The Green Sportsman

Last week the corruption scandals enveloping the Bush Administration spread to the Interior Department when former assistant secretary Stephen J. Griles admitted lying to Senate investigators probing his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Seems Griles, the former oil, mining, and timber lobbyist President Bush put in charge of national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and energy programs at Interior, may have been steering no-bid contracts to Abramoff’s clients. Investigators are also probing how Griles and a girlfriend, Justice Department lawyer and former Interior counsel Sue Ellen Woolridge, ended up co-owning a $1 million beach house with a chief lobbyist for an oil company she let off the hook in a pollution case while serving as the Justice Department's top environmental attorney. Read about it here.

Oh, and one more thing. Investigators say Griles was getting  $284,000 in annual severance pay from his old lobbying and consulting firm at the same time he was getting his Interior check for helping regulate the companies he used to represent. They’re saying that might have been a conflict-of-interest.

You think?

Anyone surprised by this news isn’t a student of George W. Bush’s policy on public agencies, especially those charged with protecting the public’s lands and environmental health. From his first day in office Bush has stocked them with representatives of the very industries they are suppose to regulate. Instead of protecting the public’s interest, Bush has been busy protecting the interest of a handful of industries that fatten their wallets off land, water, and air (and fish and game) owned by the rest of us.

The only surprise about Griles’ problems is that it took so long for his obvious conflicts to become an issue.

Want to talk other conflicts-of-interest? How about these appointments:

Kit Kimball, the top Interior official on Western land issues, was executive director of a group representing mining, oil and timber industries.

Mark Rey, who helped manage national forests at Department of Agriculture, spent 20 years lobbying for the National Forest Products Association, American Forest & Paper Assoc., and the American Forest Resources Alliance.

Linda Fisher, the deputy administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, was chief lobbyist and political fund-raiser for Monsanto.

James Connaughton, head of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), was a registered lobbyist for oil, coal and chemical companies.

Phillip Cooney, who served as Connaughton’s chief of staff at the CEQ from 2001-2005, has admitted changing scientific reports on global warming to soften their environmental impact. As reported in this story “Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training..” Since leaving the CEQ Cooney has become – big surprise – a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil.

Williams G. Myers III, who, as solicitor for the Interior Department, 2001-2003, helped oversee grazing rights on millions of acres of federal land, was the director of federal lands program for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association as well as a lawyer and lobbyist for the mining industry. That conflict apparently made him so appealing to Bush that he was nominated for a life-time position as a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Democrats have blocked that effort.

David Lauriski, director of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission from 2001 to 2004, was a Utah coal operator while commission member Stanley Suboleski was an official with Massey Energy, one of the nation’s largest coal companies.

Rebecca Watson, assistant secretary at Interior from 2001 to 2005 was a lawyer and lobbyist for the mining industry. Allan Fitzsimmons, head of wildfire prevention for the Interior Department, writes in his book “The Illusion of Ecosystem Management” that “ecosystems exist only in the human imagination.”

Ann Klee, Counselor to the Interior secretary from 2001 to 2004 and now counselor to the EPA secretary, is a former lobbyist for the American Mining Congress’s efforts to revise the Clean Water Act.

 
These, and many more, were Bush’s follow-through on his promise to make the environment safe for industry. Regulations protecting the quality of fish and wildlife habitat – not to mention human habitat – play a distant second fiddle to the needs of industry to make an extra dollar. Anyone foolish enough to believe they should have the same voice as Exxon in decisions on public lands wasn’t listening to W. during his presidential campaign.

Bush has never really tried to hide his philosophy, which was obvious from his record in Texas.  But he was expert at telling sportsmen he was on their side ‘cause he liked to hunt n’ fish, and he’d protect them from that big anti-huntin’  n’ fishin’ conspiracy being plotted by them greenies.

If a president dedicated to the future of hunting, fishing, fish, and wildlife is going to show a bias in his appointments, you would think it might be from the other point of view. Why not name the lobbyists from, say, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever to key positions? How about the National Wildlife Federation, or Trout Unlimited?

Not this guy. His appointments reflect his attitude toward our public property – and toward the future of our traditions.

Encouraging news: Last week Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, told the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership he agreed with its overall vision for the conservation section of the Farm Bill.

“It was good news for us, because a key person in the process agrees with our goals (PDF),” Tim Zink, TRCP Director of Communication told The Green Sportsman. “Of course, we’re still in a battle to protect funding for everything in the bill.”

How tight is money? According to Agricultureonline, when  Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) was asked to list his top three issues for the farm bill Thursday, he didn't hesitate. "Money, lack of money and lack of money. That's the top three," he joked.

When it comes to marine fisheries policy, green sportsmen need two things: persistence in bird-dogging the system, and a team of good lawyers.

Last week a coalition of anglers and other environmentalists won a law suit in Houston federal court when the judge agreed with their claims that the red snapper management plan for the Gulf of Mexico--put in place by the federal government in June 2005--violated federal law requiring management plans have at least a 50 percent chance of ending over-fishing on a species. (Read the report here)

Judge Melinda Harmon correctly saw that the 2005 plan had only endorsed the “status quo” of the previous failed plans it was meant to replace because it was “inconsistent with the scientific data” assembled to justify it.

In other words, the federal government ignored its own science on how to rebuild an over-fished species and instead installed a plan that stood little chance of success.

This was obvious in 2005 to sportsmen and others. So days after the plan was announced, the anglers’ group Coastal Conservation Association joined the Ocean Conservancy, Gulf Restoration Network, Earthjustice and others to file suit.

Last week’s victory was good news, but the ruling doesn’t erase two important questions: Why did it take a law suit to stop the obvious injustice? Can this happen again?

Neither answer will thrill a green sportsman.

The law suit was required because the system we use to manage marine fisheries is dominated by councils controlled largely by groups that fish for those species. This is a good idea in theory, because one would suppose those who rely on a species would have the most to loose if mismanagement destroys it. Besides, a scientific agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, is in a supervisory role--and the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has veto power.

But in practice the system has a sorry record, especially for red snapper. Groups with a financial stake in taking snapper, whether traditional commercial fishers or the heavily-capitalized recreational sectors, usually want the other groups to make a sacrifice. And because they wield considerable power in Congress, management plans often end up in a sausage-making process that tries to ease the financial burden of needed cut-backs on any one group. Fishermen win, fish loose.

Although it was clear to conservationists that the 2005 snapper plan clearly violated the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act which governs marine fisheries, proponents seized upon some wiggle room in that law to push the plan through the process. It took almost two years before a federal judge put a halt to the deception.

In the interim, Congress passed an updated version of the Magnuson Act, which has garnered praise from almost all green groups. Some think it may actually have eliminated the wiggle room that allowed the abuse of red snapper.

“In the new version Congress was much more specific in the requirement that any plan must end over-fishing,” said Chris Dorsett, the Gulf of Mexico Fish Conservation Director with the Ocean Conservancy. But what’s to keep another council from breaking the new law?

“Well, that’s why groups like ours keep a continuous watch,” he said. “You would like to think that everyone would act in the best interest of the resource. But human nature being what it is, you have to keep an eye on the process.”

And you have to keep your lawyers ready.

At the end of March, we're sitting down for an interview with Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. We're planning to ask about issues like public land access and wetlands preservation, but we'd love to bring some reader questions to the table as well. If you have a hunting- or fishing-related question for Secretary Kempthorne, write it below. Then look for the interview to run in an issue later this year. --The Editors of Field & Stream Magazine

In answer to the readers who expressed wonder (not always in adult terms) at why I would believe in global warming:

I believe that global warming exists for the same reason I believe, among other incredible things, that the Holocaust was real, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, the planet is round, the CIA did not destroy the Twin Towers, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the US invasion, Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman, man has evolved through the process of natural selection, men did land on the moon, microscopic organisms called viruses exist, and gravity.

And that reason is the weight of overwhelming evidence supported by exhaustive, open, and peer-reviewed research.

Is there a very tiny slice of scientists who do not agree with the broad consensus? Yes. And there are also a handful of doctors – from accredited medical schools – who believe entirely in natural remedies for disease. But I’m willing to bet the global warming deniers still take prescription drugs when they get an infection.

This is how environmental groups hurt their own causes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is holding hearings on a proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species – and green groups have announced their intention to use the listing as a hammer to force the government into policy changes to address global warming.

Recent research has indicated shrinking Arctic ice may have impacted some populations of polar bears. A green group (Greenpeace) used that finding last year to request the listing, prompting hearings. Now some of the mainstream green groups are admitting it’s really a ruse for another target: global warming.

But as The Washington Post reported:

“If the polar bear were listed as a threatened species, all federal agencies would have to ensure that anything they authorize that might affect polar bears will not jeopardize their survival or the sea ice where they live. That could include oil and gas exploration, commercial shipping or even releases of toxic contaminants or climate-affecting pollution.

“"The Interior Department has pretty much explicitly said that they don't think they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emission, but we know that the Endangered Species Act goes well beyond these walls, that it's taken into account by other agencies," said Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace.

What’s wrong with this tactic? Plenty. It gives opponents of the Endangered Species Act more ammunition with which to discredit a vital piece of legislation for fish and wildlife.  And it strengthens skepticism many sportsmen have about green groups.
 
The USFWS investigation might eventually prove there is enough science to justify listing the polar bear, and it might base that action on research showing global warming is the cause.  That would be victory enough for conservation.

The Conservation Reserve Program issue has rapidly moved from a controversy to a crisis that demands the action of every sportsman.

A week ago the outdoors community was rocked by news that energy policy and pressure from the commodity markets had prompted President Bush to consider reneging on his months-old promise to protect and expand the CRP acreage. His support for increased ethanol production had helped double the price of corn in a year’s time, and the agriculture industry – as well as investors in ethanol plants – wanted current CRP contracts dissolved, and a freeze on future contracts.

But what the conservation community originally thought would be just another sparring match to protect the most successful fish and wildlife conservation program in history, now appears to be a long uphill battle – with the odds stacked against them.

What we have here is the perfect storm for CRP: Commodity markets have rapidly out-bid CRP subsidies at the same time Congress is in a pitched political battle to reduce the overall budget. So ducks, pheasant and deer are not only in competition with the price of corn, but with scarce federal dollars for worthy projects such as school lunch programs, armor for troops in Iraq, student loans – not to mention the traditional billions in pork.

CRP is worth fighting for because this is one of those sportsmen-friendly measures that help the nation by creating a much healthier entire environment for everyone. Email your congressional delegations (easily accomplished at congress.org) demanding at least to hold the line on what the 2002 Farm Bill contained.

Go to your group’s web sites for more information.