Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2010, 01:36:26 PM
Received this in an E-mail from a friend.
New Congressional initiative to create 'wildlife corridors' | CFACT
The Reasons for the Canadian wolf introduction is nothing more than a ploy to take private lands and gain more governmental control, and if you believe this ploy is really about wildlife then I've got a bridge in the Mojave desert I want to sell you. Read this and then go back and read the link after it. Some of you, I know already know what this land grab is all about, I am not directing my comments toward you. Those of you who choose to believe the environmental left is good, you better get your agendas looked at closely and see what this is really all about. Read this first link and then go to the links below and take the time to go through each page, you will be enlightened to the evil that is transcending this globe under the lie of environmentalism.
http://www.cfact.org/a/1756/New-Congressional-initiative-to-create-wildlife-corridors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29 (http://www.cfact.org/a/1756/New-Congressional-initiative-to-create-wildlife-corridors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29)
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html (http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html)
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm)
People need to wake up and realize that you are being lied to by the Big Media and your very own government. If you don’t we will all be in deep trouble before long.
Post by: turbo on June 17, 2010, 08:00:46 AM
Post by: Atroxus on June 17, 2010, 08:15:08 AM
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 08:20:00 AM
Post by: Little Dave on June 17, 2010, 08:51:18 AM
Once you get these people on board and personally invested, they'll get it.
Post by: Atroxus on June 17, 2010, 09:04:11 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 17, 2010, 09:11:13 AM
It just amazes me how many idiots don't believe this is an act to crush hunting and reduce gun sales. I enjoy your passion and am with you 100%. Too bad the Mods on this site are in bed with WDFW and will lock or pull this tread soon. :bash:
Oh...........so no body minded those wolves that arrived on their own 2 feet? They just hate the transplanted variety. Funny I never hear any wolf haters make the distinction.
__________________
You mean like this...Copied/pasted from another hunting website that has only garnered 16 posts on the thread I started of which at least 4 are mine. Turbo, Snowmobilers are more passionate on this issue than most on that site
Remember the pic you sent me? any more sightings in the area?
Oh and thanks Wolfbait! I will now put a link in that thread to this one.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 09:26:17 AM
I am kind of confused. After reading the text of the bill it doesn't seem to me to be nearly as bad as that article makes it out to be. I do find it a little worrisome if what that article says is true about defenders of wildlife supporting the bill, but as the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day. :dunno:Increased federal authority over states and private property owner rights......
I guess it depends on how much you care about liberty and to what extent you are willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of environmentalism.
Take into consideration that who controls that authority will have a powerful influence of state and individual rights and their interpetation of how the environment should like will supercede your individual freedoms.
Doesn't sound like fun to me.
These are easy topics if you live in the city and don't own any amount of land.
Post by: Atroxus on June 17, 2010, 09:45:28 AM
I am kind of confused. After reading the text of the bill it doesn't seem to me to be nearly as bad as that article makes it out to be. I do find it a little worrisome if what that article says is true about defenders of wildlife supporting the bill, but as the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day. :dunno:Increased federal authority over states and private property owner rights......
I guess it depends on how much you care about liberty and to what extent you are willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of environmentalism.
Take into consideration that who controls that authority will have a powerful influence of state and individual rights and their interpetation of how the environment should like will supercede your individual freedoms.
Doesn't sound like fun to me.
These are easy topics if you live in the city and don't own any amount of land.
Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't see anythign in the bill about increased control of property, or any control of property owners rights. Maybe you could point out where in the bill I overlooked it?
Post by: jackelope on June 17, 2010, 09:50:07 AM
It just amazes me how many idiots don't believe this is an act to crush hunting and reduce gun sales. I enjoy your passion and am with you 100%. Too bad the Mods on this site are in bed with WDFW and will lock or pull this tread soon. :bash:
Nobody's in bed with the WDFW and the only wolf thread that's been yanked is one explaining how to use poisons to kill them. That's not what this site is about and not what we are here for. If you think we are nuking wolf threads you haven't been looking at the forum boards much. Open your eyes before criticizing.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 17, 2010, 10:02:18 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 10:09:39 AM
Me too... aren't we (as a group) proponents of wildlife habitat and increased access?I am kind of confused. After reading the text of the bill it doesn't seem to me to be nearly as bad as that article makes it out to be. I do find it a little worrisome if what that article says is true about defenders of wildlife supporting the bill, but as the saying goes even a broken clock is right twice a day. :dunno:Increased federal authority over states and private property owner rights......
I guess it depends on how much you care about liberty and to what extent you are willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of environmentalism.
Take into consideration that who controls that authority will have a powerful influence of state and individual rights and their interpetation of how the environment should like will supercede your individual freedoms.
Doesn't sound like fun to me.
These are easy topics if you live in the city and don't own any amount of land.
Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't see anythign in the bill about increased control of property, or any control of property owners rights. Maybe you could point out where in the bill I overlooked it?
Good stuff Wolfbait. More wilderness, MORE wildlands, MORE roadless areas More Property restrictions! Also being a sledder and occasional ATV rider, and 4 wheeler-we have been fighting these folks for YEARS. and you will come to find that many many hunters are all for it! Right Turbo?
Do you get to ride your sled on private land much? I would think most wildland user groups would be glad to see this happen...what am I missing?
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 10:24:32 AM
Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't see anythign in the bill about increased control of property, or any control of property owners rights. Maybe you could point out where in the bill I overlooked it?Where do you think the corridors will be established? If you show me a provision that says it will solely be on federal property then I stand corrected.
You understand what zoning is right? Zoning regulations dictate what you can do with your property. If your property falls under one of these 'wildlife cooridor' boundaries it means your subject to the exact regulations that the bill states it will be monitoring. Since this is a federal action you'll be subject to abiding by the processess laid forth within this bill. Try and put a pond in your backyard in King County if you want a basic course in what this means.
Besides all that read the details and ask yourself 'how in the hell would wildlife cooridors be established?' Because each species is so unique in habit, at some point someone will have to decide which species 'migration route' the cooridors will be based on.
Oh and by the way the fed's will control these cooridors while the states and tribes do the leg work for them, which they wont hesitate to do because the feds throwing money at them for doing it.
Ya sounds fantastic to me go ahead and praise it. :rolleyes:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 10:31:11 AM
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 10:34:06 AM
Me too... aren't we (as a group) proponents of wildlife habitat and increased access?Good stuff Wolfbait. More wilderness, MORE wildlands, MORE roadless areas More Property restrictions! Also being a sledder and occasional ATV rider, and 4 wheeler-we have been fighting these folks for YEARS. and you will come to find that many many hunters are all for it! Right Turbo?
Do you get to ride your sled on private land much? I would think most wildland user groups would be glad to see this happen...what am I missing?
At the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
Who said anything about increased access? I didn't see *censored* about increased access.
Public lands are our land and we should be respectful enough to allow other interests to use our land for their enjoyment. We already have wilderness area's that prevent motorized use anyway. There's no reason snowmobiles or atv's should be booted off of National forests. Though I'm not a proponent of riding or driving anywhere you please, it should be managed for moderation. This can be done in a number of ways without discouraging the enjoyment of those who enjoy offroading and snowmobiling.
Post by: seth30 on June 17, 2010, 10:36:08 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 10:43:50 AM
I tend to agree about the ATV use, particularly on open roads. As long as they stay where they belong. :twocents:Me too... aren't we (as a group) proponents of wildlife habitat and increased access?Good stuff Wolfbait. More wilderness, MORE wildlands, MORE roadless areas More Property restrictions! Also being a sledder and occasional ATV rider, and 4 wheeler-we have been fighting these folks for YEARS. and you will come to find that many many hunters are all for it! Right Turbo?
Do you get to ride your sled on private land much? I would think most wildland user groups would be glad to see this happen...what am I missing?
At the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
Who said anything about increased access? I didn't see *censored* about increased access.
Public lands are our land and we should be respectful enough to allow other interests to use our land for their enjoyment. We already have wilderness area's that prevent motorized use anyway. There's no reason snowmobiles or atv's should be booted off of National forests. Though I'm not a proponent of riding or driving anywhere you please, it should be managed for moderation. This can be done in a number of ways without discouraging the enjoyment of those who enjoy offroading and snowmobiling.
I guess what I was thinking with regard to access was increased blocks of public land means increased public access.
Post by: Atroxus on June 17, 2010, 11:00:17 AM
At the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
I checked the bill again, and again could find nothing about private property. The only thing I did find about property management is the following.
SEC. 5. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS.
(a) Finding- Section 102(a)( 8 ) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 () is amended by inserting ‘, including important wildlife corridors,’ before ‘in their natural condition’.
(b) Definition of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern- Section 103(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.1702(a)) is amended by inserting ‘(including important wildlife corridors)’ after ‘fish and wildlife resources’.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 11:02:34 AM
I thought it was just an effort to provide more contigous habitat blocks for wildlife, I did not think they had any specific animals in mind.lol so..... (D) develop management strategies to enhance the ability of native fish, wildlife, and plant species to migrate or respond to shifting habitats within existing habitats and corridors.
ex: The secretary of the interior and the USFWS picks an endangered species and says 'well it migrates this way and that way and needs that habitat, we should adjust the cooridor to accomodate this species.....I don't see a single provision that would prevent such a thing from happening. do you?
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 11:07:48 AM
I tend to agree about the ATV use, particularly on open roads. As long as they stay where they belong. :twocents:hmm, so where does it say anything about acquiring private property to link tracks of public land?
I guess what I was thinking with regard to access was increased blocks of public land means increased public access.
Such a bill would be great but there are too many provisions in this bill that leave the door open for loss of liberty, and the increased federal control part.
A bill that proposed linking public lands together through the acquisition of private property would be a bill that I'm interested in. but this bill, no this bill falls short of that and contains to much wording that could be later exploited by environmentalist groups and politically liberal federal authority.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 11:08:57 AM
ExactlyAt the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
I checked the bill again, and again could find nothing about private property.
Post by: Atroxus on June 17, 2010, 11:21:23 AM
ExactlyAt the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
I checked the bill again, and again could find nothing about private property.
Wow, it seems to me like you are intentionally ignoring the key part of my post. The text from the bill does mention public land. So it would stand to reason that if it had anything to do with private land it would mention that as well. It does not.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 11:23:59 AM
ExactlyAt the sacrifice of private property rights.....Hell no.
I checked the bill again, and again could find nothing about private property.
Wow, it seems to me like you are intentionally ignoring the key part of my post. The text from the bill does mention public land. So it would stand to reason that if it had anything to do with private land it would mention that as well. It does not.
so if its not about public land then whats the section about reimbursement to farmers in there for?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2010, 11:26:33 AM
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 11:36:22 AM
So it looks more like a bill requiring consideration for wildlife during planning of roadbuilding, mineral extraction, logging...that sort of thing. I'm in favor of that kind of management, as long as reasonable consideration is the function.check out the comment from the poster at the bottom of this page. The initial story is without enough detail to satisfy my understanding of the purposes for this bill, but the comments at the bottom from one poster go much deeper into it. Not to say this person is right or wrong, I don't know either way, but it reasons to believe it sounds possible and if that is the case well......
http://www.cfact.org/a/1756/New-Congressional-initiative-to-create-wildlife-corridors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29 (http://www.cfact.org/a/1756/New-Congressional-initiative-to-create-wildlife-corridors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29)
Again the problem is to do with how this is being done and who's behind it, this leads into an understanding of how one should expect such legislation to be regulated. Look at the wolves for example, a poorly handled poorly motivated reintroduction pushed by an organization who has much larger goals in mind. The results of which have caused far more resentment towards wolves than there should be.
Kinda of like when certain gray wolf biologists drag out indentifing wolf packs as long as possible. Sure its all in accordance with established scientific practice and rules for identification of wolf packs, but when its stretched to its limits...... there's a reason this is happening and its not for scientific reasons. ;)
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 11:38:45 AM
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-09/su09-congress_gone_mad.pdf (http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-09/su09-congress_gone_mad.pdf)
05-22-2009, American Alps Legacy Project envisions a bigger, better national park, “We will not cut people out of areas of traditional use,�� said Davis. “We’ll make sure lots of areas are left for hunting.�� Harts Pass, a popular snowmobile area, is not included in the study area. More hiking trails will be available in the park, isolated from hunting. “People think the scenic corridor is protected, but it could be developed,�� said Jim Davis, executive director for NCCC. He said, “it might not change in the next 10 to 20 years, but as the social structure changes, the land now under Forest Service management could support mining, downhill ski areas and small hydroelectric projects. As energy prices go up, it becomes more economically feasible to develop renewable energy that could de-water streams and string power lines to the west,��
Statements like these are scare tactics that the environmentalists use to deceive people. As most of you may know, it is very hard to do anything to state, federal, or even private property without the environmentalists interfering
The American Alps project would protect critical watershed landscape features; extend wildlife corridors and non-motorized recreation opportunities to the growing population from the Puget Sound area. Environmentalists’’ statements like these woo people away from reality. The environmentalists pick these wolves to gain control of the land with rulings through the ESA. They have done it with the spotted owl, the salmon, and the list goes on. NOTE: The area being studied for more protection includes land on both sides of Highway 20 just a few miles past Mazama
http://wolfcrossing.org/2009/05/26/wild-earth-guardians-launches-rural-cleansing-campaign-against-gila-residents-and-ranching/ (http://wolfcrossing.org/2009/05/26/wild-earth-guardians-launches-rural-cleansing-campaign-against-gila-residents-and-ranching/)
Wild Earth Guardians launches rural cleansing campaign against Gila residents and ranching
Protecting the Gila
WildEarth Guardians wants to secure lasting and landmark protection for the endangered wildlands and wildlife of the Gila Bioregion in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. Our vision is a healthy population of wolves surrounded by millions of acres of newly designated wilderness. Eventually we believe that America’s first Wilderness Area should become its next great National Park or National Monument. How could such a bold vision come to fruition? Come find out about WildEarth Guardians’ strategy to lead the way in protecting the Gila. We look forward to a great conversation! Please RSVP to Carol Norton, 505-988-9126, ext. 1150 or cnorton@wildearthguardians.org.
No Hunting
No cross country skiing
No snowmobiling
No fishing
and the list goes on!
Post by: turbo on June 17, 2010, 12:23:06 PM
Good stuff Wolfbait. More wilderness, MORE wildlands, MORE roadless areas More Property restrictions! Also being a sledder and occasional ATV rider, and 4 wheeler-we have been fighting these folks for YEARS. and you will come to find that many many hunters are all for it! Right Turbo?
EXACTLY!! All you have to do is look at DU and RMEF. They push this stuff too. They use us to give give money and support to the Sierra club to help "create wilderness" in the name of hunting.. yahhhh right.. And the wolfs are here to create balance.. lol
What WILL happen is we will lose way more hunting areas, have a lot more regulations and rules and lose tons of access before hunters actually wake up, unite, and become a force.
Post by: haus on June 17, 2010, 12:27:52 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2010, 02:01:56 PM
The old saying about how you never really know someone until you have gone
through a stressful situation with them is one of those truisms that
policemen and soldiers know all too well. I suspect that the people of
Oregon are similarly seeing the true nature of their State Fish and Wildlife
Department as they grapple with the wolves starting to come over their
horizon.
Reading this Plan, tells me that the Oregon State Fish and Wildlife
Department has become an instrument of those who would abandon big game
hunters, ignore ranchers, and generally look the other way as rural
residents and communities are depressed by the coming wolf packs. As a
Virginian that has observed State fish and wildlife agencies across the
nation for years I am not surprised by this fact. The Plan exudes the
values that recently drove a vote in Oregon to ban the only two effective
hunting methods used to control cougar populations. Today, Oregonians, like
their southern (California) cousins that prohibit all management of cougars,
prohibit hunters from using dogs or bait to hunt cougars and again like
Californians cover up the cost, reasons, and numbers of cougars that are
killed annually by Federal government hunters paid in part by all the
taxpayers of the United States. The Plan clearly is intended to likewise
mask and ignore where possible the depredation of wolves on big game,
livestock, and other animals. State funds and increasingly Federal funds or
the funds from the quasi-governmental partners are and will in the future be
inadequate to keep pace with the approaching storm of depredations as the
wolves populate Oregon and surrounding states.
The Plan downplays rural residents concerns with safety with the attitude of
the Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels who believed that public opinion was
the responsibility of government and that disagreement by citizens was
merely a failure of citizens to behave properly. The two paragraphs devoted
to this topic on page 71 are a disgrace.
The misinformation about big game impacts is especially bad. Buried in the
blizzard of "science" in the Plan is the excuse the State and Federal
bureaucrats will use when ranchers and big game hunters are gone and wolves
endanger both rural and urban communities. To wit (on page 56), "Much has
been written in the scientific literature regarding the interaction and
effects of wolves on prey numbers, but few common conclusions have been
drawn." Need more be said? Wolves in Oregon will cause all the harm they
have in Montana and they will learn to behave in ways that NO ONE CAN
PREDICT in different situations. Wolf behavior in Alberta or Alaska was no
predictor of wolf behavior in the US Rockies and wolf behavior will be
different in Oregon just as it is in Wisconsin or Asia. We are talking
about large and smart wild dogs, do you think pit bull behavior predicts
golden retriever behavior? Do you think an urban rottweiller used as a
guard by drug dealers predicts how a dachshund will behave in a
schoolteachers' home in Redmond? Remember that no wildlife biologist nor
any piece of "scientific literature" predicted that wild turkeys could live
behind Iowa barns or chase mailmen in Boston suburbs. No one predicted that
Canada geese could live on bluegrass, raise their young in mall parking
lots, and remain resident in the millions across the northern US year
around. NO, the turkeys needed "virgin forests", the geese "only nested in
the far north", and wolves only behave like such and such. Those who
believe this stuff should stay away from Brooklyn or they will wind up
"owning" a bridge.
Finally, the Plan reveals the State bureaucrats intention to mimic Federal
bureaucrats regarding wolf protection. Given the harm wolves will wreak and
the danger they pose, the penalties of up to one year in prison and a $6,250
fine for a first offense and a 5 year, $100,000 fine for a second offense
are disgraceful. They will do just what the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Defenders of Wildlife intended, scare the H--- out of rural families
and ranchers. Surely someone will be made "an example" and then wives will
tell husbands to look for work in the city and people will stay in town and
there will be fewer rural activities. Then guess who will buy the land?
Guess who will close down more land and more uses, and impose more on
private landowners because there will be fewer and fewer people who know or
care or resist? If you guessed the same folks dumping the wolves and giving
them the status of mistletoe under the druids or some Pacific volcano on an
island populated by pagans, you get the prize.
Jim Beers
15 November 2004
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/wolfplanningbeers111504.htm (http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/wolfplanningbeers111504.htm)
Post by: villageidiot on June 18, 2010, 09:31:53 PM
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2010, 11:06:33 PM
Post by: firecrotch on June 19, 2010, 12:07:26 AM
If all the posts are correct I've read then they are already comsuming private lands by driving out the ranchers/farmers. For instance a recent post by Wolfbait said 6 cattlement in the Gila in New Mexico are selling out because they can't afford to feedthe wolves. Eco groups have bought some of their land and I suppose anybody with money can buy it. Another recent post by Wolfbait told about a group that bought a big chunk and gave it back to the Forest Service. So there you go. Invent a species that will bankrupt a landowner you want his land and he goes belly up and sells to the highest bidder, you buy it then give it to the Feds. and your corridor plan is complete. Right now I know of a large landowner near I-90 that has several spotted owl circles on his land. He can't log it which he bought or else inherited from his grandpa for logging for his decendants livlihood forever. Well, now he can't make a nickel on it so will have to sell out. What about all the wolves that will kill off the ranchers livestock and he can't protect himself. They will have to sell. Then theres the Palouse giant worm thats coming to the forefront that will put wheat farmers out of business. Also the sharptail grouse in the lowlands and the pigmy rabbit and the list goes on and on. Private land owners of any size are doomed if the ESA is not revamped. This is all not just speculation. This is happening right now and has been happening for several years already. A lot of folks are jealous or for some reason think the large landowners are rich and get excited to see much ofthis private land taken away from them. Not many people carrying signs for the large private land owners and they are just plain hard working people trying to make a living off cows, logging or raising crops. When they can't survice selling their resources they have to get out of the business. I promise you they can make a living but can't do it if we throw the ESA at them and destroy them even though they've kept those species around and even enhanced the habitat for some of the species for the last 200 years. Now for some reason all the ranchers are considered vermin wildlife destroyers. Sickening
Exactly! I know of a family in Idaho that literally gave up everything they had. They had a very large sheep operation and ranched off of a main highway. Someone had shot a wolf off the highway on their property without their knowledge, next thing they know the feds are at their door and they were accused because of the steriotypical outlook on ranchers and farmers. They gave up their farm and moved to another area because they literally could not fight the case and plead guilty to face the lower charges. Sad, sad deal the way this 'socialist" country is going.
Post by: Idabooner on June 19, 2010, 08:12:42 AM
you don't sound like a village idiot to me... :dunno:
:yeah: X2
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2010, 07:58:44 PM
E-mail article Print view
Conservation boosted in the North Cascades
By Nicole Tsong
Seattle Times staff reporter
Conservationists yesterday handed nearly 2,000 acres in the North Cascades to the Wenatchee National Forest for permanent protection.
Private donations from more than 9,500 donors funded the purchase — a combination of two parcels of land — by the Cascades Conservation Partnership. It is one of the largest citizen-to-government gifts of land in the state's history, according to organizers.
"It's gotten to the point that every bit of national forest is very important," said Sonny O'Neal, supervisor of the Okanogan and Wenatchee national forests.
"It's important that we find ways to actually buy the land."
The 1,241-acre Negro Creek Valley parcel, adjacent to the southeast corner of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, was purchased from Longview Fibre for $1.5 million.
A separate square-mile parcel, or 640 acres, south of Interstate 90 just west of Manastash Ridge, was purchased from Plum Creek Timber for $1.28 million.
The newly protected land, which prevents roads from being built or forests logged, includes old-growth forests with gray wolves and spotted owls, and habitat for trout and salmon.
The purchase is part of a larger preservation campaign that began last year and has put more than 13,000 acres of land into conservation.
The campaign has raised $11.1 million in private funds, including $3.5 million from a Paul Allen foundation, and $26.3 million from the federal government.
Congress may appropriate more money for the partnership later this fall, said Fred Munson, the Cascades partnership director.
Munson said timing was critical for the Negro Creek Valley land, where there were plans to build a bridge and roads.
With the purchase, "we're keeping that whole valley wild," he said.
Nicole Tsong can be reached at 206-464-2793 or ntsong@seattletimes.com.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010816&slug=cascade16m (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010816&slug=cascade16m)
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2010, 08:08:59 PM
E-mail article Print view
Conservation Plan Targets 18 Million Acres
AP
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects 18 million acres of wildlife habitat on private lands to be protected by the end of the year under habitat-conservation plans.
Here are the 20 largest plans so far, their locations and the species affected, according to the agency:
1. State of Washington, 1.6 million acres specified in management plan for state's 2.1 million acres of forestry lands; northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, salmon and steelhead.
2. Balcones Canyonlands, Travis County, Texas, 633,000 acres; golden-cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo, borianthos plant and cave bugs.
3. Riverside County, Calif., 540,000 acres; Stephens' kangaroo rat.
4. Clark County, Nev., and Southern California, 525,000 acres; desert tortoise.
5. Simpson Timber Co., Northern California, 300,000 acres; northern spotted owl.
6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in North Carolina, working with U.S. Army Fort Bragg, six neighboring counties and private landowners, 300,000 acres; red-cockaded woodpecker.
7. Metropolitan Bakersfield, Calif., 262,000 acres; San Joaquin kit fox, blunk-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, Bakersfield cactus, and San Joaquin wooly-threads.
8. Potlach Corp., Arkansas, 233,000 acres; red-cockaded woodpecker.
9. Weyerhaeuser Co., Coos Bay, Ore., 210,000 acres; northern spotted owl.
10. Orange County, Calif., 200,000 acres; California gnatcatcher, southern arroyo toad, and American peregrine falcon.
11. State of Massachusetts, coastal counties, 200 coastal miles; piping plover.
12. Plum Creek Timber Co., Kittitas County, Wash., 170,000 acres; northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, and gray wolf.
13. Oregon Department of Forestry, Elliott State Forest, 94,000 acres; American bald eagle, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
14. Coachella Valley, Riverside County, Calif., 70,000 acres, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard.
15. Gulf Coast Prairies Safe Harbor, Southern Texas, 64,000 acres; brown pelican and prairie chicken.
16. Alpomado Falcon Safe Harbor, Texas Gulf Coast, 64,000 acres; alpomado falcon.
17. Murray Pacific Corp., Lewis County, Wash., 55,000 acres; northern spotted owl.
18. Volusia County, Fla., 50,000 acres; nesting sea turtles.
19. Weyerhaeuser Co., Arkansas, Oklahoma, 40,000 acres; American burying beetle.
20. ARCO Western Energy, Kern County, Calif., 31,360 acres; San Joaquin kit fox, blunk-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat and Glant kangaroo rat.
Copyright (c) 1997 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970503&slug=2537050 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970503&slug=2537050)
Post by: haus on June 19, 2010, 09:00:12 PM
There isn't a spot in the Endangered Species Act that says the protection of endangered species should superceed the financial livelihood of families by limiting or even preventing their ability to make a living off their own land, absolute *censored*. Who are we to tell any American that they cannot make a living off of their land because an 'endangered' bird has been found on their land? >:(
Post by: Axle on June 19, 2010, 09:06:19 PM
Quote
12. Plum Creek Timber Co., Kittitas County, Wash., 170,000 acres; northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, and gray wolf.
Griz in Kittitas county? When do they plan this stupid move?
Post by: wolfbait on June 20, 2010, 08:31:31 PM
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/wildlands_project/wolves_in_our_backyard_20070530234/ (http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/wildlands_project/wolves_in_our_backyard_20070530234/)
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2010, 01:24:45 PM
Letter to Share:
I thank governor Butch Otter for his help, along with that of County Commissioner Gordon Cruickshank in helping me regain access to my private property via a 130 year old RS2477 road, which Suzanne Rainville illegally ordered closed on April 20th, without any public comment or any due process. I thank anyone and everyone else who has had a part in saving my personal property rights from certain destruction by the always abusive USFS ranger Suzanne Rainville and her Forest Destruction Team.
For more than 38 days I lived in fear of fines or imprisonment simply for driving to my cabin on the river near Yellow Pine. However, I was issued a temporary access permit just yesterday. Today a Payette National forest ranger threatened my brother with fines and imprisonment for driving to my cabin, even though I already HAVE a temporary special use permit. There is still an ongoing battle with the Payette National Forest over the use of my driveway, and citizens from Yellow Pine have gotten locked behind closed gates 20 miles from nowhere, abused, threatened, harassed almost daily since Suzanne Rainville took power.
Further, many of our nation's historical treasures were intentionally destroyed by the Payette National Forest under the careful eye of Suzanne Rainville and two of her predecessors. They intentionally broke the law and destroyed nationally registered historical landmarks, simply to "cleanse the land" of any human trace.
Using nice words to describe the Payette National Forest Destruction Team, I would describe them as radical, overly zealous, fanatical and extreme.
There are dozens of witnesses waiting in the backcountry to testify as to the illegal removing of historical landmarks, many on private property. Dozens more can testify to the Payette National Forest illegally locking the entire town of Yellow Pine behind closed gates on the South Fork of the Salmon River, and holding them prisoner. One prominent community member almost died due to being denied medical treatment by locking of the gate by the Payette National Forest Destruction Team.
It's nice to see our state stand up for it's rights. Thank you governor Butch Otter, Commissioner Gordon Cruickshank, Valley County Commissioners, and everyone who has brought the criminal actions of the Payette National Forest Destruction Team to light.
Sincerely, Scott Amos
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2010, 04:40:15 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2010, 05:56:16 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 24, 2010, 05:37:48 AM
SAWS Members,
Here we go again, this time during the 111th Congress (2009 - 2010), with this insane bill called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA). This bill has once again been introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York.
“The plan would forbid most development across broad swaths of public land in the five states. It calls for the removal of more than 6,000 miles of existing roads, primarily within national forests. Old logging roads would be removed, and habitat restored in most of those areas, creating about 2,300 jobs and leading to a more sustainable economic base in the region, said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Montana-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies, an advocacy group.”
NREPA would create another 23 to 24 million more acres of wilderness in five western states (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming). Yes, I used the word “create”, as much of the public land included in NREPA - which would be designated as wilderness through this bill - is NOT remotely close to meeting the requirements of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Since when did “6000 miles of roads” qualify for wilderness? And if there are “6000 miles of roads” within the proposed wilderness areas, then I can virtually guarantee that there are numerous other man-made structures within these proposed wilderness areas too that do not qualify as wilderness.
Numerous statements regarding NREPA by various individuals attempt to jump on the ever so popular “stimulate the economy” bandwagon by claiming NREPA would create thousands of new jobs. I guess they must have forgotten about that thousands of lost jobs that will result from locking up millions of acres of public land from most multiple-use activities and the loss of jobs from businesses that profit and employees that earn a living from catering to those multiple-use activities.
Link to Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Press Release:
http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1787&Itemid=61 (http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1787&Itemid=61)
Rep. Maloney’s NREPA bill has been introduced every year since 1993, but it has thankfully in these past years never had enough support in Congress to pass and be signed by the president, which would then become law. Could this year be different? It is certainly possible with the newly elected individuals in Congress and the White House this year, who happen to be much more supportive of additional wilderness designations, so this bill could have the support it needs in this Congress to become law.
The fact that Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz, is a co-sponsor of NREPA this year is also certainly not good news for the public who enjoys mechanized recreation on public lands. Rep. Grijalva is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. This subcommittee falls under control of the Committee on Natural Resources, which is chaired by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., who, according to the article below, and along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., have both been indicated their support of NREPA in past years. This year sure seems to be lining up to be a snowmobilers worst nightmare when it comes to access – or lack there of – to our public lands.
NREPA is the grand daddy of all wilderness bills. This bill proposes to implement large portions of the "Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative" or also referred to as "The Wildlands Project", and as previously stated, it would designate somewhere between 23 and 24 million MORE acres as wilderness in the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Do you enjoy snowmobiling in any of these states? If the answer is yes, then you do not want to see this bill become law.
Link to a general map (without detail boundary lines shown) of the proposed new wilderness areas (dark green):
http://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/assets/pix/brochure/mapbig.jpg (http://www.wildrockies.org/nrepa/assets/pix/brochure/mapbig.jpg)
Read the entire bill at this link:
http://maloney.house.gov/documents/environment/20090129_NREPA.pdf (http://maloney.house.gov/documents/environment/20090129_NREPA.pdf)
Link to look up the contact information for your representative:
Lookup your U.S. House Representative
The following members on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands are especially important to contact if they are your representative in Congress.
Mr. Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona, Chairman
Mr. Rob Bishop, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Democrats
Republicans
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Grace F. Napolitano, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Dan Boren, Oklahoma
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
Diana DeGette, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia (ex officio)
Don Young, Alaska
Elton Gallegly, California
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Tom McClintock, California
Doc Hastings, Washington (ex officio)
Link to our previous SAWS Alert on NREPA from October 2007:
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/Action_Alerts/07/SAWS_Action_Alert_-_Hearing_on_Northern_Rockies_Ecosystem_Protection_Act.htm (http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/Action_Alerts/07/SAWS_Action_Alert_-_Hearing_on_Northern_Rockies_Ecosystem_Protection_Act.htm)
There is not much in this year’s version of the NREPA bill that has changed since our previous SAWS alert in 2007. The bill in this year’s Congress WILL have a different bill number. As of today, it does not appear that a bill number has been assigned yet.
Please write your representative to let them know that you are opposed to this bill and why, but DO NOT reference the old bill number from the last Congress, just refer to the bill as the "Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act" or NREPA for short. I have not included a deadline in this alert, as it is currently not scheduled for a hearing, but it is always best to contact your representative sooner rather than later.
Thank you in advance for acting on the recommendation in this alert.
Dave Hurwitz
Snowmobile Alliance of Western States
Copyright 2009, Snowmobile Alliance of Western States. All Rights Reserved. Permission is granted to distribute this information, in whole or in part, as long as Snowmobile Alliance of Western States (SAWS) is acknowledged as the source. If you are not yet a member of SAWS, and would like receive our emails, please sign up on our web site today. SAWS is Free to join! http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org (http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org)
Associated Press Article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_northern_rockies_wilderness.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_northern_rockies_wilderness.html)
Bill would designate 23M acres of wilderness
By MATTHEW DALY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- A New York congresswoman has again introduced a wide-reaching wilderness protection bill that would ban logging, oil exploration and other development on 23 million acres across five Northwestern states.
As in previous years, the proposal by Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney drew criticism from some Western lawmakers who view it as an intrusion on their turf. The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act would designate millions of new wilderness acreage in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and add smaller amounts of wilderness in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington.
No member of Congress from any of the five states has agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which Maloney has pushed in Congress since 1993. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., is a co-sponsor of the latest version. The bill would create 9.5 million acres of new wilderness in Idaho, 7 million acres in Montana, 5 million acres in Wyoming, 750,000 acres in northeastern Oregon and 500,000 acres in eastern Washington.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., called the bill a "top-down approach" that does not account for impacts on the local economy or adequately protect access for hunting, fishing and other forms of recreation.
"Montana doesn't need Washington, D.C. imposing its will and telling us how to take care of our public lands," Rehberg said. "We're going to fight this. As a state that's almost one-third public lands, we have no choice."
Maloney, who represents New York City, said the bill would protect some of America's most beautiful and ecologically important lands while saving money and creating jobs.
"Many of America's most precious natural resources and wildlife are found in the Northern Rockies," she said, adding that the wilderness proposal "would help protect those resources by drawing wilderness boundaries according to science, not politics."
The measure would also mitigate the effect of climate change on wildlife by protecting corridors that allow grizzly bears, caribou, elk, bison, wolves and other wildlife to migrate to cooler areas, she said.
The plan would forbid most development across broad swaths of public land in the five states. It calls for the removal of more than 6,000 miles of existing roads, primarily within national forests. Old logging roads would be removed, and habitat restored in most of those areas, creating about 2,300 jobs and leading to a more sustainable economic base in the region, said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Montana-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies, an advocacy group.
The wilderness measure has been introduced every Congress for nearly two decades, but has only twice made it so far as a public hearing - in 1994 and in 2007.
A significant number of Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, spoke favorably of the bill in 2007, and even more lawmakers from both parties are likely to back the bill this year, Garrity said.
"We think we're making tremendous progress. We have a new president who is much more supportive of wilderness, and we think we have an excellent chance" of winning congressional approval, Garrity said.
A key argument in favor of the bill is a plan to dismantle old logging roads and restore habitat in many areas that have been clear-cut by logging, Garrity said. "This bill puts people to work" in a manner reminiscent of the old Civilian Conservation Corps created in the New Deal,
http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/Action_Alerts/09/SAWS_Action_Alert_-_NREPA_introduced_in_111th_Congress.htm (http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org/Action_Alerts/09/SAWS_Action_Alert_-_NREPA_introduced_in_111th_Congress.htm)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on June 24, 2010, 08:44:39 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 25, 2010, 05:19:13 PM
By Craig Welch
Seattle Times staff reporter
One day near the end of 1996, traffic piled up on Snoqualmie Pass as rubberneckers spotted a restless gray wolf, trapped by snowbanks, pacing along Interstate 90 - presumably seeking a clear shot across the deadly thoroughfare.
The image captures what many biologists consider the single greatest threat to wildlife across the country: segregated habitat.
When a coalition of Seattle environmental groups today formally kicks off a three-year campaign to buy 73,655 acres of private land linking the north and south Cascades, they'll also mark an intersection of two leading trends in conservation.
Attempts to purchase private land as a means of saving it are on the rise, and experts contend land-conservation efforts are focusing more on the need to connect land to areas previously preserved rather than simply buying more isolated parcels.
The number of local and regional land trusts rose 63 percent in the past decade, to 1,213, with the biggest increase in the West. Last year, of 102 ballot initiatives in 22 states that proposed to put tax money toward acquiring land for open space, only 10 failed. And a blistering U.S. economy and booming outdoor recreation have sent contributions to land trusts and nature conservancies skyrocketing.
In Florida last year, the Suwannee River Water Management District paid $5.5 million to buy development rights in the 30,000-acre Mallory Swamp, a black-bear playground. Biologists hope to make it the centerpiece of a corridor system that would let threatened black bears, endangered red wolves and panthers roam from central Florida's Osceola National Forest to St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge near Tallahassee.
Corridors for critters
"We're losing more and more land to development, just as we're recognizing the value of maintaining paths between them for critters to move through," said Jean Heller, director of the Land Trust Alliance in Washington, D.C., an umbrella group for organizations that purchase private lands for conservation.
The groups involved in today's announcement range from the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and Seattle Audubon Society to the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club. Calling themselves the Cascades Conservation Partnership, the groups hope to raise up to $30 million in private donations. They want to match that with $100 million from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The money would go to purchase dozens of square-mile tracts along the crest of the Cascades, land that has been in private ownership in a checkerboard pattern since the federal government granted it to the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1864. Roughly 90 percent of it belongs to Plum Creek Timber.
But while the campaign comes on the heels of last year's successful effort to raise millions to purchase logging rights on part of the Loomis Forest in Okanogan County, those involved know they face a big task.
Between the price tag and the amount of land, the purchase would rank among the largest land-conservation efforts in the country.
"We recognize we're being kind of bold and audacious," said Bill Pope, a former Microsoft attorney turned environmental activist who plans to exploit his connections among the Northwest's high-tech elite.
"But if we can raise $17 million to save 25,000 acres in a forest no one has ever really heard of, then I think we can raise $25 million to save 75,000 acres that's right in Seattle's back yard."
Publicly, Washington's two U.S. senators have expressed support, along with the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Plum Creek Timber. Staffers for Republican Sen. Slade Gorton and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray are expected to be on hand for today's announcement in Seattle.
But the federal money would come through a subcommittee chaired by Gorton, whose staff warns the timetable might be ambitious.
"The proposal is certainly realistic, but it may not get done in that time frame," said spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman, adding that Gorton's interior appropriations subcommittee faced more than 3,000 funding requests last year.
"If Slade can get $30 million in a single year for anything, it would probably be for salmon recovery."
Still, she ruled nothing out. Much of the public financing would depend, she said, on how successful the group is at raising private funds.
Covering a 30-mile swath along I-90, the chunks of land in question would link the 394,000-acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area with the 51,000-acre Norse Peak Wilderness. Declared biologically important years ago by federal managers and conservationists, the land contains ponderosa pines and 800-year-old Douglas-fir forests and is home to many of the region's most popular recreation spots, including the Cle Elum River and Olallie Meadows.
It also has spotted-owl and grizzly bear-habitat and endangered salmon runs.
"This is really the last place left on the crest of the Cascades that's not in public ownership," said Mariann Armijo, a former Forest Service biologist now working for the partnership.
But some of the areas - a stretch of the North Fork of the Taneum River, for example - include old-growth forests targeted for logging as soon as next spring. Much of it includes or is next to scarred hillsides. Many acres are criss-crossed with logging roads.
No one disputes that purchasing the land would increase the likelihood that species of plants, animals and amphibians would flourish.
Regulations to protect wildlife habitat aren't as restrictive on private land as they are on public. Buffer zones around streams and spotted owls are narrower. Clear-cuts are larger. Road densities are higher. Even though much of the nearby public land is in designated roadless tracts, the federal government can't outright ban landowners from building roads across federal land to access their own property.
Biologists in the past 20 years have found that if there are no corridors between tracts of land, some large mammals struggle. Grizzlies and wolves, for example, require hundreds of square miles of range. Forced into isolated areas, they face "genetic bottlenecks" - or inbreeding - which decreases the likelihood of long-term survival.
"Even small mammals can go extinct if they're limited to local populations," said Bill Noble, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Olympia. "They need that new influx of genetic material."
Experts also contend that heavily logged and roaded corridors aren't sufficient. Study after study shows the greatest threat to bears is contact with humans, which increases exponentially where there are roads.
Rights of passage
Endangered gray wolves, meanwhile, tend to alter their range based on their prey, such as elk. But elk tend to abandon the large clear-cuts typical of private land in favor of smaller openings. If elk stay clear of the corridor, Armijo said, so will wolves.
When the U.S. Department of Transportation proposes in coming years to widen I-90 between Snoqualmie and Cle Elum, environmentalists and wildlife managers plan to present them with plans for underpasses or overpasses so that wildlife can cross without meeting traffic.
If those bridges connect wild areas to land still occupied by logging trucks, however, the point might be moot.
"That's the problem," said Fred Munson, who is coordinating the campaign. "If we do nothing, eventually we'll just have to separate ecosystems."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000523&slug=4022615 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000523&slug=4022615)
Post by: runamuk on June 26, 2010, 08:45:32 AM
Quote12. Plum Creek Timber Co., Kittitas County, Wash., 170,000 acres; northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, and gray wolf.
Griz in Kittitas county? When do they plan this stupid move?
I knew of griz sightings in Kittitas and wolf sightings this was back in 1998 they have been there quite a while no one would deny or confirm on the record but I heard the wolves with my own ears :dunno: I asked and was told it was being kept quiet to protect them, same with the griz :dunno: I guess no one was paying attention back then ...it still amazes me that its only become an issue in the last couple years I guess they did a good job of keeping a lid on the info :dunno:
Post by: Little Dave on June 27, 2010, 10:06:07 PM
There's a need to hide wolves and grizzlies? Why?
Public not on board with this plan yet?
We're not fools to be patronized. We are citizens. The people working in these wildlife departments are our public servants whom we pay with our money. The right way to introduce wolves, if ever, is with the full cooperation of informed citizens. We have to know what we get and what we lose with an increased wolf population.
So far the offer is this:
We get musical wolf sound.
We get to see how nature "balances" populations (again).
We lose money, unspecified amounts starting with huge amounts growing from there.
We lose certain expectations of health and safety in wolf-occupied areas.
We lose ground on already difficult to control wildlife populations.