The Green Sportsman

Fellow sportsmen concerned about conserving fish and wildlife habitat often ask me “What can I do to help?” These New Year’s resolutions are a start:
 
Read. Many of the threats to our environment could be stopped in their early stages if sportsmen became involved earlier. The best way to keep informed is to read every day. Search the internet news sites, as well as the websites of green groups to find causes you can really get behind.
 
Write. Never underestimate the impact of a voter on a politician. When you see something you don’t like, send an email or a snail mail. And don’t stop with just one. It’s always good to let your officials know their actions will determine how you vote.

Join. There is strength in numbers for two reasons. Lobbying by large groups carries more weight, as they have the resources to do groundwork research. Pick your groups wisely by reading their charters, and the issues they are active in. Ask how much of their budgets are spent on administration and salaries, and how much on education and lobbying.
 
Conserve. Set an example by practicing conservation at home and ethical behavior in the field.
 
Persevere. Never, ever give up on an issue. The unfortunate truth is that wealthy industries and  groups have the edge on our issues because, under current campaign finance laws, they can virtually spend a candidate into office--or out of it. But we’ve made progress, and stopped or mitigated disasters, by continuing the fight. Every voice counts.
 
Happy New Year.

It’s that time of the year when conservationists can be a drag at holiday parties.
 
After all, it seems like all we do is complain or warn. But we can also get into the spirit of the season. So, here’s The Green Sportsman’s Christmas wish list:

1. A national commitment to save Louisiana’s coast. This one hits close to home--in fact, it’s getting closer every day (editor's note: Bob lives in New Orleans). When I was a teenager, the Gulf of Mexico was a 2-hour boat ride. Today it’s less than an hour away. Read all about it at http://www.crcl.org/ and www.americaswetland.com.

2. The new congress will re-write the Bush energy bill. Never has so much damage been done to so many by so few.

3. Congress will pass the Clean Water Reauthorization Bill. This action would solve the Supreme Court’s ruling that stripped Clean Water Act protection from isolated and temporary wetlands so critical to fish and wildlife.

4. Congress will pass the Roadless Rule Conservation Act, a move that would codify protections of Roadless Areas established by President Clinton, repealed by Presidents Bush, reinstated by a federal court--and still very much in doubt.

5. President Bush has an environmental epiphany, and becomes a born-again green sportsman, converting from Polluter in Chief to Conservationist in Chief.

6. Sportsmen everywhere wise up to the propaganda that environmental groups hate hunting and fishing.

I told you so.
 
It isn’t often I get to write those words, especially for happy occasions. But recent news from the mainstream press makes this opportunity possible: Sportsmen were a major factor in stopping unhealthy environmental proposals from the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.

The Los Angeles Times reports political scientists believe failure of Republican attempts to weaken clear air and water regulations was a result of “an emerging alliance between environmentalists and a traditional GOP base, hunters and anglers.”

According to one expert quoted in the story “The so-called hook-and-bullet constituency has become more concerned about protecting public lands, protecting open space in general. I don’t think that’s going to change.”

No one should be surprised. Six years ago when the Bush Administration started its assault on the environment I told anyone who would listen it would cost the GOP sportsmen, especially in the west. It’s one thing to make fun of environmentalists trying to save a snail darter, it’s another to change regulations that would turn over precious hunting and fishing habitat to big oil, gas, and mining.

For two years many sportsmen refused to listen. But as drilling rigs soiled the sky and clear cuts ruined streamside, they began to take action.

My hope now is that this expert is true about his prediction: “I don’t think that’s going to change.”

President Bush is fond of telling the American people that he “trusts them with their own money.” But he clearly doesn’t trust us with our own forests--not to mention our deserts, rivers, wetlands, air, and water.

Proof of that has been the administration's systemic “streamlining” of public resource regulatory processes, which has reduced the opportunity for public participation in the management of their own property. The latest move came last week when the Forest Service announced it was no longer going to do formal environmental impact statements on long-term management plans for national forests.

The reason? These management plans, they say, have no real impact on the environment--and that means there is no real requirement for an ESA under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

Let’s see, 15-year plans on how national forests are managed have no impact on  the environment, even though in many areas the entire ecosystem is covered with said forests. Hmmmmm.

As The Register-Guard of Eugene Ore., put it “The Bush administration insults the intelligence of the American public with its explanation of this policy change. It's like saying there's no impact to rezoning your neighborhood to allow meat-processing plants, since actual construction is all that ultimately matters.”

Oh, and the Forest Service rule also included categorical exclusions from requirements of the NPPA for any future updates or changes to these plans--which means you won’t be allowed in any future discussions on the plan to manage your property.

You won’t be surprised to find out the timber and mining industries wholeheartedly endorse these measures.

I guess the administration trusts someone with their own property as long as they’re ready to cut it, drill it, or dig it.

The recent greenness shown by the Republican Congress on its way out the door has me caught between relief and anger. I’m relieved that fish and wildlife will be protected, but I’m angry it took this long. As if anyone needed proof, this is just another sign of the ugly influence of money in politics and, hence, conservation policy. That suspicion is only reinforced by the continued actions of our Polluter-in-Chief.

First, the good news. Among the measures passed in the waning minutes of the 109th congress:

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Marines Fisheries Act that features most of the key conservation measures sportsmen have been pushing for.

A ban on offering new oil and gas drilling or hard rock mining leases on Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front from Glacier National Park to Rogers Pass.

Protecting New Mexico’s Valle Vidal from future development.

Cynic that I am, I can’t help wondering if the reason the long-held opposition by some out-going congressmen didn’t evaporate after they were de-elected because they no longer had to honor campaign contributions from the likes of the energy industry.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is still in office, and still continues to honor those that brung ‘em to the dance.

That’s why the BLM recently ignored calls to stop winter drilling in sensitive areas of the Rocky Mountain west. And that's why Tuesday the Forest Service announced long-term management plans for national forests will no longer go through a formal environmental impact statement, the U.S. Forest Service announced Tuesday.

This last move means sportsmen and the rest of the public will have much less input into decisions affecting how the lands they own is managed by the administration. More on that in the next post.

The last post on ATV roads brought a lot of comment. Much of it was inaccurate, and some of it was obscene. Many opinions were spiked with disinformation put out by groups that let politics get in the way of conservation. So, let me set a few things straight.

First, some definitions.

When talking about public lands policy, the term “wilderness” is not an adjective, but a noun. It takes an act of Congress to confer legal wilderness status to federal land, a status that prohibits all motorized vehicles and allows only traditional means of human travel--i.e., foot or hoof.

Despite propaganda to the contrary from segments of the ORV lobby, wilderness advocates--many of whom are hunters and anglers--have not been busily locking away huge chunks of public lands that would make your ATV useless. In fact, the vast majority of public lands in the nation remain open to multiple uses, including ATVs, and that is not going to change.

The latest figures show there are 105 million acres of designated wilderness in the U.S., accounting for just 4.4 percent of our land area. (http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Wilderness/about.cfm?TopLevel=About) This constitutes a small percentage of the 638 million acres managed for us by the major federal land use agencies, including the Forest Service (191 million), Bureau of Land Management (268 million), National Park Service (84 million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (93 million) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (12 million).

Bottom line: The amount of public lands opened to uses that include ATVs out-numbers wilderness and roadless areas by at least 6 to 1. No one in Congress is proposing that status quo should be changed. So this sense of persecution being expressed by some ATV advocates is disingenuous, to say the least. If anything, the movement during the Bush Administration has been in the opposite direction--to extend the use of ATVs into areas where they were previously restricted, a move that is opposed by the vast majority of sportsmen in most of those area.

Wilderness--a quality our forefathers could experience simply by traveling beyond the city limits--is so precious today it warrants congressional action to protect it. And that is a shame.

Yes, having to go by foot or hoof means some people won’t get to experience these areas. But opening them to roads and ATVs would ruin the qualities that make them worth visiting. I’d like to visit the top of Mt. Everest, but I’m not in favor of allowing helicopter rides to the peak. There are some things I’ll just never be able to do.

In the next few months the newly-installed Democratic congress will attempt to answer that question. During the Republican era in Congress, the off-road vehicle industry had friends in powerful positions who thought more roads were a good idea.  Most conservation groups disagreed – especially those in western states, where hunters and anglers use traditional means to reach their favorite spots. That means by foot or hoof.

I’ve never been in a forest that was improved by the presence of motorized vehicles.  They scatter game, contribute to erosion that can ruin a trout run, and create the kind of noise and traffic that might be acceptable in a city park, but have no place on wild lands.

But unless sportsmen raise their voices, the Dems might fall into the same pattern. Let ‘em know how you feel.

The sportsman’s fight to stop development in roadless areas took a few positive turns last week – although the future remains far from secured.

First, some background.

In 2001, after 10 years of public hearings showed 90 percent support for the idea, President Clinton signed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibited development and most road-building - except for that needed in emergencies such as fires - in precious fish and wildlife habitat. http://www.ourforests.org/roadless/. Sportsmen’s groups (including the TRCP) enthusiastically supported this action.

In 2005 President Bush repealed that protection, but last September a federal court said Bush’s action was illegal. That didn’t stop the administration from encouraging opponents to employ an end-run around the court by using the Administrative Procedures Act to bring new plans before the Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory Committee (RACNAC), which makes recommendations on roadless plans to U.S. Forest Service.

Out-going Idaho Gov. Jim Risch, who has been loud in his dislike of the Roadless Rule, did just that and prepared a petition for the RACNAC that would open 5 million of the 9 million roadless acres in his state http://www.ourforests.org/IDPetition/ID_roadless_areas_at_risk.pdf.

But in his testimony to the RACNAC last week, Risch described a plan that would actually provide more protection to roadless areas than Clinton’s roadless rule.

Sportsmen on hand to testify against Risch’s plan were stunned – and cautiously optimistic. http://www.tu.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=7dJEKTNuFmG&b=1356161&ct=3272329 . But they’re not convinced Risch has actually changed his tune.

Better news came from California, where U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte, who ruled in September that Clinton’s Roadless Rule be reinstated, issued another ruling banning development, included mineral leases, in roadless areas. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001753.html

The ruling does not affect existing roads or operations already approved or underway before the 2001 Clinton decision.

Overall, a good week for the on-going push to reinstate the Clinton rule so important to sportsmen. But that doesn’t mean the skies are completely blue.

Whatever Risch is up to, it won’t last long. Gov-elect C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) takes office in January, and no one doubts where his sympathies lay.

“When he was in congress last year he proposed a bill that would sell off 15 percent of all national lands,” said Scott Stouder, western regional director of Trout Unlimited. “We’re preparing for that.”