An open letter to the US Forest Service Associate Chief, Sally Collins and Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth:
It appears that the US Forest Service plans to relax the protections of endangered and threatened predator species--even in designated Wilderness areas--in the western United States. It also appears that these easements of federal protection will most acutely impact populations of cougars, bears and wolves. It is my intention to address this proposal in an honest and straight-forward dialog, and I welcome any response or clarification by the Dept. of Agriculture, or any of its subsidiary agencies regarding this radically myopic policy.
I would be interested to understand how the Forest Service or the Dept. of Agriculture defines the term wilderness as it applies to this endeavor. It would seem to me that once an area was deemed worthy of Federal Wilderness protection--given how rare such a designation is--the role of the federal government should be that of minimizing human impact on the area. Instead, in this case, these areas are soon to be fair game for the baiting, trapping, ground-hunting, poisoning and aerial culling of keystone species such as Grizzly Bears, Wolves and Cougars simply based on their designation as nuisance animals. That the term nuisance can be applied to a member of a species simply out of a relative proximity to commercial livestock is especially strange to me, considering that in such a case preferential treatment is afforded to those animals which serve no natural role in an ecosystem but rather for those serving economic purposes for commercially-driven interests. Amidst such a dichotomy, it seems disgraceful to me that the department of government most charged with the preservation of wild spaces and creatures should, in turn, bow to economic interests over those of conservation and stewardship.
I understand that there are forces at work calling for the extermination of these species. Ron Gillett, head of the anti-wolf coalition is on record as saying that the only way to manage wolves in Idaho is to "Get rid of them." Furthermore, this group is actively pushing a ballot initiative that would require the removal of over 500 wolves by whatever means necessary. While these groups represent the goals of commercial livestock interests, I do not see how they can in any way represent an American populace. Considering that the total wolf population in the United States is a shadow of its former self--a mere 5 per cent of what once roamed North America--it is confounding to try to understand how allowing localities to seek the extermination of members of these species will serve the greater interests of the American landscape. These are not invasive species. These are not populations that are causing irreparable harm to their ecosystems. Simply put, these are keystone species and animals that happen to prey from time to time on elk or deer that license-buying (i.e., state-revenue creating) hunters seek to sport-hunt, and who may prey upon the occasional cow that was designed to be slaughtered for human consumers instead.
The bottom line of this proposal is that these animals, these wolves, bears, cougars and others will be left with no protections. It is without question that once the decision is out of federal hands the majority of affected communities will be unable to respond in kind, and in time, to stop the onslaught of commercial interests seeking to relegate these top-tier predators to the pages of history in their neck of the woods. Most folks are too busy working 40 hours a week taking care of themselves and their families to combat industries employing their own staffs at the same rate--in addition to the other resources at their disposal--to ensure that these protections are not re-instituted at a local level. Presuming that such a measure somehow furthers an agenda of allowing the self-government of localities is incredibly short-sighted and goes against the spirit of the EPA and other conservation-minded measures that were enacted out of a desperate necessity. Further, it places the burden on disparate and unconnected localities to create protections that would safeguard these keystone species. And finally, even inside those communities which might prevail to this end, a dramatic extermination could still be seen--in the interim--of animals deemed nuisance by commercial interests .
Not wishing to be cast among the lot who have all sorts of problems with proposed initiatives but never any suggestions, I would like to forward at least one.
If the livestock interests are so particularly worried about economic losses from the occasional predation by these animals, rather than attacking a species that is serving a valuable natural role in the keeping the wild spaces of North America ecologically viable, perhaps more should be done to protect their own domesticated stock of sheep and cattle. Perhaps stronger fences or more staff to employ non-lethal means of deterrence should be used against that part of the wilderness which might eat into their profits. In my lifetime, I have seen many destructive environmental agendas passed under the banner of creating more jobs or presumed benefits to be incurred through commerce and economic impact. Surely, this proposal allows for both; through the purchase of stronger fencing materials and the increased demand for labor, their losses can surely be reduced without passing the cost on to the American citizen and the natural world in the loss or reduction of these critical species, many of which have only recently been brought back from the brink of extinction. Why is this "cost of doing business" being paid for in the lives of threatened species rather than by the industry itself?
The United States comprises an area of 9.6 million square kilometers and holds 298 million people. It seems preposterous that we should allow for the current state of affairs which holds Grizzly Bear populations to roughly 1,000 in the lower 48, drives wolves nearly to extinction--only to bring back one of every 20 and label it a success--while other species such as the American Crocodile, the Florida Panther and others are facing extinction due to past and present management practices and the loss of habitat following a lack of firm protections. That we should further allow for the diminishment of these numbers is something beyond preposterous that I can only grasp at the language for. It is my sincerest desire that this policy be reconsidered immediately, and that the two of you, Ms. Collins and Mr. Bosworth, lead the way. As leaders of the US Forest Service, I do not believe it is too much to ask.
Signed and sent to scollins@fs.fed.us and to dbosworth@fs.fed.us on Saturday June17,2006
It appears that the US Forest Service plans to relax the protections of endangered and threatened predator species--even in designated Wilderness areas--in the western United States. It also appears that these easements of federal protection will most acutely impact populations of cougars, bears and wolves. It is my intention to address this proposal in an honest and straight-forward dialog, and I welcome any response or clarification by the Dept. of Agriculture, or any of its subsidiary agencies regarding this radically myopic policy.
I would be interested to understand how the Forest Service or the Dept. of Agriculture defines the term wilderness as it applies to this endeavor. It would seem to me that once an area was deemed worthy of Federal Wilderness protection--given how rare such a designation is--the role of the federal government should be that of minimizing human impact on the area. Instead, in this case, these areas are soon to be fair game for the baiting, trapping, ground-hunting, poisoning and aerial culling of keystone species such as Grizzly Bears, Wolves and Cougars simply based on their designation as nuisance animals. That the term nuisance can be applied to a member of a species simply out of a relative proximity to commercial livestock is especially strange to me, considering that in such a case preferential treatment is afforded to those animals which serve no natural role in an ecosystem but rather for those serving economic purposes for commercially-driven interests. Amidst such a dichotomy, it seems disgraceful to me that the department of government most charged with the preservation of wild spaces and creatures should, in turn, bow to economic interests over those of conservation and stewardship.
I understand that there are forces at work calling for the extermination of these species. Ron Gillett, head of the anti-wolf coalition is on record as saying that the only way to manage wolves in Idaho is to "Get rid of them." Furthermore, this group is actively pushing a ballot initiative that would require the removal of over 500 wolves by whatever means necessary. While these groups represent the goals of commercial livestock interests, I do not see how they can in any way represent an American populace. Considering that the total wolf population in the United States is a shadow of its former self--a mere 5 per cent of what once roamed North America--it is confounding to try to understand how allowing localities to seek the extermination of members of these species will serve the greater interests of the American landscape. These are not invasive species. These are not populations that are causing irreparable harm to their ecosystems. Simply put, these are keystone species and animals that happen to prey from time to time on elk or deer that license-buying (i.e., state-revenue creating) hunters seek to sport-hunt, and who may prey upon the occasional cow that was designed to be slaughtered for human consumers instead.
The bottom line of this proposal is that these animals, these wolves, bears, cougars and others will be left with no protections. It is without question that once the decision is out of federal hands the majority of affected communities will be unable to respond in kind, and in time, to stop the onslaught of commercial interests seeking to relegate these top-tier predators to the pages of history in their neck of the woods. Most folks are too busy working 40 hours a week taking care of themselves and their families to combat industries employing their own staffs at the same rate--in addition to the other resources at their disposal--to ensure that these protections are not re-instituted at a local level. Presuming that such a measure somehow furthers an agenda of allowing the self-government of localities is incredibly short-sighted and goes against the spirit of the EPA and other conservation-minded measures that were enacted out of a desperate necessity. Further, it places the burden on disparate and unconnected localities to create protections that would safeguard these keystone species. And finally, even inside those communities which might prevail to this end, a dramatic extermination could still be seen--in the interim--of animals deemed nuisance by commercial interests .
Not wishing to be cast among the lot who have all sorts of problems with proposed initiatives but never any suggestions, I would like to forward at least one.
If the livestock interests are so particularly worried about economic losses from the occasional predation by these animals, rather than attacking a species that is serving a valuable natural role in the keeping the wild spaces of North America ecologically viable, perhaps more should be done to protect their own domesticated stock of sheep and cattle. Perhaps stronger fences or more staff to employ non-lethal means of deterrence should be used against that part of the wilderness which might eat into their profits. In my lifetime, I have seen many destructive environmental agendas passed under the banner of creating more jobs or presumed benefits to be incurred through commerce and economic impact. Surely, this proposal allows for both; through the purchase of stronger fencing materials and the increased demand for labor, their losses can surely be reduced without passing the cost on to the American citizen and the natural world in the loss or reduction of these critical species, many of which have only recently been brought back from the brink of extinction. Why is this "cost of doing business" being paid for in the lives of threatened species rather than by the industry itself?
The United States comprises an area of 9.6 million square kilometers and holds 298 million people. It seems preposterous that we should allow for the current state of affairs which holds Grizzly Bear populations to roughly 1,000 in the lower 48, drives wolves nearly to extinction--only to bring back one of every 20 and label it a success--while other species such as the American Crocodile, the Florida Panther and others are facing extinction due to past and present management practices and the loss of habitat following a lack of firm protections. That we should further allow for the diminishment of these numbers is something beyond preposterous that I can only grasp at the language for. It is my sincerest desire that this policy be reconsidered immediately, and that the two of you, Ms. Collins and Mr. Bosworth, lead the way. As leaders of the US Forest Service, I do not believe it is too much to ask.
Signed and sent to scollins@fs.fed.us and to dbosworth@fs.fed.us on Saturday June17,2006
how is jax?