step,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting the irony that the stated purpose of the DO is to provide “consistency and continuity”. “As an example, this proposal recommends public involvement in the wilderness eligibility process, yet the Park Service just stripped wilderness eligibility from 40,000 acres in Big Cypress National Preserve without a scrap of public involvement.”

Permanent rock climbing anchors will also draw controversy because the DO does not lay out a clear process or standard for their approval. The draft DO uses inexact terms like “occasional placement” and “norm” that invite dispute. Moreover, it is not clear how climbers can get permission in advance or, with a ban on “power drills”, how anchors could be embedded into a rock face.

The nearly 50 million acres of designated park wilderness comprise more than half of all the lands within our park system and more than 40% of all federal lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Yet, NPS has a love-hate relationship with wilderness. For example, the agency for decades has failed to forward wilderness proposals for several major parks to the Interior Secretary or President for recommendation to Congress, conduct wilderness eligibility assessments for many parks, as mandated by NPS policies since 2001, prepare wilderness management plans, or take other steps necessary to properly administer and protect wilderness resources.

“The National Park Service has a staggering backlog of work which, if completed, would increase the wilderness footprint within the park system by more than half – yet this agenda receives no attention,” added Ruch. “This muddled Director’s Order reflects misplaced priorities and an institutional cluelessness. We urge the agency to retract this plan and concentrate on meaningful steps to meet its wilderness mandate.”

  • Digg

Action alert on H.R. 1

Written by Mike on March 1st, 2011

This could be the week – the week when the Senate approves the most anti-environment, anti-wildlife legislation in the last fifteen years.

It’s a bill that would deny life-saving protections for wolves, polar bears, walruses and scores of other species. It’s a bill that would slash conservation funding, mean dirtier air and water and effectively shutter national wildlife refuges for lack of funding.

Let’s stop this before it’s too late.

We don’t have much time. Please call your senators using the information below:

Richard ‘Dick’ J. Durbin – (202) 224-2152
Mark Steven Kirk – (202) 224-2854

If contact information for your senators does not appear above, please call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your senators.

… and deliver this simple message:

“My name is XXX and I’m calling today from XXX to urge my senators to reject H.R. 1, the House-passed continuing resolution. This bill contains many awful elements, but I especially object to that bill’s provisions to…

Eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Greater Yellowstone;
Prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating emissions that cause climate change that now threaten polar bears and walruses;
Slash funding for national wildlife refuges and the essential Land and Water Conservation Fund, which protect wildlife habitat across the country; and
Complicate enforcement of the Clean Water Act that protects our drinking water and essential waters for aquatic wildlife.

  • Digg

Minnesota moose continue population crash

Written by Mike on February 18th, 2011

Link

Will Minnesota finally come to its senses and adjust the hunting season? Or will they wait until there are 500 moose?

  • Digg

Montana governor stops bison slaughter

Written by Mike on February 16th, 2011

Link

  • Digg

Obama admin offers lukewarm forest changes

Written by Mike on February 12th, 2011

Obama is the guy at the party who simply has to have everyone like him. Our public lands nead a leader though, not a placater.

Link

  • Digg

Help stop the Yellowstone bison slaughter

Written by Mike on February 7th, 2011

Click the take action button:

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/

  • Digg

Obama to cut the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Written by Mike on February 6th, 2011

Link

Looks like a 25% cut. Who would have guessed that the Obama admin would maintain defense spending but cut things that protect our air and water? Lots of people.

This “democratic”(or should I say corporate?) administration has been better than Bush, but that’s not saying a lot.

  • Digg

Stop the new bill which would remove all ESA protections for wolves

Written by Mike on February 1st, 2011

http://dfnd.us/e7BeMQ

  • Digg

FEDERAL COUGAR HUNTERS MUST OBEY CALIFORNIA LAW

Written by Mike on January 19th, 2011

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Contact: Karen Schambach (530) 333-2545; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1449

FEDERAL COUGAR HUNTERS MUST OBEY CALIFORNIA LAW

Fish & Game Contractors Cannot Evade Ban on Leg Snares and Other Inhumane Practices

Sacramento — Federal contract hunters employed by the California Department of Fish & Game may not use poison, snares, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps to kill mountain lions, even when the lions pose a threat to Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, according to a new Legislative Counsel opinion released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The opinion was requested by Senate Natural Resources Chairwoman Fran Pavley after PEER relayed internal reports that mountain lions were being killed inhumanely and unnecessarily by federal contract hunters.

The state Department of Fish & Game (DFG) pays federal Wildlife Services, an ironically named arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $600,000 under a three-year contract to capture and kill predator species. California law bans the use of poison, snares, leg-hold or metal-jawed traps, but DFG and Wildlife Services believed the federal agents were not bound by California law. PEER has received information that Wildlife Services contractors were directed by DFG managers to –

Ø A shoot-on-sight protocol which directs ”removal” of any mountain lion entering bighorn winter ranges even though the likelihood of predation remains low in some areas;

Ø Disregard a previous protocol that prohibited the killing of a female lion without first determining if she has dependent offspring, resulting in the inhumane death of kittens by exposure and starvation; and

Ø Ignore the bans on snares which voters enacted more than 20 years ago under Proposition 117, which designated the mountain lion as a specially protected mammal.

“California voters have created these protections for mountain lions,” Said Senator Pavley. “The Legislative Counsel opinion affirms that even federal employees must obey California law.”

“Scarce state dollars should not be used to sterilize the Sierras of all mountain lions,” stated California PEER Director Karen Schambach, noting that the new DFG protocol goes well beyond the requirements of the Bighorn Recovery Plan, which prescribes adverse conditioning to discourage lions from preying on sheep and limits killing to mountain lions which have actually eaten a bighorn. “The current shoot-on-sight policy is both coarse and counterproductive. It essentially ignores the likelihood that indiscriminately destroyed mountain lions that are not preying on sheep will be replaced by immigrant lions with a taste for bighorns.”

In a May 21, 2010 letter, PEER urged DFG to rewrite its protocols to end inhumane practices and reduce needless lion killings but the agency has yet to respond. The new Legislative Counsel opinion affirms that it is illegal for even state and federal employees to harm or kill a mountain lion, except when a lion poses a threat to public safety or livestock, or harms animals protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep are listed as endangered under the ESA.

“Protecting bighorns does not require wiping out mountain lions,” added Schambach. “In these tough fiscal times, we should ask whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth from this contract with Wildlife Services.”

  • Digg

Obama admin reverses BLM wilderness policy

Written by Mike on December 23rd, 2010

Nice to see some positive movement from them on this issue.

Link

  • Digg