Groups Challenge CEs for Apiaries

E&E News has an article this afternoon about a Center for Biological Diversity petition calling on the USFS to “stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.” Excerpt below. The agency has legal authority for using CEs to approve the use of apiaries. CBD’s petition states that “The science is clear that honey bees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts. Therefore, requests to place honey bees on federal public lands cannot be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis.”

Anyone here have insights as to how much of a threat honeybees are? Do honeybees have beneficial effects and well as negative impacts?

From E&E:

An environmental group pressed the Forest Service today to scale back the placement of commercial honeybee hives on land it manages, calling the nonnative bees a potential harm to other pollinators.

In a formal petition to the agency, the Center for Biological Diversity said the Forest Service should stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.

“The science is clear that honeybees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts,” the group, joined by three other organizations, said in the petition to Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.

The Forest Service allows the placement of apiaries on its lands through special use permits. Covered by categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the beekeeping permits don’t require an environmental impact statement, which might shed light on competition among species and potential diseases the European-derived bees could spread to native bees.

During the past decade, the agency has approved permits for about 900 hives. Officials are considering an application for as many as 4,900 hives on national forests in Utah, the petitioners said they learned through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Administrative and Judicial Review Opportunities for Collaborators: Webinar with Susan Jane Brown

Susan Jane Brown posted about this webinar a while back. I was driving and listened in, except for when the call dropped, so I missed some of the Q&A. I thought Susan Jane Brown did an excellent job of explaining how cooperative groups can get involved, among a variety of other topics. She was clear, accurate and easy to understand in explaining a complex topic- not an easy thing to do. Sustainable Northwest put on the webinar, so thanks to them!

Here’s a link to the webinar.
Here’s Susan’s white paper
So.. how can collaborative groups get involved in litigation?

She has an informative discussion about the roles and difficulties of collaboratives becoming Amicus curiae and even how to hire an attorney.

In general, some things collaborative groups may want to consider when retaining a lawyer include:
• Cost. Pro bono and reduced cost attorneys are not the norm, and most lawyers will want to be paid for their representation. As mentioned previously, most private attorneys charge their clients based on hourly rates, and will vary based on experience, expertise, and location (for example, an attorney in John Day, Oregon who does not specialize in environmental litigation and recently graduated from law school will charge a much different rate than a Washington, DC lawyer who has been practicing natural resources law before the Supreme Court for 40 years). You should always ask prospective attorneys about their hourly rates.

• Expertise. Experience with federal environmental law is extremely useful in litigation of the type discussed in this memo, but not necessary. Simply because a prospective attorney has little experience with environmental or natural resources law does not mean they will not be able to competently and zealously represent a collaborative group in litigation. Nevertheless, familiarity with the issues common to this type of litigation is a relevant consideration.

• Scope of representation. When engaging an attorney, it is critical to know what you are getting for your money and time. Will the attorney represent the collaborative group in just the district court, or on appeal if the Forest Service loses the case? Will the attorney engage in any post-litigation work, such as review of settlement agreements? What happens if the attorney puts in more work than expected: is the collaborative group responsible for paying the attorney for that additional work? Must the collaborative group pay for any time the attorney’s clerk spends writing a brief? These are some of the questions you should ask prospective attorneys about what they will be doing for your collaborative group. After these discussions, your attorney will prepare an attorney-client representation agreement that will set out in writing the rights and responsibilities of both the client and the attorney.

• Personality. As collaborative groups know, it is all about relationships. Whether you like and can get along with a prospective attorney is an extremely important consideration, given that you may be spending substantial time with that person, not to mention paying them for an important service: representing you on an issue in which you are heavily invested. Someone may be an excellent attorney but an impossible person.

It all sounds very expensive (and difficult to become an effective Amicus curiae). I wonder whether collaborative groups have approached foundations about support for legal costs? I know the larger foundations do fund environmental groups. I also wonder if when the policy landscape favors litigation as a policy tool, policies tend to be unduly influenced by well-intentioned but distant rich people?

Nationwide coalition sues to defend the people’s environmental law

I noticed this press release on Twitter. I thought the quote from WE ACT for Environmental Justice was particularly interesting, timely, and spot on. – mk

A nationwide coalition of organizations from the environmental justice, outdoor recreation, and conservation communities filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attack on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) this afternoon.

The administration finalized its rules that will eviscerate core components of NEPA in mid-July. Under new regulations put forth by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), polluting projects of all kinds will be exempt from basic environmental reviews, and the public will be cut out of one of its best tools to prevent dangerous, shortsighted projects.

“It has been more than 30 years since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and environmental justice communities continue to live with the impacts of decisions that precipitated its need,” said  Kerene N. Tayloe, Esq., Director of Federal Legislative Affairs at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. “The changes made to this bedrock environmental law will further undermine basic protections, including the public’s right to participate in decision making and the obligation of the government to fully and thoroughly study the cumulative impacts of health hazards on overburdened communities. They also reflect a disregard of Black, Brown and poor communities and the unwillingness of this administration to execute laws in a way that benefits all Americans. WE ACT for Environmental Justice is committed to pursuing every option available to preserve and strengthen NEPA for the betterment of everyone.”

“NEPA matters,” said Tricia Cortez, Executive Director of the Rio Grande International Study Center. “Here on the border, we know what a world without NEPA looks like because of what we’ve experienced with the border wall. The U.S. government has waived NEPA and dozens of other federal laws to rush construction for a politically motivated and destructive wall project. We would not wish this on any other community in this country. The feeling is like having a train barreling at you with nothing to stop it. To protect our environment and our health, we the people must save NEPA.”

“We will not allow the Trump administration to compromise our rights to protect our communities and public health from the harms associated with unscrupulous and destructive industrial developments such as mining, oil and gas, and military operations,” said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “This is a grave environmental injustice and we aim to prevent this attack on one of our most fundamental environmental laws.”

“We have consistently defeated this administration’s relentless, vicious dismantling of safeguards for people and the environment, and we will do so again for this critically important law,” said Susan Jane Brown, Western Environmental Law Center co-counsel. “A thriving economy is not at odds with worker protections and a healthy environment – it depends on both.”

“The Trump administration picked the wrong fight,” said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney serving as co-counsel on the case. “They want to make it easier to silence people’s voices and give polluters a free pass to bulldoze through our neighborhoods. That’s why we’re taking them to court.”

Read what all 20+ clients on the case have to say about the importance of defending NEPA: https://earthjustice.org/documents/reference/nepa-ceq-rulemaking-lawsuit-quote-sheet

Read the complaint: https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020.07.29-CEQ-NEPA-Complaint.pdf

Additional Resources:

How “Freeway Revolts” Helped Create the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

6 Places Where the National Environmental Policy Act Made the Difference (Earthjustice)

Trump Wants to Undo the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

Protect the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

The Smokey Wire Virtual Book Club: “Apocalypse Never”- Begins 8/17/2020

We tried a virtual book club with Dan Botkin’s book Discordant Harmonies in 2013. We had many thoughtful discussions that are still relevant today. You can take a look at the Chapter 4 post that comes up on the link to get an idea. We went chapter by chapter, and I have to confess I ran out of energy working through the chapters. Maybe because Botkin made one main point with a variety of examples.

But I think this one will be different. The book is Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger.

Why this book? Don’t be put off by the title.. overstatement sells books. There’s much thoughtful stuff inside. He touches on many topics we talk about, some related to forests, some to climate change, from a different angle than we usually discuss here. He comes from a very different socioeconomic milieu than most TSW readers (at least I think so), e.g. he lives in Berkeley and travels around the world- so it will be interesting to see where we agree with him and where not. Perhaps most important, he shares his stories and his reasoning, which gives us a chance to tell our own stories and give our own reasoning. Some ideas I agree with, some not, and some I’m simply agnostic. He’s got lots of references, too, so we can look them up if we want.

I’m going to take a chapter at a time and we can discuss. If you’d like to participate in VBC (Virtual Book Club), we’ll start in a few weeks – on 8/17.. that should be enough time to request the book from the library and read the first few chapters. Also, feel free to invite others to join- the book is mostly about climate change (and forests, and psychology, and models) and the usual stuff we talk about. Of course, people would have to follow TSW rules of engagement.

Here’s a bit from Shellenberger’s bio (the rest is at the link above)

Michael has been an environmental and social justice advocate for over 25 years. In the 1990s he helped save California’s last unprotected ancient redwood forest, and inspired Nike to improve factory conditions in Asia. In the 2000s, Michael advocated for a “new Apollo project” in clean energy, which resulted in a $150 billion public investment in clean tech between 2009 and 2015.

Safe and accessible Missoula recreation areas free of dangerous traps proposed

Note: A number of these seven recreation hot spots in the greater Missoula area include public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, in addition to state of Montana public lands and city of Missoula public lands and open space. The proposal to make these seven recreation hot spots off-limits to trapping was sent to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks by Footloose Montana, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, Humane Society of Western Montana and The Mountain Lion Foundation. Missoula Mayor John Engen also offered his support, saying “prohibiting trapping in these high-traffic public lands seems nothing but reasonable to me.” Below is the full press release and link to the letter to Montana FWP.

Conservation and animal groups propose safe and accessible Missoula recreation areas

Archaic trapping rules currently put people and pets at risk in the outdoors

MISSOULA—Today, local and regional advocacy groups sent a list of recreation hot spots to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks that would benefit from being free of dangerous traps. The seven areas comprise some of the most popular places to visit in the Missoula wildland-urban interface. Indiscriminate and cruel traps are allowed in and around Missoula’s most popular recreation spots even as the region’s economy increasingly relies on outdoor recreation. A global pandemic has made safe and accessible public lands more critical to communal well-being than ever before, and a slew of high-profile incidents involving domestic animals has highlighted the need for safer recreation areas.

Areas proposed for safer access include Kelly Island, Lolo Trails, Council Grove State Park, Jonsrud Park, Marshall Canyon, and important fishing areas along the Clark Fork River and Rock Creek. Along with concentrated public recreation use, these areas are critical for wildlife and biodiversity. Their closure represents a very small fraction of land available to trappers in the Missoula area. Closures would help prevent tragedies like the death of Betsy who was killed in a trap near the Clark Fork River in December, 2019.

“Residents of the City of Missoula and Missoula County have invested for decades in open space and public lands to support habitat and recreation and have expectations that those public spaces are safe for humans and companion animals,” said Missoula Mayor, John Engen. “Prohibiting trapping in these high-traffic public lands seems nothing but reasonable to me.”

“Closing these areas to trapping is baseline common sense for conservation and public safety,” said Sarah McMillan, conservation director of WildEarth Guardians and a longtime Missoula resident. “These areas are not only some of our favored getaways as Missoulans, but are also critical to the wildlife and biodiversity that makes our home such a wonderful place.”

“The time has come to end trapping around communities in Montana,” said Stephen Capra, executive director of Footloose Montana. “It’s not just an issue of safety, but reclaiming the lands that belong to the vast majority that own these public lands and want to utilize them for recreation without fear for their family or pets.”

“Indiscriminate traps present serious risks to endangered species as well as humans and dogs. They have no place in public recreation spaces,” said Michelle Blake, western region coordinator for the Mountain Lion Foundation. “We hope FWP commissioners will seriously consider this common-sense proposal to protect public safety.”

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has indicated that they are open to hearing from the public about areas that may not be appropriate for trapping. Every year, the commission and the Department review furbearer and wolf trapping regulations. The commission is slated to meet on August 15th to review proposed regulation changes. Conservation advocates, animal welfare enthusiasts, and outdoor recreators hope the commission will consider safe access areas.

A copy of the list sent to MT FWP is here: http://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/FWP_Proposal_7.28.20.pdf

Background: Trapping on public lands is legal in Montana. The law does not require trap locations to be marked, signed, or for any warnings to be present. No penalties exist for trappers who unintentionally trap non-target species including endangered species, protected species, domestic animals, pets, humans, or livestock.

No database or official record is kept by any public entity and no requirement exists that trappers report when they have captured a dog in their traps. The pattern these incidents follow is usually similar; dogs screaming and frantically biting at the person desperately trying to rescue them. Veterinary and even human medical treatment along with associated expenses can result, as can long-lasting psychological trauma. Neither the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks nor trappers are liable for the damages that are caused by traps.

The true toll that trapping takes on native wildlife is difficult to know. Reporting requirements exist for some species, but not for many, including coyotes, red foxes, badgers, weasels, and raccoons. The accuracy of reporting is unverifiable, and numbers do not adequately articulate the suffering and carnage that traps wreak on bobcats, foxes, endangered wolves, coyotes, and other animals.

The existence of trapping by a minuscule subset of the population using Montana’s public lands is in direct conflict with one of the state’s most valuable economic strengths: outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation generates $7.1 billion in consumer spending and $2.2 billion in wages and salary in Montana. 71,000 jobs are directly tied to the industry. This economy is not bolstered by piles of dead animals discarded by public roadways or by the thousands of wild animals taken from Montana’s diverse public landscapes for personal profit.

# # #

NFS Litigation Weekly July 10 to July 24, 2020

Forest Service summaries are found here:  Litigation Weekly July 24 2020 Email

Links to court documents are provided for each case below.

COURT DECISIONS

Helena Hunters and Anglers Association v. Marten.  On July 1, 2020, the District Court for Montana issued an order against the Forest Service regarding the Tenmile South Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. The court determined that the Forest Service  violated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and NEPA, and also ESA regarding the effect of new recreational trails on grizzly bears.  This case was also included here.

Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States Forest Service. On June 30, 2020, the District Court for Idaho denied the plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt construction on the Stanley to Redfish Trail Project on the Sawtooth National Forest.

Sierra Trail Dogs Motorcycle and Recreation Club v. U.S. Forest Service. (On July 6, 2020, the District Court of Nevada issued a decision favorable to the Forest Service regarding the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s Greater Sage-grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, concerning an off-highway vehicle use standard.  This case was also referenced here.

Friends of the Clearwater v. Higgins. On July 13, 2020, the District Court of Idaho denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction concerning the Brebner Flat Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The court determined that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits on their Endangered Species Act claims concerning the project’s potential impacts on the grizzly bear and Canada lynx, but not the irreparable harm needed for an injunction.

NEW CASES

Friends of the Clearwater v. Christiansen. On June 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho against the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the Record of Decision that was signed on July 1, 2019, and the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statements related to listed steelhead, authorizing the Lolo Insect and Disease Project on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.  This case was also included here.

Friends of the Bitterroot v. Anderson.  On July 10, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Montana against the Forest Service regarding the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, and a project-specific forest plan amendment for standards relating to elk habitat effectiveness and elk habitat objectives.  On July 2, plaintiffs also sent the Forest Service a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue over the project’s potential effects on grizzly bears, wolverines and bull trout.  More background is provided here.

Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin Colorado, v. Rock Creek Association.  On July 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Colorado against the Forest Service and Rock Creek Association concerning public access to the Wild Rose Ranch Subdivision through a right-of-way in Pitkin County on the White River National Forest.

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

On July 6, 2020, a U.S. magistrate judge recommended that a Bureau of Land Management prescribed burning project in the Elkhorn Mountains, Iron Mask, be halted as a court case proceeds.

California v. Bernhardt.  On July 15, 2020, the Northern District of California federal district court vacated the BLM’s 2018 rule regulating methane waste, which had rescinded a more restrictive 2016 rule.

“The Court details herein the myriad inadequacies upon which the Rescission is based. First, the Court provides the factual and procedural background and the legal framework for its decision. (Sections I and II.) In Section III, the Court analyzes the statutory mandate of the Mineral Leasing Act and BLM’s attempt to narrow the same by employing a new economic definition of “waste” which the Court finds to have been arbitrary. Section IV then explains how BLM’s actions in the rulemaking process failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. Section V focuses on BLM’s failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Finally, in Section VI, the Court explains how, given the circumstances, no reason exists to depart from the standard remedy of vacatur.”

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration on July 21 for failing to release public records on the termination of a program to restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades in Washington (a lawsuit against the decision was noted here). The Center filed its initial Freedom of Information Act request in December 2017.

GAO: Trump administration has been underestimating costs of carbon pollution

According to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office—which provides fact-based, nonpartisan information to Congress—the Trump administration has been systematically underestimating the damage caused by carbon pollution in order to justify a host of environmental rollbacks, many of which impact federal public lands and federal public land-management agencies.

In fact, the GAO wrote in its report that “The current federal estimates, based on domestic climate damages, are about 7 times lower than the prior federal estimates.”

Rebecca Beitsch reports for The Hill.

Wolves- Natural Migration or Reintroduction?: The 2020 Colorado Ballot Measure

RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post. Wright Dickinson stops to make lunch after working on his family’s ranch near Cold Springs Mountain on June 30, 2020. Dickinson is hoping Colorado voters will turn down a plan to reintroduce wolves in Colorado. (Dickinson doesn’t look very “corporate” to me).
The interesting twist of wolves in Colorado, is that they’re coming back on their own, but mostly urban voters want more to be reintroduced. So the two positions are 1) more or less “natural” wolf migration versus 2) human-managed reintroduction of wolves.

Bruce Finley wrote what I think is a thoughtful, fair, well-balanced article in the Denver Post yesterday, worth reading in its entirety.

State wildlife biologists would be required to install wolves on public land west of the Continental Divide by the end of 2023, enough to ensure wolf survival, with public input and compensation for ranchers who lose livestock. The wording of the ballot measure enshrines proponents’ view that wolves were “an essential part of the wild habitat of Colorado” before extermination and must be restored to bring back “a critical balance in nature.”

The idea of “balance of nature” is an idea without scientific basis, as we have discussed many times. And again, we may think about what used to be niche theory in ecology that says that other species will step in to the niche.. say mountain lions and coyotes. I certainly can’t tell that the Great Plains “need” bison to “restore a critical balance.”

A voter-driven re-introduction of wolves through direct democracy in Colorado would mark an unprecedented assertion of rising urban demands for ecological integrity with a full mix of species inhabiting public land.

The problem is that the arrival of wolves on their own, let alone artificially installing more, complicates human existence because the federal government still protects wolves as an endangered species. Ranchers legally cannot kill or harass a wolf, even if it’s attacking a calf, without risking jail time and a $100,000 fine. Blocking ranchers from fulfilling an ingrained moral duty creates “a helpless feeling,” Dickinson said. “You are powerless to react.”

Beyond operational disruptions, ranchers and local leaders confide they’re bothered most at a deeper level by what they see as an urban attack on agriculture akin to twisting a stick in the eye.

“What have we got left?” former Moffat County Commissioner Ray Beck said. “Tourism and recreation? We can’t hang our hat on that.”

I remember when John Hickenlooper was the Mayor of Denver and we had an early Colorado Roadless public meeting at which he spoke. I remember his speech- the rest of Colorado seemed to him an uninhabited landscape whose highest and best use was providing a backdrop and playground to bring businesses to Denver. It was almost as if the landscape were uninhabited and the proper role of the individuals were as a service industry to people from the metro area. I remarked to Rick Cables, the Regional Forester, that Hick sounded remarkably colonialist to me. Now, Hick changed gracefully (IMHO) when he became Governor, to considering the views of all Coloradans and treating them with respect. But the concept that “we know better than you do what you should do with the land you live in, and we are willing to impose our vision through the force of government” may well feel the same (colonialist) to folks in NW Colorado.

Here are some thoughts of from Senator Kerry Donovan D- Vail:

Colorado state Sen. Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, got involved trying to broker a compromise. A Democrat representing people in mountain counties who works as a small-scale rancher raising highland cattle and whose family has refused to sell out to developers, Donovan sees the storm over wolves as destructive.

She introduced legislation that would delay wolf reintroduction until 2025, ensure sufficient funding and better address agricultural community concerns about compensation and provisions for protecting livestock. But amid lawmakers’ focus on dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, she sidelined her measure once it was accepted for mark-up.

Seeking shade as the sun beat down recently at her ranch, Donovan winced at the rankling of ranchers and other rural residents.

“The problem is when everything around you also seems to be shifting, you reach your breaking point. And the wolf is a pretty good villain,” she said.

Ranchers see second homes that mostly sit vacant multiplying across mountain valleys. These bring city folks interested in shopping, dining and organized recreational activities. The newcomers often lack patience for sheep and cattle herding that forces temporary road closures. Land prices spike, increasing temptations to sell out. Then come restrictions on using pesticides and water, and requirements to inspect and monitor monitoring of livestock, she said.

“Everything just stacks up,” she said. “And then you see we are going to take a ballot initiative where people in the Front Range population centers are going to vote on introducing a predator — an apex predator — into your backyard. Not their backyard.”

Yet Colorado needs cooperation to preserve open natural landscapes, Donovan said. While she was inclined to vote for wolf reintroduction, she’s also planning to lead hard conversations about saving nature, including predators, in the face of development.

Front Range residents increasingly flee their densifying cities seeking solace in mountain valleys. “Maybe Denver shouldn’t be saying, ‘Hey, come to the great outdoors. Live here and go there.’ Denver should be saying, ‘Come to the great outdoors. Live here,’ ” Donovan said.

That would require expanding greenspace inside cities. “Taking back the South Platte River? That’s something we should be really investing in — making the Platte a functioning ecosystem.” And urban planners could convert streets to parks, expand greenbelt trails and plant more gardens.

My thoughts.. everyone agrees (?) that lethal force should be used as a last resort.
everyone agrees that wolves are coming back on their own.
And yet there is still a controversy, part of it sounds like it’s about urban colonialism, and the rest about generalized federal land rancher dislike- just the latest skirmish in trying to drive them out.. cattle-free by 2033?

If voters order more wolves, some ranchers warn, they will jeopardize cooperation to preserve open landscapes that city dwellers increasingly covet with population growth and development jam-packing Denver and transforming mountain valleys.

“This will destroy the very real conservation partnership in Colorado between the thoughtful conservation community and agriculture,” Dickinson said. “Colorado has come a long way in my lifetime, away from the ‘Cattle-Free by ’93’ idea that livestock are not integral and beneficial to public lands. Conservation in Colorado will only be successful with a true partnership with agriculture. Why do we want to risk that relationship?

Encounters with the Archdruid by John McPhee: Fifty Year Later

The Sierra Club seem to really not like Colorado Senator Gardner-e.g. billboards, TV ads, newspaper ads and so on.. link here Perhaps ironically, Gardner was responsible for shepherding the Great American Outdoors Act, including fully and permanently funding LWCF, through Congress.

I’m taking a break from posting Forest Service Folktales, as I am trying to locate authors who sent only paper copies. I’ve been thinking that It might be good to look back at the last 50 years or so and see how things have or have not changed. What did the federal lands landscape look like prior to OHV’s? prior to climate change (as an issue)? Perhaps the past will lead us to new insights about today.

Let’s begin with John McPhee’s book, “Encounters with the Archdruid” . It was originally run in The New Yorker in March of 1971. Remember, the original Earth Day was 1970. There was no CAA, no CWA, no ESA, no NFMA. NEPA had been signed into law on January 1, 1970. In this book, McPhee organizes hikes/camping trips with David Brower, founder of the Sierra Club, and Charles Park, a mining engineer, Charles Fraser, a resource developer, and Floyd Dominy, a builder of dams. According to reviewer Steward Udall, “McPhee reveals more nuances of the values revolution that dominates the new age of ecology than most writers could pack into a volume twice as long. I marvel at his capacity to listen intently and extract the essence of a man and his philosophy in the fewest possible works.” Why this is a fun read for me is that people discuss their philosophies about specific things- dams, mines, housing, and the trade-offs between peoples’ needs and leaving Nature alone.

What was interesting to me is that the worldview of Brower is still around today, as in “don’t mess with the earth- at least not “special places”” but the rationale for this view has become more complex. Biodiversity, climate change, tourist and recreation economies are all reasons supporting this philosophy today. Look in any press release about a Wilderness bill. So it made me wonder if the “let things alone” is an underlying value, with only the expressions and arguments of today carefully included or excluded. For example, Brower was not fond of dams. Yet now hydroelectric power is seen to be good for climate change, so we don’t notice that so much. Climate change is obviously unnatural- so leaving land alone doesn’t make the vegetation conditions or wildlife “natural,” due to climate change, but the idea is still that leaving it alone is best.

I didn’t expect that 50 years ago McPhee would have noticed some of the things we observe today.

When Brower was the executive director of the Sierra Club, the organization became famous for bold full-page newspaper ads designed to arouse the populace and written in a style that might be called Early Paul Revere. One such ad called attention to the Kennecot Copper Corporation’s ambitions in the Glacier Peak Wilderness under the headline “AN OPEN PIT, BIG ENOUGH TO BE SEEN FROM THE MOON.” The fact that this was not true did not slow up Brower or the Sierra Club. In the war strategy of the conservation movement, exaggeration is a standard weapon and is used consciously on broad fronts.” (p. 37)

What’s interesting is thinking about how the conflict was deemed to be a “war” and so “anything’s fair” would naturally follow. The ends justify the means.
At around the same time, the Civil Rights movement had just lost Dr. Martin Luther King, who saw that struggle as anything but warlike. This was more than likely based on his beliefs and role as a Christian minister. What was it about the Sierra Club that led to the “warfare” thinking? Was it a cultural accident- the impact of certain leaders early on?

Fifty years later, there are still remnants of the “warfare” orientation in some people in some environmental groups. We still see the Early Paul Revere style of communication and the casualness with regard to the accuracy of statements. If I had to guess, I think it’s become a habit. But to many, it’s kind of an annoying habit. Maybe after 50 years, it’s time to change?

If you’d like to read Encounters with the Archdruid” please feel free to come back and tell us your own observations. What has changed over the last 50 years? What hasn’t? What surprised you?

Of Toddlers, Wolves, and Public Lands Ranchers


The following guest blog post was written by Samantha Bruegger, the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner for WildEarth Guardians.

As I sit here thinking about wolves, my child is now peacefully sleeping in his room. I know he will awake tomorrow and much of his toddler fury will have subsided, creating a time for us to interact with each other positively. I can’t help but think of the parallels between some bad-acting livestock producers, grazing on public lands across the West, and my raging pre-bedtime toddler. The evening meltdown ritual is full of entitlement, irrational beliefs, and a lot of whining. It is now in these precious hours of silence that I understand why these tantrums are so familiar. I hear the same chorus from stock growers all week while working on carnivore coexistence.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, further bolstered by the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, authorized cattlemen and sheep growers to use public land across the West to grow their personal businesses. Now, nearly a century later, the same law has enabled corporate cattleman to profit from some of America’s most picturesque forests, grasslands, and deserts. Where we hike, bike, raft, hunt and fish, cows and sheep are permitted to freely roam.

In the 193 million acre National Forest System, grazing is authorized for 6,260 permit holders at the low cost of $1.35 per month for a cow/calf pair or five sheep, on over 102 million acres public land across 29 states. Unattended cows and sheep trample valuable wildlife habitat, graze on forage intended for deer and elk, and literally defecate all over the trails and water we explore with our families and friends, or find solace in alone. Yes, much like my child during witching hour, there is poop involved, a mess made, and complete chaos. However, this is not my private living room, these are the invaluable ecosystems of the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, the Colville National Forest of Washington, and the Arapaho National Forest of the Rocky Mountains, areas in which cows and sheep are invasive species. The aforementioned legislation is the parent that caves, gives toddlers what they are screaming for, in this case we’ll say a lollipop, and hopes for the best.

As many parents know, sugar before bedtime rarely ends well. Livestock producers were given a taste of the good stuff and, emboldened, have now picked up the toddler refrain of “more, more, more!” Being permitted to profit from public land was not enough for the hypocritical heifer owners. Soon, funding from the Animal Damage Control Act was funneled to grazing permit holders across the West, in a misguided attempt to appease the industry. In fact, a federal wildlife killing program was created with these funds, equipped to destroy all wildlife that stood in the way of cattle takeover. Armed with traps, poisons, cyanide bombs, snares, airplanes, and firearms, the United States Department of Agriculture’s “Wildlife Services” program took to treasured public lands to kill all things wild.

So far, the program’s indiscriminate and cruel tactics have accidentally killed numerous wild animals, including endangered species, domestic dogs, and even poisoned a child. The program still kills over a million animals annually, largely at the behest of agricultural interests. Bears and beavers are killed for timber damage, coyotes are massacred before grazing season, wolves are shot from the sky, and prairie dogs gassed in their burrows. The sugar- loaded, unhappy toddler was gifted a toy; the toy in this story is Wildlife Services.

You may have guessed by now, but the federal and state governments play the role of the exhausted and weary parents in this story. In an effort to appease the tyrannical demands of the worst in the grazing industry, the government doles out more gifts. Producers can receive compensation when cattle deaths are attributed to wolves, at twice the market value, but still demand the blood of those carnivores on public land. Producers receive free technical assistance when there are threats of coyotes, cougars, wolves, and bears, but still demand the blood of carnivores on public land. Producers claim it’s too hard to attend to cattle and sheep on public land, that there’s no way they can possibly keep an eye on them, but still demand the blood of carnivores on public land.

One cattleman, whose cows wander across 78,000 acres of the Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington, has even had 26 state-endangered wolves killed, including the Wedge Pack, Profanity Peak Pack, and the Old Profanity Territory Pack, to “protect” beef cows already destined for slaughter. Even as I write this, Washington has a kill order out for two members of the Togo Pack whose crime was eating the cows, wandering unattended, in the National Forest.  Parents are trying everything they can to appease the now spoiled child, who will never be satisfied until that child can act however he or she wants, damn the interests of anyone else in the house. Such unfettered kowtowing is, quite simply, bad parenting, and we should expect much more from the government whose job it is to consider the interests of stock-growers, anglers, hikers, and other non-consumptive users, as well as wildlife and ecosystems, in protecting public lands.

In order to protect the interests of the whole household, maybe it is bedtime for public lands grazing. Perhaps the great burden that the bad apples of the livestock industry perceive for tending to their responsibility would be lifted if they lost the privilege. Perhaps, if they got a little rest, they would wake up and understand that using the shared rivers, forests, deserts, and grasslands for their business gains is a privilege, not a right.

I think it’s about time we put livestock grazing on public lands, and the killing of so many wild animals for the benefit of cows and sheep, to bed. I hope to join you in a new dawn of coexistence, one where the toddler is a little more respectful and, perhaps, enjoyable.