Matthew Koehler

And no, even though it seems like this would be news from 1919, it’s happening today, in 2019. In fact, the following propaganda poster was just posted by the “Foundation for Wildlife Management” on their Facebook page yesterday:

I could find no information indicating that this up-$1,000 ‘bounty’ – I mean “reimbursement” – per trapped and killed wolf wasn’t available if the wolf was trapped and killed on federal public lands throughout Idaho, including deep within federally designated Wilderness areas. If that’s indeed the case, how in the world can the U.S. Forest Service and other federal land management agencies allow a $1000 bounty per dead wolf on America’s federal public lands, especially within Wilderness areas?

Even if federal public lands are excluded from this $1000 wolf-bounty trapping “contest,” how in the world can a group like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game fund the bounty? It must be legal for IDFG to do this. How the Elk Foundation thinks funding a $1000 bounty on wolves in the year 2019 is ethical, scientific or follows the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which the RMEF claims to follow, is a mystery.

I did notice on the Foundation for Wildlife Management website that they claim that in 2018 they got a $25,000 grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They also claimed that this was the third year in a row they got $25,000 from the RMEF, meaning a total of $75,000 given by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in three years.

According to the Idaho rangeland commission, wolves have killed 700 cattle and 550 sheep in Idaho since 2009. That works out to roughly 77 cattle and 61 sheep killed per year by wolves, through-out the entire state of Idaho. There are roughly 2.6 MILLION cattle and sheep in the state of Idaho. That means that over the past decade wolves have killed approximately 0.005% of all cattle and sheep in the state. How many cattle and sheep were killed in Idaho over the past decade by natural causes, including weather? How many were killed by domesticated dogs? Or by disease and malnutrition? How many of the 2.6 million cattle and sheep in Idaho were killed in slaughter-houses over the past decade?

For comparison, the last intensive wolf count in Idaho was done in 2015 when officials said the state had an estimated 786 wolves in the entire state. That’s also the last year Fish and Game was required to do that type of count after wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List.

Erik Molvar, a Laramie, Wyoming-based wildlife biologist and Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project, had this piece published in the Idaho Statesmen last October, which sheds some more light on Idaho’s supposed “wolf problem.”

The Cattle Association neglects to mention that Wildlife Services, the federal agency tasked with killing native wildlife for the agriculture industry’s benefit, has been actively promoting a program of exaggerating wolf kills by classifying dead livestock lacking any bite marks as wolf kills. This is an agency struggling to justify its own existence, inflating wolf-kill numbers to create an artificial crisis. Color us skeptical, and we would be happy to take the association up on its offer of joining them out in the field.

Between July 2017 and May 2018, this federal agency spent over half a million taxpayer dollars and killed at least 53 wolves in Idaho to avenge livestock depredations, despite mounting scientific evidence showing that predator killing doesn’t reduce livestock losses.

Moreover, most of Idaho’s beef cattle get shipped off to feedlots at year’s end, and from there, to the slaughterhouse. Since beef cattle are bred and raised to be killed, it is hard to ask the public to accept that in rare instances when a cow ends up on a wolf’s menu rather than a human one, that this is somehow unfair and represents a moral outrage. Much less a reason to try to kill the “offending” wolf, or any other wolf they can find, in retribution.

We humans should try harder to fit in with the natural order of things. If livestock are to be pastured in the untamed West, a few losses to the native predators is just part of the cost of doing business. Cattle and sheep would be much happier and more productive grazing on pastures with deep soils and abundant rainfall east of the Mississippi, instead of damaging the arid lands — and fragile fish and wildlife habitats — of the West. And in these more ecologically suitable areas for non-native livestock, cattle and sheep producers can find pastures far from the nearest wolf, if wolves are really an overwhelming concern.

Nonlethal methods to discourage wolf predation on livestock are also a workable alternative. In the Tom Miner Basin of Montana, just outside Yellowstone National Park, cattle producers have avoided high levels of predation by native wildlife despite burgeoning populations of both wolves and grizzly bears.

The West is a wild and untamed place, and Westerners like it that way. We are hardy, self-reliant folk who aren’t afraid of “the big bad wolf” of fairy tales. In fact, wolves, grizzly bears and other native predators are an important part of that untamed legacy. We neither need nor want a taxpayer-subsidized agency to kill off our native wildlife.

I couldn’t agree with Molvar’s sentiments more. Should America’s public lands and Wilderness areas be places for native wildlife, or should they be places where private ranchers let their cows and sheep graze for literally pennies on the dollar? According to the BLM, “the Federal grazing fee for 2018 will be $1.41 per animal unit month (AUM) [a cow and her calf, or five sheep] for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.41 per head month (HM) for lands managed by the USDA Forest Service.” [Update: The federal public land grazing fee for both 2019 and 2020 was reduced to $1.35 per AUM, the lowest fee allowed.]

Besides, if as the Foundation for Wildlife Management claims, “Wolf numbers are so high the #1 killer of Idaho wolves is now other wolves”….You’d sure think you won’t need to offer trappers up to a $1,000 reimbursement to trap and kill wolves across the state, including on lands that are owned equally by everyone in America.

And just how many mighty hunters walk and drive around Idaho with high-powered rifles (including a lot of AR-15s, and other assault-style weapons) every year during hunting season? I bet the success-rate for elk hunting in Idaho is much, much greater than the success-rate for wolf-hunting. How can that be if the state is crawling with wolves, which have supposedly eaten all the elk? There has got to be tens of thousands of elk and deer hunters in Idaho who are also carrying a wolf tag. Why can’t they find the wolves? Maybe it’s because there are only about 800 wolves in the entire state of Idaho and the wolves kill a tiny, tiny fraction of the cows and sheep in the state, often times when the private livestock is grazing on federal public lands and Wilderness areas, at less than $1.50 per month per animal unit.

Then again, Idaho is (in)famous for being a state where a lot of people talk about the SSS when it comes to wolves: “Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.” So maybe there are actually a lot less wolves in Idaho, then the official count in 2015, which put their numbers at approximately 786.

That poster at the top of this post was put up on the Foundation for Wildlife Management’s Facebook page last night. One of the first comments on that FB post is the following image. It hasn’t been removed, but it’s gotten a bunch of likes.

You can respectfully let the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation know how you feel about this issue by calling 800-225-5355. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game can be reached at 208-334-3700.

P.S. According to the Dictionary, the definition of “bounty” is: a sum paid for killing or capturing a person or animal.

“From mountain bikers in California to snowmobilers in Montana, renegade adventurers see the shutdown as a chance to get away with anything. They need to stop.”

That’s the sub-heading to a story that appeared in Outside back on January 11, 2019.

Here are some interesting accounts from the article (emphasis added):

On Sunday, January 6, two western Montana skiers headed out for a tour. They drove snowmobiles to the border of a federal wilderness area, then switched to backcountry touring gear, expecting to break trail through powder. Instead they found themselves following fresh tread tracks. In the distance, two snowmobilers were high-marking a bowl that was clearly within the designated wilderness. The outlaw motorists paid no mind to the skiers, who were obeying the social contract, and eventually buzzed within 20 feet of them.

Due to the government shutdown, the skiers couldn’t report the incident to rangers, but one of them called the local sheriff with a description of the sleds as well as a truck and trailer that was parked at the trailhead. (He shared these details with me on the condition of anonymity.) The sheriff’s office, not often tasked with public-lands violations, appeared indifferent. As for the throttle-twisting malefactors, one presumes they saw the government closure as an opportunity for an illegal joyride. “They were being so blatant about it,” the skier told me. “It sure seemed like they knew exactly what they were doing—and they didn’t care.”…

In Northern California’s Marin County, mountain bikers have begun poaching the singletrack in Muir Woods National Monument and Point Reyes….Mountain bikers in particular have long dreamed of rolling the trails in national parks and wilderness areas. The former tend to offer zero off-road access except, in rare cases, to flat “carriage roads,” while the latter ban mountain bikers (and snowmobilers) entirely. Such restrictions can be soul crushing to sports-minded visitors. “The mountain-biking access is so bad in Marin that the shutdown gives us a chance to ride trails we normally can’t get on,” says a source who didn’t want to be identified. “We’re not cutting new trails or riding steep trails that aren’t suited to bikes. We’re riding established trails that the equestrians and hikers refuse to share with us. It’s like looking at a bunch of untracked powder and not being able to ski it.”…

The irresponsible dregs violating our national parks and wilderness areas right now are acting like high school kids throwing a kegger because their parents are out of town. Even if, like the Marin bikers, you don’t believe you’re damaging the environment, ignoring the law has consequences, whether or not the rangers are on duty.

Consider this a companion piece to the post that Sharon just made here.

In this piece from August 2018 – two months before the historic and deadly wildfires in Paradise, California – the following section caught my eye:

Push for regulatory relief

Meantime, the [California Forestry Association] wants to change rules and regulations to make it easier for private industry to thin forested land. The group also suggests increased logging could benefit rural areas in Northern California where poverty and job losses have been problems.

[Rich] Gordon, the [California Forestry Association president and] CEO, insists the industry isn’t pushing for more clear-cutting of forested lands — a practice the Sierra Club opposes. Rather, he said, the industry advocates “selectively removing smaller trees on a landscape so that the bigger trees (which are more resilient to fire and store more carbon) can survive and do better.”

Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club California, said the environmental group is not opposed to what she calls “selective logging and those sort of things. We’re opposed to going in and unnecessarily disrupting the environment and doing forest management practices that will lead to worse fires, and some forest practices do.”

She said the practice of clear-cutting and planting trees all at the same time creates added risk for the forest because “you don’t have diversity. That makes them more susceptible to fires. Older trees tend to burn less and slower. So you want to have a lot of diversity.”

Some conservative lawmakers believe environmental groups share blame for the state’s current fire risk.

“Extreme environmental groups have for years stated that we shouldn’t thin our forests because of the benefits of carbon that is stored,” said Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach. “However, the carbon that is currently being released with these out-of-control wildfires is dramatically greater than we would have if our forests were responsibly managed.”

As I posted as a comment over at Sharon’s original blog post, above and below are some visual examples of “responsibly managed” (?!?) Sierra Pacific Industries lands that are located within 10 to 25 miles, just north of Paradise, California. Will Rich Gordon, president and CEO of the California Forestry Association demand that Sierra Pacific Industries immediately halt all clearcutting and focus only on “selectively removing small trees?” Also, what type of “regulatory relief” is really needed to “selectively remove small trees?”

Here’s a copy of the press release:

Today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a landmark decision [1] dismissing all claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in the case brought by Resolute Forest Products against Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, Greenpeace International, Stand.earth, and five individual defendants [2].

The same court had previously dismissed the entire case and ordered the logging company to pay defendants’ legal fees in October 2017. However, Resolute Forest Products decided to file a repackaged version of the same baseless claims three weeks later. According to today’s order, the case will continue without the highly contentious racketeering charges and the vast majority of defamation claims.

Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer said in response to the decision:

“The judge’s decision to throw out the abusive racketeering charges is a positive development and a win for advocacy. From day one, it was clear Resolute intended to bully legitimate advocacy organizations and forest defenders by abusing laws designed to curtail the mafia. The judge made it clear this would not be tolerated. If the logging giant continues to pursue its desperate strategy to silence civil society by appealing this decision in the U.S. or continuing its legal attack in Canada, we are confident such tactics will meet the same dead end. Millions around the country and the world agree that free speech is vital for the protection of our communities and the planet. Together, we will fearlessly fight the remaining very narrow defamation charges and prevail because our work is grounded in the best available science.

“Today’s landmark decision should be a lesson for other corporate bullies attempting the same underhanded legal tactics, like Energy Transfer, that they will not succeed in attempts to criminalize free speech. We will continue to speak truth to power.”

The charges dismissed today were included in Resolute Forest Products’ second strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aiming to silence Greenpeace entities. In 2013, the logging company filed a separate defamation case against Greenpeace Canada and two staff members in Ontario. This case is still pending and Greenpeace Canada continues to vigorously fight the remaining claims.

Greenpeace defendants in the U.S. are represented in court by the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine; EarthRights International attorneys have provided advice and support as consulting counsel.

Katie Redford, Co-founder and Director of EarthRights International, added :

“Companies like Resolute have always tried to use their money and power to scare their critics into silence. Nobody likes a bully, and these legal bullying tactics will not prevail. Now, more than ever, we are committed to defending the free speech rights of individuals and organizations like Greenpeace, and so many others, that our democracy and our planet depend upon.”

ENDS

Notes:

[1] Click here to download a copy of the order, or copy this to your browser: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MTD-Decision-GP-RFP-2019.pdf

[2] On May 31, 2016 Resolute Forest Products filed a CAD$300 million lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and other claims in the United States District Court for Southern Georgia, against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace, Inc., Greenpeace Fund, Inc., Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics), and five individual staff members of these independent organizations.

The case was transferred to Northern California on May 16, 2017 when Resolute failed to demonstrate that the case should be heard in Georgia. On October 16, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Resolute’s claims. Three weeks later, Resolute’s lawyers filed a repackaged version of the same claims against the same individual defendants in the same court.

This bully racketeering case is Resolute’s second strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aiming to silence Greenpeace entities. In 2013, the company filed a CAD$7 million defamation case against Greenpeace Canada and two staff members in Ontario, which is still pending. Click here for more information about the existing legal cases between Resolute Forest Products and Greenpeace, or copy this to your browser: http://www.greenpeace.org/resolutelawsuits/

[3] In August 2017, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLC filed a US$900 million lawsuit on behalf of Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, against Greenpeace, Inc., Greenpeace Fund, Inc., Greenpeace International and others for defamation and other claims, including some under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Kasowitz Benson Torres is the same law firm representing Resolute Forest Products, making the Energy Transfer’s case the the second strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) Kasowitz filed against Greenpeace entities, alleging that legitimate advocacy work is criminal activity. Kasowitz Benson Torres is one of President Donald Trump’s go-to law firms. Click here for more information about the existing legal case between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace, or copy this to your browser: https://www.greenpeace.org/defendingprotest

According to this article at Singletracks.com:

The South Platte Ranger District, a branch of the US Forest Service (USFS) that manages the Buffalo Creek mountain bike trail network near Pine, Colorado has denied Revolution Enduro a permit to hold the second annual race in May 2019, citing potential resource damage.

Revolution Enduro was granted a trial permit in 2018 by the USFS. Afterward, the enduro raised over $900 for trail funding and remediated any trail damage that was associated with the race with a crew of trail workers. However, after review, the USFS sent a letter to David Scully, the race director for the series, denying the 2019 permit.

In the written statement they cited safety concerns for trail users because of high racing speeds, and the popularity of the Buffalo Creek trail network to the public and the inability to actually close the trails during a race.

Lastly, the USFS cites potential trail and resource damage from skidding, alternate line creation, and erosion.

What isn’t highlighted in the USFS letter is that a YouTube video may have played a part in their decision.

Here’s the video in question:

Personally, I say good for the U.S. Forest Service for denying the permit for this mountain biking race on federal public lands.

[Editors Note: The following has been edited and updated to correct some misinformation originally contained in this blog post, which originally was written in 20 minutes. – mk]

Over the past few years, the issue of mountain bike use on America’s public lands has gotten a fair amount of attention. An organization called the Sustainable Trails Coalition has been trying to weaken and amend the Wilderness Act to allow mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions in America’s designated Wilderness areas by passing federal legislation.

So far, only very far-right Republican politicians, mainly all with League of Conservation Scores in the single digits, have supported STC’s quest to open up designated Wilderness areas to bikes and other wheels. Originally, STC’s bill (introduced in the 114th session of Congress by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)) would have potentially opened up all Wilderness areas in America to mountain bikes within 24 months of passage.

That bill, S. 3205, would have also allowed “any officer or employee of the Federal Government” to ability to use “any small-scale motorized equipment or method of mechanical transport” in Wilderness, such as chainsaws.

It’s important to point out that the text of S. 3205 makes it very clear that federal managers with the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS would be given a 24 month period after the date of enactment of S. 3205 to determine which Wilderness areas should be opened to mountain bikes and other wheeled devises.

S. 3205 also made it crystal clear that if the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS failed to determine which of the specific 767 units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System should remain closed to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, that the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS “shall” allow “any form of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods” within Wilderness. Here’s that specific text, taken directly from S. 3205:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary concerned shall authorize relevant local officials to determine, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all permissible forms of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods over any permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official.

(2) FAILURE TO DETERMINE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a local official fails to make the determination described in paragraph (1) with respect to a permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official by the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any form of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods shall be allowable on the permitted route.

It goes without saying that the federal land management agencies would be hard-pressed to complete an entire NEPA process (or some of type of open, inclusive and transparent public process) for each of the 767 Wilderness areas that are currently part of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System within a 24-month period. So for many (most? all?) of the 767 units of America’s Wilderness System the default would be to open them up to mountain bikes. Or think about it this way, of the 767 units in America’s National Wilderness Preservation System, how many specific units does the Sustainable Trails Coalition believe should be off-limits to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, even if the bill they support would be passed and signed into law?

STC revised that bill, and the version that was originally introduced in the last, 115th session of Congress by Rep Tom McClintock (R-CA) would have immediately opened up ALL units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System via the only language in the bill, which was as follows:

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”

The original McClintock bill, H.R. 1349, was amended in Committee and according to Congress.gov, the version of the H.R. 1349 reported in the House on 11/16/2018 read:

“(8) ALLOWABLE USES.—Each agency administering any area designated as wilderness may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized adaptive cycles, non-motorized bicycles, non-motorized strollers, non-motorized wheelbarrows, non-motorized survey wheels, non-motorized measuring wheels, or non-motorized game carts within any wilderness area. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘wheelchair’ means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.”.

So, to recap: H.R. 1349, as originally introduced – and written in partnership with the Sustainable Trails Coalition – would have immediately opened up ALL units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, but the version of H.R. 1349 reported in the House “may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized adaptive cycles, non-motorized bicycles, non-motorized strollers, non-motorized wheelbarrows, non-motorized survey wheels, non-motorized measuring wheels, or non-motorized game carts within any wilderness area.”

Meanwhile, also in the 115th session of Congress, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S.2877 on May 17, 2018. A copy of that bill is here, and it clearly includes the following text (emphasis added):

“(3) PERMISSIBLE FORMS OF RECREATIONAL USE ON PERMITTED ROUTES.—

“(A) DETERMINATIONS BY LOCAL OFFICIALS.—

“(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall authorize relevant local officials to determine, by not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, all permissible forms of nonmotorized travel over any permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official.

“(ii) FAILURE TO DETERMINE.—

“(I) IN GENERAL.—If a local official fails to make the determination described in clause (i) with respect to a permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official by the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, any form of nonmotorized travel shall be allowable on the permitted route.

So, again, just like S.3205 the default (and very likely) impact of S. 2877 would be that many (most? all?) of the 767 units of America’s Wilderness System would be opened up to mountain bikes and other wheeled devices.

Fortunately, there’s plenty of opposition to opening up Wilderness areas to bikes and other wheeled contraptions, even within the mountain biking community. My organization, the WildWest Institute, was happy to join 150 conservation and Wilderness organizations from around the country in this sign-on letter to Congress last June.

As that letter said:

The 1964 Wilderness Act (36 U.S.C. 1131-1136) banned all types of mechanized transport, including bicycles, in designated Wilderness. Section 4(c) of that act states, “[T]here shall be…no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

Furthermore, the Congress stated the purpose of the Wilderness Act was, in part, to protect these areas from “expanding settlement and growing mechanization….” (Wilderness Act, Section 2[a].)

For over a half century, the Wilderness Act has protected wilderness areas from mechanization and mechanical transport, even if no motors were involved with such activities. This has meant, as Congress intended, that Wildernesses have been kept free from bicycles and other types of mechanization and mechanical transport. The undersigned believe that this protection has served our Nation well, and that the “benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” would be forever lost by allowing mechanized transport in these areas.

Go back up and watch that extreme mountain biking video again and this time imagine America’s designated and protected Wilderness areas turned over to this type of mechanized travel – or whatever type of mechanized travel fits under the parameters of the actual text of these STC bills (today, or in 5 years, or 20 years, or 50 years). The visionary Wilderness Act clearly banned mechanical transport, and for good reason. If the Sustainable Trails Coalition seriously thinks their bicycles – and other wheeled contraptions – have been illegal banned throughout America’s National Wilderness Preservation System, as their supporters often claim, the attorney who runs the Sustainable Trails Coalition should file a lawsuit immediately…and we’ll see what happens.

Here’s the full article from the Washington Post, reprinted in the Denver Post. Some interesting snips from the article are below. Note: Emphasis added.

University of Colorado Boulder Professor Jennifer Balch said in an email that while treating federal forests makes sense near homes, that policy prescription won’t make a serious dent in the size and intensity of wildfires out West. These fires have increased fivefold since the 1970s as temperatures have risen and snowpack has shrunk. Just 2 percent of lands treated by the Forest Service between 2004 and 2013 experienced a wildfire.

“We can’t log our way out of the fire problem — thinning all the forests is not possible,” the fire ecologist said. “And even if it were, it won’t stop fires in the extreme weather that is happening more frequently, and will in the future.”

The Camp fire’s massive impact came into sharp focus Sunday, as the utility PG&E filed a notice with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggesting it would file for bankruptcy because it faces more than $30 billion in liability in connection with the state’s wildfires. The company’s CEO, Geisha Williams, also stepped down Sunday.

Many California residents fault PG&E’s power lines for the wildfires that ravaged the state last year, and the matter is under investigation.

A piece published Nov. 30 in Geophysical Research Letters found that human-induced climate change now influences a fifth of the world’s fires.

Balch noted that the executive order did not address some kinds of the vegetation that makes communities vulnerable to fire, such as the chaparral that spread a fire in November that destroyed hundreds of Malibu-area homes. “You can’t log shrubs,” she said.

Despite the fact that the Forest Service is shuttered, officials there have given loggers permission to keep operating on existing sales — which was prohibited during both the 1995 and 2013 shutdowns — and are now exploring holding new auctions even if the government remains closed.

Agency officials informed staffers Thursday to figure out what it would take to bring back some furloughed employees for new timber sales, according to a federal official who was not authorized to speak on the record. Meanwhile, the important work of removing small vegetation and dry brush that serves as kindling for fires is not being done because of the shutdown, the longest in history as it enters its fourth week.

Employees working without pay and those funded by unspent appropriations from last fiscal year are managing the current harvests, the official said. Timber technicians who go through the forests to mark which trees should be cut are receiving their regular salary. But holding new sales would involve substantially more staff, the official noted.

Trump has repeatedly blamed devastating wildfires out West on poor forest management, rejecting the idea that climate change could be leading to a longer and more intense fire season in the United States.

Standing in the devastated town of Paradise, which the president mistakenly called “Pleasure,” Trump said the United States should follow the example of Finland, which spends “a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem.”…

The president has regularly asked advisers how he could punish California for what he deems as poor forestry. Trump has been told repeatedly that he cannot take away money that has already been appropriated for the disaster, according to individuals familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. Advisers have argued that taking such money from California would only hurt the citizens — not the elected officials he wants to punish….

“Our public lands are supposed to be managed in a way that benefits the people,” said Sam Evans, national forests and parks program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s office in North Carolina. “Trump’s executive order does the exact opposite, by putting policies in place that cater to industry interests.

“It’s not telling the agencies to increase the number of communities protected from fire risks,” Evans said. “It’s telling them to put more logs on trucks, while cutting out environmental review, transparency and accountability to the public.”

Smokey’s Shutdown Survival Guide from Brian McFadden, who wrote:

Two Three weeks into a shutdown, and our national parks are getting the Bundy Family treatment. Dig a proper latrine and make sure it’s deep enough to hold all the sh*t coming out of Mitch McConnell and the White House.

Despite being Interior Secretary for nearly two years, this is my first time drawing Ryan Zinke. I missed a lot of opportunities to draw his fivehead, which has more of a Frankenstein/John Cornyn vibe than Stephen Miller’s Twilight Zone “To Serve Man” alien.

Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em all around

Here’s some interesting California wildfire FEMA-related tweets from Kirk Siegler, an NPR national desk correspondent covering the urban and rural divide in America, Los Angeles-based and a University of Colorado alum. Siegler grew up in Montana and worked for public radio in Montana and has covered wildfires and public lands issues in Montana, Colorado, California and the west for a long time.

I just called the supervisor’s office of the Lolo National Forest: The pre-recorded message said they were closed because of the government shutdown.

I called the Flathead National Forest: Same Story.

Ditto for the Bitterroot National Forest, and the Flathead National Forest, and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the….Well, you get the picture.

Does anyone know if logging on U.S. Forest Service lands has also been stopped during the on-going government shutdown? What about mining, and oil and gas development and commercial grazing on U.S. Forest Service lands?

Are all these resource extraction activities on America’s National Forest stopped during President Trump’s shutdown of the federal government? Or are all these resource extraction activities on America’s National Forest still actively taking place on America’s National Forests, but with zero to minimal oversight by the U.S. Forest Service?

Get the full scoop from this breaking article in the Washington Post:

The Justice Department’s public integrity section is examining whether newly departed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lied to his agency’s inspector general investigators, according to three people familiar with the matter, a potential criminal violation that would exacerbate Zinke’s legal woes.

Zinke, who left the Trump administration Wednesday, was facing two inspector general inquiries tied to his real estate dealings in his home state of Montana and his involvement in reviewing a proposed casino project by Native American tribes in Connecticut. In the course of that work, inspector general investigators came to believe Zinke had lied to them, and they referred the matter to the Justice Department to consider whether any laws were violated, the people familiar with the matter said.

The department’s public integrity section has since been exploring the case, the people familiar with the matter said. The extent of its work is unclear, though the inspector general had questioned witnesses in an apparent attempt to scrutinize Zinke’s account, one of the people said.

Also, in other (stinky) Zinke news, shortly after the departing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke shared with the public a rather bizarre message, which appeared to be scribbled in red Crayola marker, Zinke then penned a letter to his 70,000 Interior Department employees (30% of whom, Zinke infamously claimed were “not loyal to the flag”), which in part read:

“When I was a Boy Scout, I was taught to leave the campsite better than I found it. I am confident that over the last 2 years we have done that together for our public lands and the Department of the Interior.”

On Tuesday, Time Magazine wrote: “Human feces, overflowing garbage, illegal off-roading and other damaging behavior in fragile areas were beginning to overwhelm some of the West’s iconic national parks on Monday, as a partial government shutdown left the areas open to visitors but with little staff on duty.”

Meanwhile, yesterday ABC News reported: “As the government shutdown extends into the new year, public lands and national parks are struggling to handle the trash, waste, and other damage from visitors without staff to manage the situation.”

Here’s a couple of photos from the past few days showing – literally – how Secretary Zinke left America’s public lands campsite (and legacy?). Good riddance, Zinke!