Wilderness expansion proposals fall short in Congress

 A long-standing proposal to expand wilderness areas on the Olympic Peninsula by more than 125,000 acres, and to designate 19 new federally protected Wild and Scenic Rivers on the peninsula, fell short of the finish line as the 117th Congress came to a close this month.

President Joe Biden signed a $1.7 trillion government funding bill on Thursday that does not include the Wild Olympics proposal, which environmental groups from Washington lobbied for on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., in the waning days of the legislative session.

“The more ambitious package we knew was a possibility fell apart in the final hours,” said Tom O’Keefe, Pacific Northwest stewardship director for American Whitewater, who was part of the state lobbying delegation.

Congress approved some smaller conservation proposals, like designating new Wild and Scenic Rivers in Maine and Connecticut, boosting a long-distance bike trail in Utah, denoting National Heritage Areas in Alabama and Maryland, and placing 1,000 acres of federal land in California into trust for the Karuk Tribe. But the Wild Olympics proposal and other large-scale bills fell short...more

And this from Outdoor Alliance

During the last month, thousands of people reached out to their lawmakers about passing a recreation and lands package and the Outdoor Alliance policy team met in D.C. earlier in the month to advocate for the proposals. Many lawmakers, including leadership negotiating the package, seemed committed to getting these bills across the finish line during the lame duck.

Though it came within an inch of being included, at the 11th hour, the effort to pass the recreation and lands package by the end of the year fell apart in negotiations.

It wasn't all good news, though:

The year-end bill includes significant and greatly-needed funding increases for key recreation and conservation programs at all the Forest Service, National Park Service, BLM, and other agencies. Negotiations over government funding will likely be even more contentious next year in a divided Congress, and we are grateful to House and Senate appropriators who worked tirelessly to reach a bipartisan agreement that will benefit public lands and waters and outdoor recreation moving forward.

And we have this to look forward to:

Conservation bills in particular can take years, even decades, to complete, and every time they get closer to passing, it becomes easier to pass them the next time around. Every time we advocate so hard that these bills approach the finish line, we make the runway a bit smoother for the next time we push.

 While America’s Outdoor Recreation Act didn’t pass this Congress, we are hopeful for the next Congress and will continue to push on it. At some point, the timing is right and the bills we all work so hard for feel like they fly across the finish line. It’s been a huge year for conservation—thanks to your outreach—and we are confident that our continued advocacy will help these long-standing priorities make it across the finish line before too long.

Hikers now required to pack out poop from Guadalupe Mountains wilderness

 

Hikers planning to explore the Guadalupe Mountains National Park wilderness this summer are now required to pack one more essential item: toilet bags.

Beginning June 1, day hikes and those planning to camp overnight will be required to pack out humane waste in landfill friendly toilet bags.

...One bag per person, per night will be required for overnight stays, and officials said hikers will be asked to provide proof they have the correct number of bags before a permit is issued. Day hikers are asked to carry an appropriate number of bags for the group.

...The new rule is the result of increasing number of visitors to the park, officials said in the news release, and the increasing visibility of human waste and toilet paper "along trails, high use areas and primitive campsites."

...“The highest point in Texas is not a toilet,” said Superintendent Eric Leonard. 

 READ ENTIRE ARTICLE</

Sorry Mr. Leonard, but much of what the feds manage turns in to a toilet, and a pay toilet at that.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states that wilderness is, "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Apparently no part of him shall remain either. People are finally experiencing this wilderness thing. Its what they asked for and now they are getting it, good and hard.

These are the same people who complain abou dog shit.  See Hikers make a stink about dog poop on trails They are so concerned about cow pee they are potty-training calves. Worried about the future? No need as you now have a resource such as How To Teach Your Kids to Poop Outdoors.

Prediction: this and similar issues will be used by the feds to limit access to wilderness areas, and in some cases banning human visitation entirely. The Wilderness Act is an act of exclusion, and that will be enforced more and more in the future.

Forty-Four Tasty Conservation Recipes One Can Make at Home—If One Lives in the White House

 Andy Kerr

Ecological realities are immutable. While political realities are mutable, the latter don’t change on their own. Fortunately, there are two major paths to change the conservation status of federal public lands: through administrative action and through congressional action. 

Ideally, Congress will enact enough legislation during the remainder of the decade to attain 30x30. An Act of Congress that protects federal public land is as permanent as conservation of land in the United States can get. If properly drafted, an Act of Congress can provide federal land management agencies with a mandate for strong and enduring preservation of biological diversity.

If Congress does not choose to act in this manner, the administration can protect federal public land everywhere but in Alaska. Fortunately, Congress has delegated many powers over the nation’s public lands to either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture (for the National Forest System), and—in the sole case of proclaiming national monuments—the President.

Twenty-two recipes are offered in Table 1 for administrative action by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the President...

READ ENTIRE POST

For More Information

Kerr, Andy. 2022. Forty-Four Conservation Recipes for 30x30: A Cookbook of 22 Administrative and 22 Legislative Opportunities for Government Action to Protect 30 Percent of US Lands by 2030. The Larch Company, Ashland, OR, and Washington, DC.00000

‘In the dark of night’: Trump’s Interior chief snuck Murkowski an 11th-hour win

Just days before leaving office, then-Interior Secretary David Bernhardt ordered federal officials to use a risky legal strategy to advance a controversial road project through a wildlife refuge in Alaska, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO and Type Investigations — a move that if implemented, could erode public land protections across the state. The January 15 Bernhardt memo to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move forward with the permitting of a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern Alaska stunned critics who have opposed the project for more than two decades. A long-standing priority for the Alaska delegation — and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski in particular — the 19-mile Izembek road, which was proposed to connect the village of King Cove with an airport in nearby Cold Bay, would cut through federally designated wilderness lands in the refuge. Supporters of the project say the road would provide residents, the majority of whom are Alaska Natives, with access to medical care in the event of an emergency; opponents argue that it would do irreparable harm to a globally recognized wetland ecosystem that provides critical habitat to thousands of migratory bird species and is really designed to benefit the commercial seafood industry. King Cove, on the remote edge of the Alaskan Peninsula, is home to one of the state’s largest canneries... Two earlier attempts by the Trump administration to orchestrate a land exchange in order to build the road were rejected by the courts, largely because they failed to properly address a 2013 Interior Department finding that the project would irreversibly damage the refuge and was not in the public interest. Bernhardt’s memo was an 11th hour bid to sidestep the courts by declaring the village of King Cove an “inholding” under federal law. Such a designation applies to private or state lands that are surrounded by conservation units such as refuges or parks — making them inaccessible by any other means. But King Cove, a town of just over 1,000 people, has a small airport and harbor and accommodates a large seasonal work force every year...If granted, inholding status would give FWS the authority to issue a right of way permit to the state of Alaska and Village of King Cove, which submitted their application to the agency in late October. Bernhardt’s memo instructed the FWS to approve the designation despite internal questions raised by the agency. If this interpretation of the law were to be upheld by the department, it would make it easier for the state or private landowners to apply for permits to build roads through protected conservation systems, even those designated as wilderness areas...MORE

Does anyone else find this an odd pairing? Murkowski voted to impeach Trump and then a Trump Cabinet member gives her a "win"?? And now we find that Murkowski is #2 on Trump's hit list. Something is definitely awry here.

House passes major public lands package

The House on Friday passed a sprawling conservation bill 227-200 aimed at preserving land and water in Arizona, Colorado, California and Washington state. The legislation, called the Protecting America’s Wilderness and Public Lands Act, combined eight bills that had previously been introduced. The bill aims to provide extra protection to about 1.5 million acres of public lands by designating them as wilderness. It would also prevent new oil, gas and mineral extraction on more than 1.2 million acres of public land and preserve 1,000 river miles by adding them to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The vote was largely along party lines, with eight Republicans voting to support the bill and only one Democrat voting against it. “This chamber has bypassed the committee process and circumvented the will of members who represent districts directly impacted by this legislation,” said Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) on Thursday. “The consequences of this bill on the four Western states it impacts will be far-reaching,” he added. “If you live in Colorado and you enjoy recreating on mountain biking and ATV trails ... this bill will shut down your ability to recreate on those lands,” he added. The bill is backed by the White House but could face an uphill battle in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster...MORE

Heinrich, Luján Introduce Conservation Bills In New Congress

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, and U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) have introduced the Buffalo Tract Protection Act, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, and legislation to establish Cerro de la Olla Wilderness within the Río Grande del Norte National Monument in northern New Mexico.

The Buffalo Tract Protection Act would withdraw four parcels of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in southern Sandoval County, including the Buffalo Tract and the Crest of Montezuma, from any mineral development, including gravel mining. The legislation previously passed by a voice vote in a key legislative business meeting in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in December of 2019.

“The Crest of Montezuma and the Buffalo Tract are home to important ecosystems and have been used by communities along the Rio Grande Valley for centuries,” said Heinrich. “Numerous residents have shared their concerns with me about the future of these lands and the potential damage that would result from gravel mining. Mineral development would negatively impact public health, quality of life, and water supplies. I look forward to maintaining the momentum of this legislation and working with the community to see it cross the finish line in the 117th Congress.”

“I’m proud to join Senator Heinrich in reintroducing the Buffalo Tract Protection Act, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, and legislation to establish the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness. Through my work with farmers and ranchers, community leaders, and everyday New Mexicans, I know that preserving our public lands is crucial to growing New Mexico’s outdoor economy and maintaining our way of life,” said Luján. “I’ve always made it a priority to stand up for our land, water, and wildlife corridors, and in the Senate, I’ll continue fighting for to preserve our precious natural resources for future generations.”

Read the full text of the Buffalo Tract Protection Act by clicking here. Find a map of the proposed boundaries by clicking here.

The Pecos Watershed Protection Act would withdraw all federally-managed minerals in the watershed and would prevent leasing, patent, or sale of all publicly-owned minerals, including oil and gas as well as gold, silver, copper, and other hard rock minerals.

In November of 2020, the legislation was considered in a key hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. In the hearing, Senator Heinrich expressed the community support behind the Pecos Watershed Protection Act and how “the Pecos watershed is one of those places where the community has come together and said that the river at the heart of this valley, and at the heart of this community, is literally the most important thing we can protect and pass on to our heirs.” Senator Heinrich also noted that many community members are still reeling from a spill of toxic waste from a closed mine in the 1990s that took decades and millions of dollars to clean up.

Read the full text of the Pecos Watershed Protection Act by clicking here.

Heinrich and Luján’s legislation to establish Cerro de la Olla Wilderness would preserve traditional uses and provide sanctuary to a wide range of wildlife species, while maintaining current access routes.

“Cerro de la Olla towers over the Taos Plateau and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. Much like Ute Mountain, Cerro de la Olla is also a shield volcano with upper elevations that offer solitude and unparalleled views of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the East, the San Juan Mountains to the West, and the Rio Grande Gorge down below,” said Heinrich. “These mountains serve as an important wildlife corridor and provide security habitat for species such as elk, mule deer, black bears, and mountain lions. This legislation has gained the support of a wide range of community members, as well as the Taos County Commission and Taos Pueblo. Protecting this peak and its spectacular views has long been a priority for the Taos community. I’m glad to reintroduce this legislation and will continue the work to provide the opportunity to expand the monument and protect an iconic New Mexico view shed.”

Read the full text of legislation to establish Cerro de la Olla by clicking here. Find a map of the proposed wilderness here. 

PRESS RELEASE

To protect nature, bring down the walls of fortress conservation

The crisis signs could not be clearer: fires, floods, droughts, pandemic, species extinction … Earth is screaming with all its might. We need to listen and act.

We must defend the planet’s life support against relentless corporate greed and rediscover humanity as part of the natural world, for current and future generations...

...Business-as-usual backed by polluted politics is the problem. The same destructive systems that are stripping our forests and oceans of life are killing environmental defenders and pushing people into peril. To reset our relationship with nature, we need systemic change to the way we produce and consume food, energy and natural resources.

At every level of governance – from our local community to the UN biodiversity summit – decisions can aid a green and just recovery from crises, build resilience against future epidemics, and allow people and the planet to thrive. As governments collectively agree on next steps for global nature protection, it is clear we need a better plan.

Protecting at least 30 percent of land and oceans by 2030 can be an important component in planetary recovery. It is an ambitious, measurable target. A global safety net preventing further degradation of critical eco-regions is essential and could halve the extinction risk for species...

READ THE ENTIRE OP-ED

*************************

So why am I posting this environmental gibberish? Because they do get one important thing right. The authors, two employees of Greenpeace, say the 30 percent land set-a-side will only work:

...if failed conservation models are discarded in favour of a global push to recognise customary land and reinforce people’s rights – this is key if countries are to protect biodiversity, fight inequality and attain their climate goals.

While many of the most effective and highly protected ocean sanctuaries have been championed and won by local coastal communities, the 30×30 target for land has been met with deep concern from environmental and human rights groups and activists: Designed without proper consultation and implemented wrongly, protected areas do not deliver protection but make matters worse for people, endangered species, and the planet. The current draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) lacks credible guarantees against such an outcome. Success depends on approaches that both promote justice and protect biodiversity and the GBF must reflect that.

...However, there is a much darker side of conservation that commits human rights violations and outright atrocities in its name. This needs a reckoning as governments set higher targets for protected areas.

So-called “fortress conservation” – which evicts people from land that has been home to Indigenous peoples and local communities for generations – is ethically deeply problematic and has had horrific consequences on the ground. In the Congo Basin and elsewhere, armed eco-guards funded by international donors and organisations have reportedly harassed, abused, raped and murdered local people. These atrocities are not standalone incidents, they are the outcome of a failed conservation model predicated on colonialism that treats marginalised and forest-dependent communities as a threat to wildlife.

This outdated conservation approach must be discarded entirely. It is not a solution to the planetary crisis we are faced with and needs ruling out before governments look for “easy ways” to meet 30×30 targets. This needs to happen fast or there is a very real risk we see a boom in colonial-style conservation that pushes millions of people off their land.

...We will not live in “harmony with nature”, as the Convention on Biological Diversity vision states, if we throw people off their land and make it inaccessible for customary use. 

Well said, and something that needs to be driven home to NM Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, who have spearheaded recent actions to set aside huge protected areas in Dona Ana County and Northern NM and ignored the concerns of "those who have lived close and long" upon the land and who have passed legislation specifically designed to outlaw customary land use. They are forcing this "outdated conservation approach" of "fortress conservation" upon us with a vengeance. And they have done so to increase the profits of the outdoor industry companies and the corporate-like environmental lobby.  This "darker side of conservation" is being foisted on New Mexico on an almost daily basis, and it is nice to see two members of the environmental community bring this to light.

Idaho sheep ranchers retire grazing allotments

By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press

 Lava Lake Land & Livestock of Hailey, Idaho, has permanently retired four of its sheep grazing allotments on more than 88,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land north and northeast of Ketchum. Those allotments include the North Fork Boulder and Trail Creek allotments in the Big Wood River watershed in the Sawtooth National Forest and the Park Creek and Northfork allotments in the Big Lost River watershed in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The permanent retirements were facilitated by the Sagegrouse Habitat Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization founded by Western Watersheds Project and the El Paso Corp. in 2010 to encourage and accomplish voluntary retirement of public lands grazing permits. Lava Lake Land & Livestock currently runs two bands of sheep — roughly 1,800 ewes and their lambs — on 24,000 acres of private land and 787,000 acres of public land in Idaho — not including the retired allotments...In 2010, the Payette National Forest issued a final decision reducing domestic sheep and goat grazing by nearly 69,000 acres to mitigate the risk of disease transmission to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Idaho Wool Growers Association said the ruling would shut down 70% of sheep grazing in the Payette. The association, other industry groups and individual ranchers sued the Forest Service, but the decision was upheld in court...MORE

Technically, I guess this was voluntary. However, Forest Service decisions and court rulings put the future of these allotments in jeopardy. That's a great way to create a "willing seller". The rancher involved referred to this as "risk mitigation." The federal statute encouraged allotment donations, “We had an opportunity to do that, and we did,” the rancher said.

Now if federal lands and resources benefited from this action, why didn't the feds pay for it? Because they will do nothing that would set the precedent that these permits have value. As far as the feds are concerned the allotments were donated. Look what this does for the enviros: they accomplish their goal of removing livestock from federal lands, they get a corporate shill to pay for it, and set no precedent that grazing permits have value. A pretty sweet deal set up by our friends in the U.S. Congress.

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act of 2015 requires the Forest Service and BLM to accept permit donations of allotments that are at least partially within an area established by the act, which includes the allotments waived by Lava Lake.

In 2015, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Here is the language in the act, as written and passed by the Republicans:

(2)

Donation of grazing permits and leases

(A)

Acceptance by secretary

(i)

In general

The Secretary shall accept the donation of any valid existing leases or permits authorizing grazing on public land or National Forest System land, all or a portion of which are within the area depicted as the Boulder White Clouds Grazing Area on the map entitled Boulder White Clouds Grazing Area Map and dated January 27, 2010.

(ii)

Partial donation

A person holding a valid grazing permit or lease for a grazing allotment partially within the area described in clause (i) may elect to donate only the portion of the grazing permit or lease that is within the area.

(B)

Termination

With respect to each permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall—

(i)

terminate the grazing permit or lease or portion of the permit or lease; and

(ii)

except as provided in subparagraph (C), ensure a permanent end to grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease or portion of the permit or lease.

(C)

Common allotments

(i)

In general

If the land covered by a permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A) is also covered by another valid grazing permit or lease that is not donated, the Secretary shall reduce the authorized level on the land covered by the permit or lease to reflect the donation of the permit or lease under subparagraph (A).

(ii)

Authorized level

To ensure that there is a permanent reduction in the level of grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall not allow grazing use to exceed the authorized level established under clause (i).

(D)

Partial donation

If a person holding a valid grazing permit or lease donates less than the full amount of grazing use authorized under the permit or lease, the Secretary shall—

(i)

reduce the authorized grazing level to reflect the donation; and

(ii)

modify the permit or lease to reflect the revised level or area of use.

Donation then termination must have been their mantra.

Wilderness wolf gunning inquiry shot down

An inquiry into using aircraft to shoot wolves in federally designated wilderness in the Wind River Range fizzled after a meeting between the Bridger-Teton National Forest, cattle producers and elected officials. Bridger-Teton Supervisor Tricia O’Connor told parties who approached the forest about aerially gunning cattle-killing wolves in the Bridger Wilderness that she was “willing to discuss” and “talk it through” in a late 2018 email. Stakeholders later met in person to discuss further, but more than a year and a half later there is no proposal on the table. It’s a “big deal” to go after native wildlife in wilderness, a highly protected class of federal land where natural processes are prioritized, Bridger-Teton Pinedale District Ranger Rob Hoelscher told the News&Guide. “We don’t allow gunning of anything in the wilderness without going through a [minimum requirements analysis] and a [National Environmental Policy Act] process,” Hoelscher said. “This came up and we discussed it a little bit, but we haven’t allowed it and we don’t plan to.” Although not a public conversation, the idea of authorizing federal employees to capture and lethally target wolves using a helicopter in the Bridger Wilderness came to light through a Freedom of Information Act request. The advocacy group Western Watersheds Project filed a FOIA request that turned up the summer 2018 email thread, which was then provided to the News&Guide. Parties to the email correspondence included Hoelscher, forest wildlife biologist Randy Griebel, Sublette County cattle rancher and state House Rep. Albert Sommers, Wyoming Wildlife Services Director Mike Foster, Sublette County Predator Board member and woolgrower Cat Urbigkit and cattle ranchers Joel and Cotton Bousman. The discourse primarily concerned scheduling an in-person meeting. Sommers told the News&Guide that the discussion was spurred by wolves chronically killing cattle on summer grazing allotments in the southern Winds. That part of the Wind River Range is outside of the wolf “trophy game area” and is in the “predator zone,” an area where wolves can be killed without permit or limit and where, at the time, there weren’t compensation programs to reimburse ranchers for their losses. “I didn’t know what the rules were, as far as what could be done under the Wilderness Act, and what couldn’t be,” Sommers said. “So that was basically what I was asking.” “I found out you can’t really do it, so that’s that,” Sommers said. “That conversation just died there.”...MORE

Bishop, Romney Introduce Bill to Protect Wilderness in Illinois

WASHINGTON – Today, Ranking Republican Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) introduced the Shawnee Wilderness Area Designation Act of 2019, legislation to lock up 289,000 acres of land in Illinois and make it part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Earlier this week, they condemned legislation introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that undermines a bipartisan compromise signed into law earlier this year as part of S.47, the Natural Resources Management Act. S. 47 designated nearly one million acres in Emery County, UT, for multiple use including recreation, conservation, development, and grazing, resolving a decades-long controversy over federal land designations and management in the region.

“One good deed deserves another. One bad bill demands another. This week, Senator Durbin (D-IL) introduced a bill to lock-up more than 8.2 million acres of land in Utah. Today, Utah members introduced a bill to designate 289,000 acres of wilderness in Illinois. The acreage should be larger, but only 1.1% of Illinois is federally owned compared to more than 65% in Utah. The new designation may not make sense for Illinois, but neither does Durbin’s arbitrary bill. I look forward to both of them going nowhere.” – Ranking Republican Rob Bishop

“Senators in the East shouldn’t be telling people in the West what to do with our land. If wilderness is so important to Senator Durbin, he doesn’t need to go all the way to Utah to designate it. Our bill would designate the 289,000 acres of national forest in Illinois as wilderness so he can save himself a trip across the country and enjoy the wilderness in his own backyard.” – U.S. Senator Mitt Romney

Press Release

President Trump brags on creating new Wilderness Areas in New Mexico

Yesterday, President Trump gave a speech on the environment, about which the White House released a Fact Sheet. Here is an excerpt from the Fact Sheet, dealing with his accomplishments on federal lands:

EFFECTIVE LAND MANAGEMENT: President Trump’s management of America’s lands promotes conservation, encourages good stewardship, and expands recreational opportunities.

• Earlier this year, President Trump signed the largest public lands legislation in a decade, designating 1.3 million new acres of wilderness.
• The Department of the Interior has proposed to open more than a million acres across the country for expanded hunting and fishing access, ensuring that hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts are able to enjoy fully our Nation’s lands and waters.
• To prevent devastating forest fires, President Trump took action to improve management of forests under Federal supervision and worked with State and local leaders to do the same.

Do you see any contradictions there? For one, they opened a million acres for additional access, while at the same time shutting most of the public out of 1.3 million acres of new wilderness. Looks like a wash to me, except for one thing: The next Sec. of Interior can administratively reverse the actions on additional access, while it would take a majority in both Houses of Congress and a supportive White House to reverse the wilderness designations. Which do you think is most likely to happen?

But let's take a look at what the President actually said:

My administration is strongly promoting bipartisan solutions for conservation.  And we’re really getting along very well with the Democrats on that one.  We’re getting things done.
This year, I signed the largest public lands package in a decade, designating 1.3 million acres — that’s a lot of land — of new wilderness and expanding recreational access.

Well, he is getting along with the Democrats all right, as he has done exactly what Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich wanted in designating the many new Wilderness Areas in New Mexico. This was something they attempted to do under President Obama, but failed to accomplish.

In December, I signed a historic executive order promoting much more active forest management to prevent catastrophic wildfires like those that recently devastated California and Oregon.  (Applause.)
I went to the fires in California and I said, “It’s also management.”  It’s a lot of things happening, but it’s management.  You can’t have dirty floors.  You can’t have 20 years of leaves and fallen trees.  After the first 17 months, they say the tree is like a piece of tinder.  You have to be very careful.  So you can’t have that.  That’s why you have so many fires.
And I will say this: Spoke with the Governor of California, spoke with many people, and the process of cleaning is now really taking precedent.  It — a lot of people are looking at forest management.  It’s a word that people didn’t understand last year.  Now they’re getting it.  And you don’t have to have any forest fires.  It’s interesting.
I spoke to certain countries, and they said, “Sir, we’re a forest nation.”  I never thought of a country — well-known countries: “We’re a forest nation.”  I never heard of the term “forest nation.”  They live in forests and they don’t have problems.
One was telling me that his trees are much more susceptible to fire than what they have in California, but they don’t have fires because they manage, they clean, they do what you have to do.  There’s not so much to burn.  And we’re going to start doing that.  And it’s called, remember, “management.”  It’s called “forest management.”  So it’s a very important term.

The President is correct about forest management. But he should understand and acknowledge that his policy on active forest management will not apply in Wilderness Areas. How are you going to "clean" the forests if you are not allowed to use mechanized vehicles or mechanical equipment of any kind in Wilderness Areas? If the other country of which the President spoke is "a forest nation" where the folks "live in the forests" and "don't have fires because they manage, they clean, they do what you have to do", then we know for sure they don't have Wilderness Areas as defined by U.S. statute.

What did Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt have to say about the omnibus federal lands bill and the new wilderness areas? Again, from the transcript:  

...The President mentioned that he signed into law the largest public lands legislation in over a decade.  Thank you all on your side.
We are aggressively implementing this act, which, among other things, designated 1.3 million acres of public land as wilderness, as you said.  To put that into perspective, 1.3 million acres exceeds the entire size of the state of Rhode Island.
Today, the geographic area of our nation’s wilderness system is actually larger than every state in the union except for Texas and Alaska.  We are ensuring that future generations receive the benefit of an enduring wilderness system.The President mentioned that he signed into law the largest public lands legislation in over a decade.  Thank you all on your side.
We are aggressively implementing this act, which, among other things, designated 1.3 million acres of public land as wilderness, as you said.  To put that into perspective, 1.3 million acres exceeds the entire size of the state of Rhode Island.
Today, the geographic area of our nation’s wilderness system is actually larger than every state in the union except for Texas and Alaska.  We are ensuring that future generations receive the benefit of an enduring wilderness system.

Well, at least Secretary Bernhardt puts things into perspective. However, does President Trump understand he has just set aside an area larger than Rhode Island where there will be no active forest management? Where you can't "clean" the "dirty floors" of "leaves and fallen trees" and where, by law, the policy is non-management, i.e., the exact opposite of active forest management?

Mr. Secretary, you speak of "the benefits of an enduring wilderness system." We are having to endure it alright, all 110 million acres of it, and the "benefits" are killing us in the West.

Of course, this is the run up to an election year and much of this is electioneering. Let's also recognize that Rep.Rob Bishop deserted us. This is his last term in office and he was able to cut some land deals in the omnibus bill that he had been working on for years. The result was the most knowledgeable and effective opponent of wilderness on our border with Mexico, turned his back to us as he pursued his personal legacy at home.

Still, it would have been nice to bring some truth to this discussion, and this was an opportunity lost. Instead, it serves as another example of how ranchers and rural residents are being crushed by the onslaught of national environmental politics.

Frank DuBois

Forest Services axes decision to use chain saws in wilderness, for now

The U.S. Forest Service rescinded its decision to allow chain saws in two Southwest Colorado wilderness areas, at least temporarily, because of heavy snowpack that will keep trail crews out of areas in need of trail maintenance.The Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Regional forester, Brian Ferebee, approved the use of chain saws in May to remove bark beetle-killed trees obstructing trails in the Weminuche and South San Juan wilderness areas. The Forest Service planned to use chain saws because beetle-killed trees are falling so quickly across the forest it can’t keep trails clear using crosscut saws, Forest Service staff previously told The Durango Herald. Conservation groups challenged the use of chain saws and filed a lawsuit to block their use. The groups argued using chain saws would violate federal law that prohibits the use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas except in emergency situations. Ferebee reversed the contentious decision to use chain saws in a letter sent to forest supervisors Monday based on reports that avalanches are blocking trails. The snow conditions make it unlikely the Forest Service would see any “substantial benefit” from chain saws because the work would have to be delayed until after July 8, Ferebee said. He rescinded his decision to allow chain saws until the agency’s “assessed needs are completed.” A request to the Forest Service for clarification about what completing “assessed needs” entails was not immediately returned Tuesday evening. Conservation groups, including Great Old Broads for Wilderness, San Juan Citizens Alliance and Wilderness Watch, applauded the Forest Service’s announcement in a news release. Conservation groups previously argued in a lawsuit that the Forest Service’s decision was made in secret and the agency should have sought public participation to come up with alternative plans to clear trails. The lawsuit will now be dismissed after the announcement, said Mark Pearson, executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance. In Tuesday’s letter, Ferebee directed his staff to explore working with groups interested in helping clear trails with non-motorized equipment. He asked staff to research whether the groups can provide “sources of skilled labor that would reduce the need to perform trail maintenance with chain saws.”...MORE

This is a good example of how a wilderness designation accomplishes the acts primary purpose: to limit public access. Go ahead and enjoy your hike on a wilderness trail with more than 40 downed trees crossing the trail per mile.

This is also a good example of how wilderness non-management can be detrimental to surrounding federal lands, state lands and private property.

You can view the FS decision memo here.

DuBois - ABOUT DEPLOYING BP OFFICERS

This was posted to a Facebook group in response to a discussion on deployment of BP officers...Frank

ABOUT DEPLOYING BP OFFICERS

One of the reasons more Border Patrol officers are not deployed closer to the border in many western states is the existence of so much federal land along our border with Mexico, including those that have been designated as wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, national parks and national monuments where the Border Patrol has restricted access. Where there is private property, the BP has statutory authority to enter, without warrant, any private property except domiciles. Here is the language from the statute:

(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;

They do not have that same authority on federal lands. For instance, the Wilderness Act of 1964 states, “there shall be no temporary road, 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.”

The Border Patrol, or any other federal, state or local law enforcement entity may only enter these areas on foot or horseback.

Thanks to Senators Udall & Heinrich, we just this year had 280,000 acres, in Dona Ana County on or near the border, designated as wilderness. This is a great gift to the cartels.

For an example of what occurs in wildlife refuges, here is an excerpt from a column by Steve Wilmeth that outlines a series of letters from the USFWS regional director Benjamin Tuttle in Albuquerque to the Border Patrol, or CBP as it is now called:

The first letter stamped April 30, 2009, by the Congressional Committee reviewing the letter, Dr. Tuggle put Chief Gilbert on notice that the CBP request for reason of need for entry into the refuge for issues other than “non-emergency operational access” would not be automatic.  USFWS needed to know what is meant by access other than human emergency.

    In the second letter stamped May 29, Dr. Tuggle initiated the step wise protocol for CBP access.  He informed CBP of the administrative roads that will be allowed for only the purposes of human emergency and demands a report within 24 hours if CBP even enters the refuge.  He then declared that CBP will be audited.  “Should the predominance of these instances of vehicular access to the Refuge not constitute true emergency incidents, the Service will suspend CBP access.”

    In the third letter stamped October 23, effectivelyTuggle warned that if CBP does not comply with his protocol he would disallow entry and access would henceforth take place only by special use permit.  He also warned that if an endangered species is affected by the human emergency entries “consultation is not required to address the emergency itself; Rather, consultation is conducted to address the agency response to the emergency.”

     No follow up letters were received. The long and the short of it Dr. Benjamin Tuggle set forth a protocol that allowed CBP in their refuge only on the basis of imminent human death and health matters.   If the protocol was not met, all CBP access could be withdrawn.  There was never any accommodation made for ongoing CBP motorized patrols. 

The end result of all this is even if it was BP policy to deploy more officers on or near the border, they are prevented from effectively doing so in many areas by federal law affecting federal lands.