Yeah I'm sure big brother would do a better job managing species than the people that actually live there. Conservation is reliant upon local work, not federal bureaucracy!
ECO-PING
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Posted on 11/03/2005 12:05:12 PM PST by GreenFreeper
Utah last month submitted a wildlife action plan to the Interior Department that charts a future course for species and habitat protection and restoration. Now, so has everybody else.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced Wednesday that wildlife agencies from all 50 states and six territories have finalized similar plans to establish a national framework for species protection. The goals: to enhance habitats, and in doing so, keep at-risk wildlife off the federally managed Endangered Species List.
"We all recognize that the federal government can't do this alone; it can't conserve and protect everything that needs to be protected," Norton said during a morning news conference. "If we're going to succeed, it must be by working hand-in-hand with partners. Today, we're creating a new conservation legacy."
The action plans were required by the Interior Department for states to continue receiving funds from the State Wildlife Grant Program, which has doled out $400 million for state conservation efforts since 2001. Just over $63 million will be distributed next year. Utah has received more than $5 million from the program and is scheduled to get an $849,000 allocation in 2006. All grant funds must be matched by state or local agencies.
Norton says that the grant program "is now our nation's primary conservation program for keeping species healthy and off the list of threatened and endangered species."
Dana Dolsen, planning manager for Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources, calls the federal money vital for a wide range of species and programs that fall short of endangered or threatened status, and aren't big-game species, which receive funding from their own dedicated sources.
"These are species that we know enough about to make wise decisions and keep them off the [endangered] list," Dolsen said, ticking off the least chub and Columbia toad as a pair of examples. "Then there's another tier of species we can work on if we have the money, and another group of about 50 species that we still don't know much about."
The question environmentalists pose is, now that the states have plans in place and access to these federal funds, will they prioritize and spend wisely?
"What we're afraid of is that this will end up being window dressing for vegetative treatments that might benefit the sage-grouse and might benefit deer and elk, but will surely benefit cattle," said Allison Jones, a biologist with the Western Wildlife Conservancy. "We're worried about the lesser-known species like the three-toed woodpecker and the pygmy rabbit. These are species that are currently falling through the cracks and need the most funds. So let's sit back and see where [DWR] really focuses its resources."
That may not take long. With plans and funding in place, state and local agencies can begin to move ahead quickly.
"These are action plans. They're not inventories or studies," said Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Yeah I'm sure big brother would do a better job managing species than the people that actually live there. Conservation is reliant upon local work, not federal bureaucracy!
ECO-PING
FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!
Environ-MENTAL-ists, and other assorted leftists will be the death of this Nation.
Thanks for ping. I continue to have mixed feelings on who really should have the final say on these type issues. If individuals and companies where so good at protecting wildlife, then why would we ever have gotten into the needs to protect our natural heritage. It is a two edged sword.
With them in charge, we would still have Tyrannasaurus Rex's
hobbling around 5th Avenue : )
I agree completely- not sure where the line should be drawn. There will always be a sentiment similar to the right of exploitation. Uunless we can develop a consensus value system, people will disagree on prioritization.
And perhaps that goal can be reached with enough honest brokers at each side of the spectrum, and between.
I agree with you.
I differ with the other conservatives on this subject.
I don't want to see any small farmers, etc put out of business, but if some damn developer has to move another subdvision with a bunch of McMansions a few miles away to save an endangered species - tough. These people make enough money to afford it.
Glad some of us at least look at the whole picture. I was raised in Philadelphia, PA. And I could tell true horror stories as how chemical industries primarily litereally destroyed whole habitats of vegetation and wildlife. Imagine a 70 foot wide on average creek that in the 20's was clean clear water, supporting all forms of fish, water fowl etc., ending up being literally filled in and taken over by a company with the blessings of the local government, after for thirty years plus dumping huge amounts of chemical by products into the creek(stream) that lead into the Delaware river. I watched this creek that when I was real young still had banks you could recognize as natural, turn pink/purple/orange with huge deposits of chemical buildup, no longer could any wildlife exist in that creek nor the surronding chemical drenched lands adjacent to it.
Now the creek for some five miles or so is no more. Just filled in. In some areas of it covered with thousands of 55 gal. drums, containing what, I do not know.
So obviously the company and city where not to concerned with wiping out a natural wild habitat in this case.
Of course that story could be multiplied twenty fold or more just for that area of Philly. Areas are now off limits, condemed forever, because of the quantities of known very toxic wastes in the soil.
But I am no environmental whacko and see both sides of the picture somewhat. We need honest brokers across the board for everyones sake. Easier said then done. And only clear thinking educated goverment can take the lead to inforce things when get rich quick artists try to take advantage of local laws etc..
Well said.
"Well said." Sad it had to be so well said. But that's progress. Flip side of the coin, is we would not have all the modern plastics and end products, pharmeceticals, and about everything we can imagine, if it where not for those pioneering petrochemical plants etc.. So it is a two edge sword.
Agree again. The key here is planning for smart growth and minimizing our impacts. We are not going to revert to caveman days so the best we can do is work with nature and reduce our negative impact.
Well said. Hopefully this goal is actually obtainable.
True. But the difference between then and now is they didn't realize the damage they were causing was so serious. We do.
We also have the technology to effectively produce materials without major environemntal damage and should employ it.
We can have our cake and eat it too.
The difference between you and me and the liberals is they want us to cut back on our ilfestyles instead of steadily improving them throough technology. If we have an energy crisis the solution is to use what we have more effectively and employ alternative sources, not go live in a cave and wear linsey-woolsey.
Well said.
Went to a state wildlife commission meeting here not long ago and our agency director was talking about this.
They (commissioners) were hearing the biologists explain their plan for using some of the matching federal funds to help buy land to keep the non-game species from disappearing.
As many of you know shrinking habitat is the biggest reason non-game species are disappearing. What many don't know is the wildlife agencies use monies generated by hunters/anglers to manage non-game as well as game species. I know a lot of the endangered, threatened non-game species live on federal and state lands bought by and managed with sportsmen's money.
Also, in many states, big paper companies own a lot of land with both game and non-game species. They have, in the recent past, tried hard to manage these lands in a way that benefits wildlife.
The problem is the urban, non-consumptive tree-hugging so-called environmentalists scream every time a hunter is allowed to use public lands, or a company, state forestry dept., cuts a tree. Many game and non-game species actually benefit from logging, but these urban environmentalists don't get it.
At this particular meeting we had one of these tree-hugging freaks get up and make a total fool of herself because in her almighty judgement a state wildlife agency just isn't capable of managing land containing non-game wildlife (they've been doing it for decades and actually helped rebound many species).
She basically took up way too much time that could have been used for something constructive, like a plan for the state agency to acquire more lands (with matching funds) for all wildlife to habitate.
These freaks need to quit worrying that a deer/grouse hunter might benefit from use of these funds, and be thankful these true conservationists (hunters) are doing more than talking about saving wildlife. They are, and have been DOING it for decades.
Great Points. Any true environmentalist realizes the immense value of hunting in an age where many predators have been extirpated. It was the hunters who initiated many of the more successful conservation programs.
From my considerable experience on the matter, I have found that liberals use external control, or regulation, to forcibly change land use to transfer wealth, achieve their vision of fairness and the collective public good. Conservatives use incentives, education, market forces and individual moral responsibility to attract the individual to choose a change in land use that will have a public benefit.
All the urban and many of the suburban areas have paved over or otherwise destroyed habitat. The remaining wildlife/fisheries habitat is either privately owned in rural areas or on federal or state managed lands. What the ESA does is punish the rural farmer, rancher or timberland owner who still has habitat and species on his property by prohibiting them from using their property and by requiring them to pay for all take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures.
The urban fellow whose habitat is long gone, along with the species, gets off Scott free and gets to demand with great immunity and unbrage that the rural fellow pay for his damage to the public trust.
"What we're afraid of is that this will end up being window dressing for vegetative treatments that might benefit the sage-grouse and might benefit deer and elk, but will surely benefit cattle," said Allison Jones, a biologist with the Western Wildlife Conservancy.
There is the whole concern, it would also benefit cattle. Why is that bad as long as it benefits the other wild life too? They hate food producers, expecially if they raise cattle or sheep or grow wheat. They don't want things done to benefit the wildlife itf it will also benefit cows.
I'm just gonna say "Amen."
That's all.
Dang hillbilly is what I am. But what you just said I understand.
We need to put more of them weekend environmentalists in a canoe, run 'em through a swiftwater environment they hope to save, and dunk 'em a few times (Let them dunk themselves, of course).
I actually know a federal employee who did that once, but I ain't saying no more.
I will repeat, hunters and and anglers were the first environmentalists, conservationists, whatever.
Still they contribute more, and them angry (need a cause) folks who don't understand need to get a life.
Dunk 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.