The other day a friend sent me a link to a series of satellite images of the Mt. St. Helens areas. The images – from between 1979 and 2011 – were part of the Landsat satellite program operated by NASA and the USGS. The time-lapse video shows the May 18, 1980 explosion and subsequent recovery of life on the volcano. However, the time-lapse video also shows something else: The steady progression of clearcuts in the forested landscape around Mt. St. Helens.
These time-lapse images of the clearcuts surrounding Mt. St. Helens reminded me of this passage from William Dietrich’s book, The Final Forest: Big Trees, Forks, and the Pacific Northwest:
There’s a story, possibly apocryphal, about President Jimmy Carter’s flight across the foothills of southwest Washington to view the devastation caused by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Peering down at the shaven hills, the president expressed horror at the destruction below him. The state officials who were his guides had to gently explain that the helicopter had not reached the volcano blast area yet, that was Carter was seeing was clearcut logging.
Just in time for the “Forest Jobs Tour ” (a series of one-sided presentations around Montana about Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act) “timber partners” RY Timber, Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Roseburg Forest Products and Sun Mountain Lumber took out this full-page advertisement today in at least six Montana newspapers, including the Helena Independent Record, Missoulian, Kalispell Daily Interlake, Great Falls Tribune, Montana Standard and Bozeman Chronicle According to Ad reps I spoke with at two of the papers, the retail cost of the advertisements likely ran between $27,000 and $31,000.
The title of the Ad is “Out of Control Administrative Appeals and Frivolous Lawsuits Against the U.S. Forest Service Must be Stopped Now!!!”
The full-page timber industry Ad is full of statements such as this: “We believe the Forest Service is being held hostage by a small group of professional obstructionists.” The Ad ends with these timber mills providing the following “solutions,” including suggesting that Congress could simply exempt many timber sales from judicial review, just as was done with the Wolf Rider from Senator Tester. [note: all emphasis is as it appeared in the Ad]
“We see several options available to Congress to immediately rectify these abuses:
1) Amend the Equal Access to Justice Act by requiring a Cash Bond in these types of administrative appeals and lawsuits. Amend the Act further by implementing a Loser Pay System, where the loser is responsible for paying the attorneys’ fees and costs of the overall prevailing party.
2) In designated Timber Management Areas already established under the approved Forest Plans, Congress could exempt from judicial review those Timber Sales which deal with trees that have been killed or severely damaged by the Mountain Pine Beetle. The authority of Congress to limit court jurisdiction can be found under Article III Section 2 of United States Constitution. A similar limitation was recently enacted by Congress when they removed Gray Wolf from the Endangered Species List and barred the federal court from any further review.
3) Scrap the entire Forest Service Administrative Appeals Process and use the more streamlined approach that the Department of Interior – BLM uses for their timber projects.”
More about the timing of these Ads. It must be pointed out that these same exact timber mills are sharing the stage this week and next week with their friends – or is the correct term ‘collaborators’ – representing the Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, Montana Trout Unlimited and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition for the Forest Jobs Tour to support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, S. 268. So, the timing of the timber industry’s $30,000 Ad ‘Blitzkrieg’ couldn’t be more transparent.
Honestly, having already attended a number of these one-sided FJRA dog-n-pony shows I doubt I’ll waste my time – and a perfectly good spring evening – attending any of the ‘Forest Jobs Tour.’ In the past, these events have been carefully scripted to limit any tough, substantive questions or dissent and I assume that tonight’s Tour stop in Missoula will be the same. Heck, during a similar FJRA event – held in a public building at the University of Montana – a representative of Montana Wilderness Association even attempted to prevent one of our interns from passing out simple handbills announcing a “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act Study Club,” the sole purpose of which was to simply read the actual bill language, and then discuss what the language means.
However, I can’t help but wonder if during this so-called “Forest Jobs Tour” if these conservation groups will bother to express concern or speak out against their “timber partners'” wish list for more logging, less public and scientific over-sight and no judicial review of Forest Service timber sales? Or will these conservation groups give their consent through their public silence? I have a hunch I know how the “collaborators” will roll. And, if that hunch is correct, what does that truly say about the state of their collaboration with the timber industry?
Update: People may be interested to know that Montana Trout Unlimited and Pew’s Campaign for America’s Wilderness have deleted the following comments I made on their Facebook pages (here and here) and have blocked me from commenting ever again in the future. This tactic has also been recently used by Montana Wilderness Association (here and here) and Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, which is part of the National Wildlife Federation. In fact, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers (a group I was once a member of) censored and removed my substantive comments regarding the FJRA, including the actual official testimony of the head of the Forest Service from their ironically named “Bully Pulpit” blog. This has been a very common tactic used by the “collaborator” conservation groups supporting the FJRA and I believe the public should be aware of this tactic.
There’s more fall-out from the Forest Service’s questionable decision to award a massive 300,000 acre timber harvesting contract as part of the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) in Arizona to an under-the-radar Montana timber corporation represented by a retired Forest Service official. The 4FRI is a showcase forest restoration project for the Obama administration under what’s known as “the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act” and program. Late last Friday, the Center for Biological Diversity sent out this press release.
Tommie Cline Martin, County Supervisor for Gila County, Arizona and a member of the 4FRI, had this to say.
“In my opinion, the Contract that was selected is bogus in several ways: If in fact, an agency insider that was involved in setting policy and advising potential contractors in the process and knew the particulars of the other bidding proposals, then “retired” and helped craft the winning bid is true, this is a perversion of our public trust at the highest level.
Meanwhile, yesterday the Grand Canyon Trust – a founding member of the 4FRI – issued this press release, which among other things said:
[W]e were shocked – and to honest – extremely disappointed that the Forest Service did not choose Arizona Forest Restoration Products (AZFRP) as the contractor responsible for implementing 4FRI treatments over the next decade….AZFRP did not receive the 4FRI contract. Pioneer Associates [from Montana] did. We, and the rest of the northern Arizona community, know almost nothing about the rationale for this decision, and know even less about Pioneer Associates. Some of what we do know is not at all encouraging. Pioneer Associates offered $10 million less than did AZFRP in the bidding process – a sum that would significantly address the critical shortfall in funding currently faced by 4FRI….We at the the Grand Canyon Trust find the recent contracting decision made by the Forest Service extremely problematic and worrisome….
We believe that the Forest Service should, for the sake of transparency, release all information regarding the decision-making process and rationale underlying the contract decision. Similarly, we believe that Pioneer Associates should follow the transparency lead modeled by AZFRP and share, in detail, their business model, implementation strategies, and plans for collaboration. Finally, we believe that an independent and transparent review of the bidding and contract award decision-making process is warranted and should be conducted with all due haste.
Yesterday also saw this hard-hitting editorial from the local newspaper, the Payson Roundup under the title, “We have this terrible, sinking feeling that the Forest Service has done it again” below are some snips from the editorial:
Last week the Forest Service somehow managed to turn the most hopeful and visionary consensus on how we can save our forests and our communities into yet another muddled controversy….So after all that preparation, study, waiting and hope — the Forest Service announced its choice: Pioneer Forest Products — an out-of-state [Montana] wood products company. The company plans to partner with Marlin Johnson, formerly the chief Forest Service logging industry supervisor in the Southwest.
The choice proved instantly controversial, mostly because Johnson spent years battling the very environmental groups whose agreement made the 4-FRI approach so promising. Johnson and groups like the Centers for Biological Diversity fought one another to a deadlock, largely over whether the Forest Service should let the timber companies continue to cut a large share of the remaining old-growth trees.
Even conservative, pro-industry experts like Gila County Supervisor Tommie Martin have expressed concern about the choice, although they have focused on other elements of the contract — like the assumption that Pioneer can make a go of using a lot of the brush and small trees in a relatively untested process for making diesel fuel from wood products….
Now, we hope we’re wrong. We hope that the Centers for Biological Diversity is overreacting when they condemned as ‘cronyism’ the inclusion of Johnson as a partner with a company he used to regulate….But we have to admit, we’re unnerved by the immediate outbreak of controversy and the Forest Service’s stubborn refusal to accept the advice of local officials, conservationists and other stakeholders. Other bidders seemed to offer a much closer working relationship with those groups at a seemingly lower cost to the taxpayers.
We hope it blows over. We hope the Forest Service and Pioneer find a way to quickly reassure the critics, who have worked so hard and so long to achieve the agreement that this choice of contractors threatens to unravel. But we’d certainly feel better if this didn’t feel so familiar — and if we could put out of our minds the unnerving recollection that it was the Forest Service’s cozy and short-sighted relationship with industry that got us into this mess in the first place.”
“The purpose of the Wilderness Act is to preserve the wilderness character of the areas to be included in the wilderness system, not to establish any particular use.” – Howard Zahniser, chief author of the Wilderness Act
One of the activities I enjoy more than any other is waking up before dawn on a crisp, late-fall morning, loading up my backpack, grabbing my .30-06 and walking deep into a USFS Wilderness area in search of elk and deer. Because of this, and many other reasons, as a backcountry hunter I’m adamantly opposed to HR 4089, the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012.
The folks at Wilderness Watch have put together a very detailed analysis of HR 4089 titled, “How the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 (HR 4089) Would Effectively Repeal the Wilderness Act.” The analysis describes in detail how the incredibly destructive provisions of HR 4089 would effectively repeal the Wilderness Act of 1964. Make no mistake about it, if HR 4089 becomes law – and it has already passed the House with all but two Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats voting for it – Wilderness as envisioned in the Wilderness Act will cease to exist. Here’s the intro to that analysis:
Introduction
On April 17, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act, supposedly “to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting.” But the bill is a thinly disguised measure to gut the 1964 Wilderness Act and protections for every unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
HR 4089 would give hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and fish and wildlife management top priority in Wilderness, rather than protecting the areas’ wilderness character, as has been the case for nearly 50 years. This bill would allow endless, extensive habitat manipulations in Wilderness under the guise of “wildlife conservation” and for providing hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting experiences. It would allow the construction of roads to facilitate such uses and would allow the construction of dams, buildings, or other structures within Wildernesses. It would exempt all of these actions from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Finally, HR 4089 would remove Wilderness Act prohibitions against motor vehicle use for fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting, or for wildlife conservation measures.
According to some news reports, Senator Tester (D-Montana) is the guy the NRA and Safari Club are hoping will sponsor the bill in the Senate. They’ll need Democrat support and Tester is a target for obvious reasons, since he’s locked in a tight re-election campaign with Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-Montana). In addition to the detailed analysis from Wilderness Watch more info concerning HR 4089 from the Animal Welfare Institute is contained in this action alert, where you can quickly send a note to your two US Senators. According to the Animal Welfare Institute, other extreme provisions within HR 4089 include:
Amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act to permit the importation of polar bear hunting trophies from Canada for bears killed before May 15, 2008 — the date when polar bears were designated as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This would reward 41 hunters for bad behavior: they either killed bears who were off limits or wanted to get their kills in knowing the bears were about to be listed;
Requiring the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior to open nearly all public lands (including National Wildlife Refuges!) to recreational hunting, and directing them to do so without following the environmental review processes required under the National Environmental Policy Act; and
Eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to protect wildlife, habitat, and people from lead and other toxic substances released by ammunition waste under the Toxic Substances Control Act, thereby undermining the ability of the Agency to fulfill its obligation to protect public health and the environment.
During a recent interview on C-SPAN, the head lobbyist for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, one of the groups pushing the bill, admitted that most federal land is already accessible to hunters and anglers, and that this bill was simply a proactive measure in case something happens at a later date. That just reaffirms what Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) correctly noted during his speech against the bill: “The problem this bill claims to solve actually does not exist.”
As an avid backcountry hunter, I couldn’t agree more.
The Center for Biological Diversity just keeps on pumping it out. Today, they released this new report (PDF). The Executive Summary is pasted below.
Critics of the Endangered Species Act contend it is a failure because only 1 percent of the species under its protection have recovered and been delisted. The critique, however, is undermined by its failure to explain how many species should have recovered by now. It is a ship without an anchor.
To objectively test whether the Endangered Species Act is recovering species at a sufficient rate, we compared the actual recovery rate of 110 species with the projected recovery rate in their federal recovery plans. The species range over all 50 states, include all major taxonomic groups, and have a diversity of listing lengths.
We found that the Endangered Species Act has a remarkably successful recovery rate:90 percent of species are recovering at the rate specified by their federal recovery plan.
On average, species recovered in 25 years, while their recovery plan predicted 23 years — a 91 percent timeliness accomplishment.
We confirmed the conclusion of scientists and auditors who assert that the great majority of species have not been listed long enough to warrant an expectation of recovery: 80 percent of species have not yet reached their expected recovery year. On average, these species have been listed for just 32 years, while their recovery plans required 46 years of listing.
Many species that have not been listed long enough to reach their recovery goals increased dramatically since being protected by the Endangered Species Act:
California least tern
2,819% increase in nesting pairs
San Miguel island fox
3,830% increase in wild foxes
Black-footed ferret
8,280% increase in the fall population
Atlantic green sea turtle
2,206% increase in nesting females on Florida beaches
El Segundo blue butterfly
22,312% increase in butterflies
While many species are near or above the numeric population goal set by their recovery plan and will likely be delisted in the next 10 to 15 years, others also have strong recovery trends, but will not be delisted for many decades because their recovery plans require that much time to fully secure their fate.
The study’s findings are similar to a 2006 analysis of all federally protected species in the Northeast, which found 93 percent were stabilized or improving since being put on the endangered species list and 82 percent were on pace to meet recovery goals.
When judged in the light of meeting recovery plan timelines for recovery, the Endangered Species Act is remarkably successful. Few laws of any kind can boast a 90 percent success rate.
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.
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.”
I got an email last night from a Christopher Risch, who just produced this short film on the effort to Save Stadium Woods – a rare fragment of old growth forest that supports white oaks over 300 hundred years old – on the campus of Virginia Tech. The film is well-done, inspirational and raises important philosophical questions about development and the loss of habitat.
Here’s some more information about the issue.
Hidden behind Virginia Tech’s Lane Stadium is an 11 acre tract of forest known as ‘Stadium Woods’. This woodland is a rare fragment of old growth forest that supports white oaks over 300 hundred years old. Stadium Woods is a living ecosystem and wildlife habitat that provides vital ecological functions, aesthetic and social benefits, and is a migration sanctuary for bird species from south and central America.
The Virginia Tech football program has proposed to clear a 3-5 acre portion of this old growth forest in order to build a 100,000 sq. ft., 90 ft. tall, $25 million, indoor practice field. We do not oppose the construction of this practice facility. However, we do believe that the proposed structure can be constructed elsewhere. The Friends of Stadium Woods are asking that you consider signing the petition below to help us save this one last remaining remnant of old growth forest. Visit the Stadium Woods website to learn more.
Basin Creek is a headwater tributary of the Little Lost River drainage in Idaho. It was home to bull trout and had a series of wet meadows which are in the process of eroding away and becoming biological wastelands.
Western Watersheds Project staff and supporters visited this stream in late 2008 along with the Salmon Challis National Forest District Ranger, Diane Weaver. It was in the process of severe erosion at that time and she was embarrassed enough to authorize an exclosure to keep cattle out of the stream….
Over the weekend I, Brian Ertz, and his kids visited the same spot and found that cattle had been in the exclosure last year, as evidenced by the utilization of the grass and the numerous cow pies that littered the area. The stream had also cut an additional 5 feet down into the soft, riparian sediments that were deposited over centuries, and the head cut had moved higher up the meadow.
The stream and the meadow are dying. Sediments are eroding into the stream below and the head cut is moving upstream slowly but surely. The lower stretches of the stream are drying out because the water table is lower….
So often people and agencies advocate for these types of exclosures around sensitive stream areas but once they are built they fail to take another look. Exclosures usually end up turning into enclosures for cattle, and, rather than keep cattle out of an area, they keep them in because, frankly, it is exactly the type of area that cattle like to be.
It is not an uncommon experience for us to find exclosures that have had trespassing cattle or contain the offending animals themselves. It also not uncommon to see accelerated degradation occurring to these areas when they are not properly maintained or monitored. The fences keep other, native wildlife out and, in some circumstances end up killing sage grouse that collide into them. They don’t work, and agencies are foolish to depend on them.
Visit The Wildlife News’ site for the full story, as well as a nice slideshow from the area.
