The Green Sportsman

Some sportsmen questioned why I used the rating system from the League of Conservation Voters to judge congressmen on issues important to hunters and anglers.  The LCV, they point out, is more associated with “hard-core” enviro groups like the Sierra Club than traditional sportsmen’s conservation outfits like Ducks Unlimited. The answer points to what I consider a shameful shortcoming on the part of those sportsmen’s groups: None of them provide such a critique, which means the LCV is the only game in town.

Why?  Well, sporting groups will tell you they favor a “non-confrontational” approach, contrasting their style to the more divisive tactics often shown by traditional green groups. They say, in the end, their approach is more productive because they don’t burn bridges. They don’t want to make key members of congress angry and uncooperative in the future.

I say they aren’t doing fish, wildlife, and sportsmen any favors. Worse, this policy allows real threats to the future of public hunting and fishing to parade around the country presenting themselves as friends to our traditions.

Congressional votes are public record.  The only way publishing their votes on issues important to us could be considered “confrontational” to a politician is if they had something to be ashamed of.         

I’m not asking sporting groups to call people names - just publish the records. Being timid on this issue only empowers politicians who work against our interests.

Until a sporting group has the courage to step forward and provide this important service, we’re left with the LCV – and glad to have them.

It sounded like hyperbole when green groups started calling Rep. Richard “Dick” Pombo (R- CA) the “Darth Vader of the Environment.” But as they say in Texas “it ain’t braggin if you can do it”, and Pombo has shown he can – and will – do it to sportsmen and the environment at every turn.

As chair of the House Resources Committee Pombo pushed to allow road building in the Tongass National Forest, sell national parks to private industry, eliminate the moratorium on selling federal lands to mining companies, remove regulations that force energy companies to respect wetlands and wildlife values on public lands, weaken the Endangered Species Act, and rewrite the National Environmental Policy Act so industry would have a more profitable time on public lands at the expense of fish, wildlife, and sportsmen. No wonder real estate developers have paid almost $250,000 into his campaign chest over the years (Center for Responsive Politics.)

The looming election hasn’t made Pombo back off. Now he’s pushing a bill that would remove the popular 25-year ban on drilling for oil and gas off fragile coastlines. This stinks on its own, but it could also torpedo a Senate-passed drilling bill by Mary Landrieu (D-LA), that would actually help fish and wildlife. The Senate version opens new areas to drilling only in the northern Gulf, which already has lived with the industry for more than 50 years. In exchange, four coastal states would receive 37.5 percent of the royalties for habitat restoration. Louisiana urgently needs the money to help rebuild the nation’s most valuable coastal estuary, half of which has been destroyed by erosion over the last 50 years – a process largely a result of the many miles of canals dredged for oil and gas related work.

Pombo is hoping to push his agenda in a conference committee, a strategy the record shows could sorely cost fish, wildlife and sportsmen. For a full review of Pombo’s record, click here.

. . . Strange but true: The Washington Post reported last week growing concerns among researchers that wildlife is part of the water pollution problem in many areas. Seems that critter scat is, well, fouling the environment. The Post reports:

“Scientists have run high-tech tests on harmful bacteria in local rivers and streams and found that many of the germs -- and in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, a majority of them-- come from wildlife dung. The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers.”

But Thomas Henry of the EPA asks the right question “"You need to go back and say, 'Maybe the standards aren't exactly right' if wildlife are causing the problem." I’m not Ph.D., but it seems something is out of balance: Too many humans or too many critters. We can’t have it both ways . . .

When Gulf Coast anglers flex their green muscles, good things can happen for their environment, as well as local economies. That’s the lesson implicit in the recent decision by Freeport McMoran to change the design of its proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal off the Louisiana coast.

The company's original design included an “open-loop” system that would have used Gulf water to re-heat the super-cooled liquid gas for transfer to shore-bound pipelines, a process that researchers showed could kill billions of marine organisms daily. The alternative “closed-loop” system, preferred by anglers and other environmentalists, uses part of the gas shipment for heating and poses little risk to the environment, but costs about $30 million more.

The Bush Administration was fast-tracking permit applications for the energy industry when the Gulf fishing community got word of the potential damage to their ecosystem. And when official environmental impact statements showed energy industry opposition to the safer closed-loop system was based purely on having profits that were stupendous rather than outrageous, anglers from Florida to Texas became enraged, helping convince Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco to veto the permit application.

Last week Freeport re-submitted the application with the closed-loop design, singing its praises. "We're very confident that we'll get the permit, especially since there's no opposition," a McMahan spokesman told the AP.

Green groups wanted the cleaner-burning LNG imported, and the estimated thousands of construction jobs for the hurricane-stricken area that the terminal development will bring in. They just wanted it done in an eco-friendly manner.

I confess: Of all the seasons on a sportsman’s calendar, congressional election season is one of my favorites for a rather unsporting reason - even a bad shot can bag his limit of hypocrites. A congressman on the stump will actually strut in front of your sights like a love-starved gobbler, begging to be taken down. Normally I’m a strong believer in the concept of fair chase. But when you’re hunting varmints, allowances can be made.

Over the next few weeks members of congress will be showing up in our hometowns telling us what great friends they are of huntin’ and fishin’ and ‘bout how they all grew up catchin’ and killin’, just like us (their accents always seem to get more countrified the further they get from Washington). They’ll be wearing camo and talking about protecting our great heritage - usually from threats posed by anti-hunters lurking behind every bush.

And at least 300 of them from the House and Senate will boast about being members of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, which supposedly safeguards you know who.

But they won’t be talking about their votes on issues that really matter. Such as relaxing regulations on energy companies operating on public lands, weakening protections for wetlands, slashing funding to police polluters or opening roadless areas to industry.

That’s because they have a lot to hide. But the truth is easy to find.

One way is to check the 2006 National Environmental Scorecard released this week by the respected League of Conservation Voters. The results are not impressive for many members of that Sportsman’s Carcass – ah, Caucus.

On the senate side, Co-Chair Mike Crapo (R- ID) and vice-chair John Cornyn (R-TX) received a “0” – as in zero. Democratic co-chair Ben Nelson (D-NE) was better at a 43, but where I went to school, that's still a failing grade. Those marks made Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) an honor student. He got a 71.

The House side was only a little more impressive. Co-chairmen Adam Putnam (R-FL), earned a 0, while Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), got a 50. Vice chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) had a 17 but his fellow Wisconsin rep, Democrat Ron Kind was among the few heroes with a 92. These numbers are representative of the entire Caucus membership.

What does it take to get a zero on this report card? Well, on the senate side that includes voting for a measure that cuts environmental funding by $19 billion over the next five years for programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and giving a thumbs up to the bill that ended a 25-year moratorium on offshore oil and gas development off the coasts of Florida, including areas close to the Keys. On the House side it included voting to open the Tongass National Forest to logging, and voting against specific congressional protection for isolated wetlands important to waterfowl and other wildlife.

Now, some congressmen will tell you none of the issues the LCV used for grades mention bag limits or hunting seasons. That’s true. But almost all affect just how much fish and game our land and waters can produce.

So when you go hunting this election season, forget the throw-away slogans and the costumes candidates strut at sportsmen’s clubs. Get the facts – and you’ll have no trouble bagging your limit of varmints.