Zinke pivots, but in
what direction? Heinrich runs roughshod over two counties, and ESA data is
terribly flawed
Zinke’s pivot(s)
On May 16, Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke met with 25
different environmental and sportsmen’s groups at the Department of Interior.
The subject was reorganization of the Department of Interior.
According
to E&E news, Zinke announced several times during the meeting that he was
going to make a “grand pivot” towards conservation. An official with Trout Unlimited, Steve Moyer, said Zinke used the term
"grand pivot" several times to indicate a change of focus away from
energy development and toward conservation is planned at Interior over the next
few years. Moyer added, "I was glad
to hear of a change of direction from Mr. Zinke."
Please note Zinke’s choice of words.
This is not just a change, or even a plain old pivot, but a “grand” pivot. I’m
afraid many of us will not find this to be so grand.
Several days later, Zinke was in Fort
Peck, Montana to meet with farmers and ranchers. MTN News reports that Zinke
told the group, "This next year, we're going to do a grand pivot. And the
pivot is, the energy sector is fine. The grand pivot is reorganization.”
So which is it: A grand pivot towards
conservation, or a grand pivot towards reorganization?
Perhaps they are one and the same.
Environmental groups have been pushing ecosystem management for years, ignoring
state and county jurisdictions. Unfortunately, that appears to be the direction
Zinke is headed with his reorganization.
About that pivot: If this was
basketball, I would blow the whistle and call “walking” on Zinke. And if he
keeps committing this infraction, the coach should pull him out of game.
Heinrich
vs. Otero County
Senator Martin Heinrich has introduced
legislation to change the status of the White Sands National Monument to that
of a national park. "This is a place that, between its geologic features,
the unique biology that exists here, the enormous cultural history that goes
back well over 10,000 years, really deserves recognition as a national
park.", said Heinrich.
This is being pursued in spite of the
opposition of the Otero County Commission who finds the status change
unnecessary and about which they have many unanswered questions. In addition,
the Dona Ana County Commission has rescinded their previous support for the
proposal.
In a letter to Heinrich the Otero
County Commission wrote, “We do not support changing White Sands National
Monument into a national park. The chief argument in favor of the change is
that it will increase the number of visitors. Yet the White Sands are already
the most visited of the twelve National Park Service sites in New Mexico, more
visitors than Carlsbad Caverns National Park.” In other words, why change the
status to national park when the White Sands National Monument already receives
more visitors than any national park in New Mexico? The letter goes on to cite
figures showing the change in status “is no guarantee of popularity.”
Supporters of the proposal refer to a
study by Headwaters Economics that claims a change in status will bring more
visitors, cause up to $7.5 million in new spending and create over a hundred
jobs. Anyone who follows this issue knows Headwaters Economics has never found
a piece of federal land that wasn’t a positive benefit to the community, and
the more restrictive the federal designation the more they like it. The Otero
County Commission is having none of this.
Their letter states:
“Besides its distance from and
unfamiliarity with Otero County and its people, funding for Headquarters comes
almost exclusively from federal agencies and environmental organizations whose
goals are anything but nonpartisan. In fact, the first sources of funding
listed on the Headwaters website are the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service. There is something amiss when federal tax dollars are routed
through a charity to produce a report that is used to lobby that same federal
government.”
The Commission’s letter thoroughly and
in detail attacks the methodology utilized by Headwaters and says, “There are serious questions about
the methodology and biases of the Headwaters report and we think it has little
value in evaluating future visitation to White Sands.”
What a pleasure it is to see someone
expose the reality of these federally funded “studies”.
The Commission also has concerns about
how a change in status may affect the management of White Sands. One example is
the film industry. After listing the many movies that have been filmed at White
Sands, the Commission says, “We are concerned that the change in status will
affect filmmaking here either from higher fees or increased regulation.”
The Commission also expresses
disappointment in how Senator Heinrich has made “end-runs” around the two
County Commissions who oppose the bill and how the Senator announced the
introduction of the bill in Las Cruces, instead of Alamogordo, and no members
of the “democratically elected representatives of Otero County” were invited to
this “meeting of community leaders.”
Flawed
ESA data
If you lived in a community around Lake
Erie, you were told to not mow your lawn unless the temperature was right and
your grass was a certain height. Your pets should be kept indoors and forget
about using weed killer. Why? Because there might be snakes in the area
protected by the Endangered Species Act.
Rob
Gordon, a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, discovered this
situation while researching the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 1999 decision
to list the Lake Erie water snake. According to Gordon, the Fish and Wildlife
Service estimated the population of that particular water snake to be somewhere
between 1,530 and 2,030 at the time. But just a few years later, the agency
revised it to 5,690. Gordon says the federal agency either made a “substantial
underestimation” of the species or the snake underwent “a truly miraculous
population growth rate”.
In his research paper, Correcting
Falsely “Recovered” and Wrongly Listed Species and Increasing Accountability
and Transparency in the Endangered Species Program, Gordon found that half
of those species that were listed as recovered, should never have been listed
in the first place.
If you think the cost of all this is born solely by the landowners, you should
think again. The general taxpayer is also on the hook. According to Gordon’s paper, the Fish
and Wildlife Service reported in 2014 that the “median cost for preparing and
publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a
proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule
with critical habitat, $305,000.”
How’s that for federally funded
fiction. And, oh yes, the feds delisted that snake in 2011.
Until next time, be a nuisance to the
devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.
Frank
DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of
a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois
Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation
This column first appeared in the June editions of the NM Stockman and the Livestock Market Digest
No comments:
Post a Comment