|
|
|
|
Federal Endangered Species Act Issues |
- The ESA must be amended.
- It shouldn't be harder to remove a species from the ESA list than it was to get a species listed.
- Recovery of a listed species should not become a burden to society. Federal taking opportunities must be eliminated.
- Scientific facts, gained through field work and measurements, statistical comparisons, and a logical discussion of the results must be inserted into the ESA process.
- Popular journals, literature reviews, government reports, planning documents, government surveys, and simulated models are not scientific information. These types of printed literature "talk about" scientific information, but do not produce science facts.
- Professional science journals require that specific criteria be met when manuscripts are submitted for consideration as a printed article. For ESA listings, facts about species (if known) should be documented from this type of literature. It is the "best available science".
- Biological opinions, written about ESA listed species, are not documented scientific facts. They are agency opinions expressed from the personnel's experience and education.
- GRAY WOLVES: Wolves kill game animals upon which recreation hunting fees depend.
- Oregon will need to expend more money to remove animals that threaten public safety.
- Wolf management will create significant additional costs for Oregon state government. (Monitoring wolves and their prey, endless studies, and surveillance in other states is costing $400,000-$800,000 per year in Montana. We could experience a similar impact in Oregon.)
- Most significantly, Defenders of Wildlife are unlikely to continue their program of compensating operators for livestock lost due to wolf predation. Oregon and the federal government will bear this cost unless we are allowed local control of wolf populations.
- There has been a 35% downturn in Oregon's net farm income, eighth worst in all fifty states. Farm expenses are up 15%. Oregon agriculture endures a $158 million loss in farm gate income to predators each year.
- SALMON, BULL TROUT, REDBAND TROUT: A recent federal Office of Management and Budget report states that the federal government has spent $3.3 billion on salmon recovery. During the last few years the numbers of returning salmon have skyrocketed. OMB stated that the runs may be due to ocean conditions and that the population declines were not due to "habitat" conditions on land.
- Scientific facts, gained through field work and measurements, statistical comparisons, and a logical discussion of the results must be inserted into the ESA process.
- We can no longer afford to have a law that is implemented on the "whims" of an opinion. Facts about the ocean conditions and the role it plays in a salmon's life cycle has been known for many years. Bull trout life history studies have not received extensive work and until the "surveys" are replaced by data the listing should be declared invalid.
- How many salmon, bull trout, or redband trout does it take to make a "healthy" population of a species? How will we know when the species have been restored if we don't have some estimate of the population size?
- SAGE GROUSE: Seven petitions to protect sage-grouse under the ESA were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) between 1999 and March 2003 because sage-grouse population declines have been significant in recent decades. Oregon Cattlemen's Association is committed to protecting the natural resources but do not think it should be harder to remove a species from the ESA list than it was to get a species listed.
Concern about long-term declines in sage-grouse populations has prompted western state fish and wildlife agencies and federal agencies such as the BLM, the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to form a cooperative partnership aimed at conserving and managing sagebrush habitat for the benefit of sage-grouse and other sagebrush -dependent species. To avoid the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act, this range-wide effort relies on the involvement of multiple state, federal and tribal agencies, as well as special-interest groups and private landowners.
The vision of the national Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy of the federal agencies is to manage public land in a manner that will restore sage-grouse habitats while providing for multiple uses of public land.
Some of the kinds of management actions related to grazing use and land treatment the Bureau of Land Management will address are:
(1) new pasture fences, water developments, or pipeline extensions for the purpose of grazing previously unused native range (within nesting habitat)
(2) temporary non-renewable grazing use on native range (within nesting habitat)
(3) general grazing season utilizations that are heavy and do not leave patchy un-grazed or lightly grazed areas for nesting.
(4) prescribed fire; especially where adjoining rangelands are fragmented from wildfires or seedings (within nesting habitat or winter range)
(5) some kinds of restoration or fire rehab seeding of depleted rangelands where a reasonable amount of shrub and forb component is not included in the seed mix
(6) complete re-treatments (burning, spraying, brush beating/mowing) of crested wheatgrass seedings (within nesting habitat or winter range) Pro-active agreements or local conservation planning probably holds the best promise for avoiding potential problems and litigation which could be very time consuming, difficult, and costly for both the BLM and ranchers. Oregon Cattlemen hope the BLM and ranchers will have many open discussions about what is appropriate public land use where greater sage-grouse management is needed.
- The ESA must be amended.
- It shouldn't be harder to remove a species from the ESA list than it was to get a species listed.
- Recovery of a listed species should not become a burden to society. Federal taking opportunities must be eliminated.
- Scientific facts, gained through field work and measurements, statistical comparisons, and a logical discussion of the results must be inserted into the ESA process.
- Popular journals, literature reviews, government reports, planning documents, government surveys, and simulated models are not scientific information. These types of printed literature "talk about" scientific information, but do not produce science facts.
- Professional science journals require that specific criteria be met when manuscripts are submitted for consideration as a printed article. For ESA listings, facts about species (if known) should be documented from this type of literature. It is the "best available science".
- Biological opinions, written about ESA listed species, are not documented scientific facts. They are agency opinions expressed from the personnel's experience and education.
- GRAY WOLVES: Wolves kill game animals upon which recreation hunting fees depend.
- Oregon will need to expend more money to remove animals that threaten public safety.
- Wolf management will create significant additional costs for Oregon state government. (Monitoring wolves and their prey, endless studies, and surveillance in other states is costing $400,000-$800,000 per year in Montana. We could experience a similar impact in Oregon.)
- Most significantly, Defenders of Wildlife are unlikely to continue their program of compensating operators for livestock lost due to wolf predation. Oregon and the federal government will bear this cost unless we are allowed local control of wolf populations.
- There has been a 35% downturn in Oregon's net farm income, eighth worst in all fifty states. Farm expenses are up 15%. Oregon agriculture endures a $158 million loss in farm gate income to predators each year.
- SALMON, BULL TROUT, REDBAND TROUT: A recent federal Office of Management and Budget report states that the federal government has spent $3.3 billion on salmon recovery. During the last few years the numbers of returning salmon have skyrocketed. OMB stated that the runs may be due to ocean conditions and that the population declines were not due to "habitat" conditions on land.
- Scientific facts, gained through field work and measurements, statistical comparisons, and a logical discussion of the results must be inserted into the ESA process.
- We can no longer afford to have a law that is implemented on the "whims" of an opinion. Facts about the ocean conditions and the role it plays in a salmon's life cycle has been known for many years. Bull trout life history studies have not received extensive work and until the "surveys" are replaced by data the listing should be declared invalid.
- How many salmon, bull trout, or redband trout does it take to make a "healthy" population of a species? How will we know when the species have been restored if we don't have some estimate of the population size?
- SAGE GROUSE: Seven petitions to protect sage-grouse under the ESA were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) between 1999 and March 2003 because sage-grouse population declines have been significant in recent decades. Oregon Cattlemen's Association is committed to protecting the natural resources but do not think it should be harder to remove a species from the ESA list than it was to get a species listed.
Concern about long-term declines in sage-grouse populations has prompted western state fish and wildlife agencies and federal agencies such as the BLM, the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to form a cooperative partnership aimed at conserving and managing sagebrush habitat for the benefit of sage-grouse and other sagebrush -dependent species. To avoid the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act, this range-wide effort relies on the involvement of multiple state, federal and tribal agencies, as well as special-interest groups and private landowners.
The vision of the national Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy of the federal agencies is to manage public land in a manner that will restore sage-grouse habitats while providing for multiple uses of public land.
Some of the kinds of management actions related to grazing use and land treatment the Bureau of Land Management will address are:
(1) new pasture fences, water developments, or pipeline extensions for the purpose of grazing previously unused native range (within nesting habitat)
(2) temporary non-renewable grazing use on native range (within nesting habitat)
(3) general grazing season utilizations that are heavy and do not leave patchy un-grazed or lightly grazed areas for nesting.
(4) prescribed fire; especially where adjoining rangelands are fragmented from wildfires or seedings (within nesting habitat or winter range)
(5) some kinds of restoration or fire rehab seeding of depleted rangelands where a reasonable amount of shrub and forb component is not included in the seed mix
(6) complete re-treatments (burning, spraying, brush beating/mowing) of crested wheatgrass seedings (within nesting habitat or winter range) Pro-active agreements or local conservation planning probably holds the best promise for avoiding potential problems and litigation which could be very time consuming, difficult, and costly for both the BLM and ranchers. Oregon Cattlemen hope the BLM and ranchers will have many open discussions about what is appropriate public land use where greater sage-grouse management is needed. |
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
|
