Bat Caper: FS sued for failure to release crucial bat documents

From the Center for Biological Diversity’s Press Release:

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal lawsuit against the northern region of the Forest Service today for withholding documents about cave closures and other measures in Idaho and Montana that could reduce risk of transmission of a disease that is wiping out bats across the eastern United States and is fast spreading west.

The malady, known as white-nose syndrome, has killed nearly 7 million bats, from Nova Scotia to Missouri, over the past six years. So far the agency’s northern region has failed to enact any regulations to stop cave visitors from spreading the disease to healthy bat populations.

“Forest Service officials have utterly failed to protect bats in the northern Rockies from white-nose syndrome by creating common-sense restrictions on human access to caves,” said Mollie Matteson, a bat specialist with the Center. “This lack of action is in sharp contrast to three other regions of the Service that have all closed caves to people. Adding insult to injury, the agency’s northern region is refusing to release documents related to its evaluation of the risk of the horrific illness spreading there.”

Check out the entire press release for some interesting information about white-nose syndrome…with even more info over here at SaveOurBats.

Judge Halts Helicopter Bison Hazing to Protect Yellowstone Grizzlies

Above is a video from the Buffalo Field Campaign of a recent helicopter bison hazing operation.  The video clearly shows the Montana Department of Livestock’s helicopter hazing bison – and other wildlife, including grizzly bears – on Forest Service land, as well as private land surrounding Yellowstone National Park.  According to BFC, in this specific taxpayer-funded helicopter hazing incident, buffalo were hazed for nearly eight hours, up to ten miles on a hot, dry day, with no rest or water; no grazing, nursing or breaks were offered.

Below is the press release from the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in response to the judge’s restraining order:

After hearing arguments at earlier today, Federal District Court Judge Charles C. Lovell granted the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the use of helicopters to haze bison back into Yellowstone National Park.  The Alliance successfully contended that the low-level overflights harassed grizzly bears in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

“We’re overjoyed at the ruling,” said Mike Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  “It’s well-known science that low-level overflights by helicopters ‘harm and harass’ grizzly bears in violation of the National Forest Planning Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act,” Garrity said.  “The Yellowstone grizzly bear is currently listed as a ‘Threatened Species’ under the Endangered Species Act and the Yellowstone bison-hazing flights over occupied grizzly bear habitat are within the designated Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.”

“We provided Judge Lovell with video footage proving that Yellowstone grizzlies flee in terror when low-level helicopters come into their habitat,” Garrity added.  “According to the Forest Service’s and National Park Service’s own scientific literature review, helicopters cause grizzly bears to panic and flee ‘in nearly all cases’ and the bears never become tolerant of helicopters, even with infrequent exposure.”

The helicopter hazing operation began last Thursday by state and federal agents.  According to Yellowstone Park spokesman Dan Hottle, the hazing was “overly aggressive” and pushed more than 320 bison a full two miles into the park.  The Park had requested that no more than 150 bison be hazed at any one time and that they be allowed to graze on the way. “We just wanted to get their heads pointed in the right direction, let them learn their surroundings and let them be bison,” Hottle told reporters last week.

Park managers also sent a request to Governor Brian Schweitzer asking him to suspend all hazing operations for the remainder of the week, but the state continued the helicopter hazing on Friday and testified that they would continue such operations in the future.

The Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council also passed a resolution on May 1st asking Governor Schweitzer to immediately cease harassing wild buffalo, allow them to return to summer ranges by following their own instincts in their own time, and urging the U.S. government and State of Montana to recognize their trust responsibility to Treaty obligations to provide for viable populations of wild, migratory buffalo in their native habitat.

“Grizzlies once occupied an area from Canada to Mexico and from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean,” Garrity said.  “Now their territory is limited to small, isolated parts of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho basically, National Parks and Wilderness Areas.  The helicopters cause the grizzlies to flee from their habitat into areas where they are much more likely to be killed.”

Judge Lovell’s Order says:  “It is hereby ordered that Defendants, and each, all, and any of them are hereby temporarily restrained from conducting further bison helicopter hazing operations in the targeted Hebgen Basin area pending further order of this Court.”

Up to 59% of Idaho wolves killed in one year

Ken Cole of The Wildlife News has the full story:

The Wildlife News has finally obtained all of the records of documented mortality for wolves from April 1, 2011 up to April 1, 2012. This information tells a grim story about what the toll of handing over management to the State of Idaho has been on the Idaho wolf population.  All told, based on some estimates made using the data, under state management, 721 wolves, or 59% of the wolves, were killed in the year running from April, 2011 – April, 2012.  Even if you use only documented mortality, without estimating additional, unreported illegal take or other causes of mortality, then 492 wolves, or 48% of the wolves, in Idaho were killed.

Blog Break

Many of you have noticed that I have not been blogging with my usual intensity and enthusiasm for the last couple of months. It has been because my beloved husband, Paul Imse, had been diagnosed with late stage cancer and so I have been focused on his struggle. Yesterday he passed on to a new and better life, according to our beliefs.

Paul was always a great supporter of my blogging, even though it seems silly and a waste of time to so many other people. I couldn’t have asked for a better or more supportive husband.

So I will be taking a blog bereavement break from now until May 27th. I will continue to post other’s posts and approve comments. If you have ever wanted to start a topic on this blog, or have something you’ve always wanted to say, this might be a good opportunity.

Just sent it to me at [email protected].
See you in a few!

Sharon

How Old is Old Growth? Goose Project

What I found interesting about this Courthouse News Service article on the Goose project was this statement:

Promising that the Goose project will reduce fire risk, provide timber, create jobs and improve wildlife forage, the agency says it has “responded to the concerns raised by residents and made numerous adjustments to the project; including modifying the project near private property boundaries.”
“The harvest plans purposely exclude cutting larger, older trees that are present within the larger planning area,” according to the agency’s website. “Harvest will occur of trees that are from 40-120 years, with the bulk of the harvest occurring of trees that are 60-80 years old. While definitions of Old Growth vary by region and the scientist making the analysis, generally in the McKenzie Bridge area a tree is not considered Old Growth until it is 200 years old. Some people have told us they are not in favor of any logging or would prefer we only thin plantations under the age of 80.”

So here’s a simple question…what is the project going to cut? And if it is max 120 years, is anyone claiming that that is “old growth?”

OHV’s LInked to Weather: Could This Be True?

Sometimes I think there should be a category on this blog for “things that seem too strange to be true but I don’t have time to look at the document myself.” See the italicized sentence in the quote below.
Does anyone out there in blogland have a copy of the report we can post?

PS, who forgot to tell me when the perfectly good English words “resilience” and “relevance” were replaced with “resiliency” and “relevancy” does it follow that prurience is now “pruriency”.. I just wanna know?

Here’s the story:

Specifically, Vilsack said the USFS decided to remove the report, titled “A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Management,” and cease distribution of hard copies and video discs “to clarify the context for the reference to Wildlands CPR’s BMPs [best management practices] and how the Forest Service develops and uses its own national BMPs.

“The Forest Service also had concerns about some of the graphics and the relevancy of some of the information,” Vilsack wrote.

Vilsack’s letter was in response to a letter dated March 9 in which the AMA and six other organizations demanded answers concerning the anti-OHV statements and innuendo in the document as well as the inclusion of information from the Wildlands CPR, which is an anti-OHV group.

Besides the AMA, organizations signing the letter were the All-Terrain Vehicle Association, the BlueRibbon Coalition, the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, the Colorado Snowmobile Association, Trails Preservation Alliance, and the Utah Shared Access Alliance.

The intent of the guidebook is laudable: to help OHV trail managers develop sustainable trails and protect the environment surrounding the trails.

But Wayne Allard, a former U.S. senator and U.S. representative from Colorado who is now the AMA’s vice president for government relations, noted that “the document includes a variety of statements and innuendo that reflect an anti-OHV bias, and cites as a source for information an anti-OHV group. This type of government guide should be fact-based and neutral. It shouldn’t include inflammatory, biased language and the recommendations of a group known to oppose OHVs.”

Among other things, the 318-page guide stated: “This framework was developed to help trail managers corral the OHV management dragon. The author hopes it has provided some insight into the nature of OHV trails, and some tools to help keep the beast at bay. Happy herding and happy trails!”

The guide also claimed that OHV use causes an “increase in frequency and intensity of weather events,” and acknowledged gathering information from the Wildlands CPR.

Supervisors, Forest Reps Seek Common Ground

From this story in the Trinity Journal.

An excerpt..

Collaborative Working Group

The final topic was how to form a collaborative working group, possibly using other successful models such as the steering committee providing advice on projects involving the Weaverville Community Forest or the Resource Advisory Committee that prioritizes funding for forest health projects.

Representatives from the Resource Conservation District and the Trinity River Watershed Center in Hayfork voiced support for that direction and Sup. Judy Morris said she believes a formal “government to government structure would help all parties involved. It would be helpful when we come to those appeal issues that really hang us up. That’s the elephant in the room.”

Sup. Jaegel said he agrees that having a board-authorized collaborative group “is extremely important and would make us a lot more competitive when it comes to limited funding.”

Morris said she believes evaluating successful models of other collaborative groups “is the next step. If they are involved in planning projects at the outset, they can support you when it comes to appeal. And funding goes to areas where there’s a working model going on. If there is conflict, you can kiss the money goodbye. Those are things we aren’t getting now — the funding and the stakeholder wraparound on some of your projects.”

Deputy Forest Supervisor for the Six Rivers Merv George said “we have listened and understand the concerns loud and clear. Working together just makes sense and you have our commitment. It is all our families and friends who are impacted by what happens on the forest. We want everyone to be safe and the key is sitting down to plan projects that meet the needs of communities we serve. You have our commitment to do that.”

Deputy Forest Supervisor Alan Olson from the Shasta-Trinity said “we’ve been listening since 2006 and we’ve been able to do a number of things in that time frame such as the use of local expertise. We share the objectives, but the pace and scale need to be much larger if we’re going to maintain a resilient forest. We really would like to see a unified commitment from the county as an intervener if we get challenged, and support from the county on some of our projects.”

Collaboration offers suggestions for Panhandle Forests

From the Spokesman Review here.

For four decades, truckloads of logs rolling out of the woods were Bob Boeh’s primary interest in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
No surprise since his employer, Idaho Forest Group, depends on federal timber sales to help keep five sawmills churning out 2-by-4s.
But Boeh also finds himself pondering old-growth habitat for owls and woodpeckers these days, along with wilderness areas and scenic river designations. He’s part of a collaborative group of timber industry officials and environmentalists searching for common ground. They’re working on the premise that healthy forests support healthy rural economies.
Though loggers and tree huggers are historic adversaries, they’re recognizing that lawsuits and antagonism can result in losing scenarios for both sides.
Controversial timber sales hurt mill workers by generating legal challenges that lead to gridlock. Forest health, meanwhile, suffers when communities lose sawmills, because there are fewer options for thinning dense, fire-prone stands of trees.
“We thought it was time for a paradigm shift,” Boeh said of the collaborative effort. “There’s 2.5 million acres on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, so there’s plenty of opportunities to have a good, suitable timber base, additions to the wilderness system, something for off-road vehicles and snowmobiles and plenty of fishing, hunting and hiking opportunities. .We should all be able to have a portion if we work together. ”
Since January, he’s been meeting weekly with seven other people with an interest in the North Idaho forests, among them wilderness advocates, loggers and wildlife biologists. The grueling sessions produced a 12-page letter to Mary Farnsworth, supervisor of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
The letter comments on a proposed forest plan revision, which will guide management decisions over the next 10 to 15 years. The letter:
. Supports regular logging operations on 38 percent (900,000 acres) of the forest, including increased certainty of timber harvests.
. Supports new wilderness areas and wild and scenic river designations. The group listed Scotchman Peak, the Mallard-Larkins area and the North Fork of the St. Joe River as areas worthy of protection.
. Recommends better inventories of old growth stands and monitoring of old growth-dependent species, such as pileated woodpeckers, flammulated owls and goshawks.
. Supports leaving buffers of trees and shrubs around streams to shade the water and keep it cool for fish.
“We really think this is monumental . it’s been a heavily litigated forest,” said Liz Johnson-Gebhardt, executive director of the Priest Community Forest Connection, one of the letter’s signers. “All these folks worked really hard to reach a consensus.”

Webinar: The Undesirable Guide to Forest Restoration

This came in from Dan Binkley at Colorado State University as a response to Dave, but I think it deserves its own post.

I thought I’d mention an idea that Megan Matonis and I are trying to develop and advocate: undesirable conditions as a guide to forest stewardship. We’ll be presenting a webinar on Friday this week that might be of interest (and we hope you might join in) — here’s the announcement:

The Southern Rockies Fire Science Network (SRFSN) with presenters Dan Binkley (Professor of Forest Ecology at Colorado State University) and Megan Matonis (PhD student at CSU, and Intern with the Rocky Mountain Research Station) are pleased to present:

SRFSN Webinar: The Undesirable Guide to Forest Restoration

Forest management has a long legacy of successfully (and unsuccessfully) designing forests for well-defined purposes. “Command and Control” approaches work well for tree farms with the singular goal of wood production, but the nature of complex forests is not well suited to this type of forecasting and engineering. “Desired Conditions” is closely related to Command and Control, and probably not very suitable for restoration of complex forests for uncertain futures. Perhaps the most fruitful approach is to identify Undesirable Conditions, and then work collaboratively to move away from the risk of the most egregious futures, and accepting a wide variety of future forests that will develop ecologically on our landscapes.

When: Friday, May 11 from 10:00-11:00 mountain time.

Who: Fire and vegetation practitioners, conservation planners, landscape planners, GIS professionals.

How: Register at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/352070905
You will then receive a confirmation email from “Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center” with information about joining the webinar.

SAF credit: The SRFSN will apply for SAF credit for continuing education by submitting the names of participants.

Questions: Contact Megan Kram, SRFSN Facilitator, at 303-257-0430
About the Southern Rockies Fire Science Network: http://www.srockiesfsn.org or http://www.srmeconsortium.org