Denver area folks invited to RMEF presentation

[Big Fin]

Any of you in the Denver area are invited to a presentation from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation this Friday. See the invitation below.




This is our third presentation in March. We used Grand Junction as our test run. Last week we were in Albuquerque. We filmed the ABQ presentation and we will be filming in Denver. The idea being we will put together a summary video that talks about the changes that have been ongoing in the last twenty years as it relates to land management and wildlife conservation.

RMEF's mission-based efforts are strongly rooted in the hunter-conservation ideas that have been so successful in the century-long wildlife recovery. RMEF and other hunter-conservation based groups are working on how to address the policy changes of the last two decades that have been far more focused on an Modern Environmentalism approach and less on a Conservation approach.

The goal is to inform our members and others in the Conservation community how the process works, how Conservation is different than Environmentalism, how many parts of excessive litigation serves as fuel for the anti-public land movement, and what people can expect from RMEF as a coalition of hunter-based Conservation groups start to become more active on these large issues that swing the pendulum further from the Conservation model that has recovered wildlife and conserved millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

 

[Lv2hnt]

Looking forward to viewing the end product --- good job on part of everyone involved!

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Very Good! Put Billboards up everywhere and let the folks know! John

 

[cedahm]

I am going to try and make this. My in-laws are in town, so will have to figure out a way to escape. They already ate the last of my blue grouse sausage, so I probably bought some points

 

[elkduds]

I would love to be there, but work intrudes. Can't wait to see the video.

 

[cedahm]

and FYI - this event is not showing on the RMEF website calendar for Colorado. I tried to find it and send to some friends, but had to copy and paste the picture above...

 

[Magnum Sherpa]

I'm going to the RMEF banquet there on Saturday night. I will try to make this presentation. Randy, are you hanging around for the banquet the following day?

 

[RobG]

I don't support lawsuits that just gum up the system, but what "Real Conservation progress" has been stopped?

 

[Big Fin]

I don't support lawsuits that just gum up the system, but what "Real Conservation progress" has been stopped?

I would opine that piles of lawsuits that stop the removal of 40,000+ wild horses and burros that are destroying native habitat for sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn, rabbits, birds, etc. qualify as gumming up the system and preventing real conservation progress.

I would opine that continuous lawsuits against improving wild sheep watering sources on the the Kofa NWR would qualify as gumming up the system and preventing real conservation progress.

I would opine that right here in our back yard, 25 years of the smartest grizzly bear bioligist in the world coming up with a document titled Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (heavy emphasis on the term Conservation), being litigated for the last nine years is gumming up the system and preventing real conservation progress.

I would opine that in lawsuits delaying prescribed burns and selective thinning in many western forests where managers deem such treatments as the "closest to natural alternatives" in situations where nearby populations demand fire suppression and refuse controlled burns is gumming up the system and preventing real conservation progress.

I would opine the that decades of work and research that went into the Conservation Strategies for wolves in MN, WI, MI, and WY, all of which were approved by the experts at the USFWS, being litigated for the past dozen years is gumming up the system and preventing real conservation progress.

Lots more out there, if needed.

 

[RobG]

Randy, fair point on the wild horses (although they are conserving the horses/burros at the expense of another animal, but that is always the trade-off), but what "conservation" for grizzly bears or wolves is being prevented by these lawsuits? Are you calling "conservation" management plans or something?

 

[FAIR CHASE]

Opine it is.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, fair point on the wild horses (although they are conserving the horses/burros at the expense of another animal, but that is always the trade-off), but what "conservation" for grizzly bears or wolves is being prevented by these lawsuits? Are you calling "conservation" management plans or something?

Yeah. "Conservation Strategies" are what they are called. These conservation strategies are not being allowed to be implemented. They are not called protection strategies. They are not called "keep them forever under Federal protection strategies." They are not called "Environmental strategies." Management plans are one of the many mechanisms of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Are they really "conserving," as you say, wild horses and burros when they are letting them grow to numbers far beyond what range managers have stated the landscape can tolerate? Are they "conserving" horses and burros by litigating the BLM and forcing them to bring feed and water them during drought, while the other native species are allowed to die, and when the drought ends the horses now have even further competitive advantage over native wildlife? Are they "conserving" horses and burros when they allow long-term degradation of the range that will take decades to recover?

Single species focus has not been the manner in which conservation has historically been implemented in this country. Environmentalism is often a single species approach and often at the expense of other wildlife equally in need of conservation. There is no better example of the difference in Conservation versus Environmentalism than the wild horse and burro debate.

Conservation Strategies are designed, at least the ones I've been involved with, to represent all species and landscapes impacted by the CS. Not just the wolf or the grizzly bear or the horse/burro or the ..... Conservation has historically been an idea that looks at all species dependent upon the landscape, not just a single species, with the healthy landscape being the basic foundation for any conservation. Most would say that Environmentalism is often single-species-centric.

Delaying the implementation of a Conservation Strategy because some do not want to see an animal taken off the ESA is delaying conservation. The ESA was not intended to be a "forever and ever" protection. People should be shouting to the roof tops that grizzly bears have recovered to where they are. But, given the political and social tools the academics point to as the primary mechanisms for implementation of the Modern Environmentalist ideologies, I suspect no celebration of grizzly recovery will be held by those groups who want to use the social/political/judicial mechanisms of environmentalism and try to convince the rest of the world they are advocates for conservation.

 

[RobG]

I know very little about the wild horse issue, but I've heard it is a lot about lost cattle grazing opportunity and, more germane, it is not on the list in the announcement.

I disagree with your species specific comment. In fact, the vast majority of the lawsuits I've seen are really about protecting the habitat, not the actual species, which is really just an indicator. For better or worse, it is a "hook" being used to protect larger systems. You are going to have an extremely hard time convincing me that taking any animal off the endangered species list that you listed above will improve habitat. Indeed, keeping them on the list or threatening to put them on the list has prevented development.


I'm not necessarily against what you are advocating, but the words "Real Conservation" don't seem to belong unless you lump "jobs" or "grazing" or "logging" or similar things into the term "conservation." I'm really having a hard time agreeing with you when that term is thrown in, although I would be very interested in hearing you speak about this and I probably wouldn't even heckle you that much

 

[Big Fin]

Hmmm. Not even sure where to start with those comments. I guess we will disagree about what is conservation and what is environmentalism. I know you to be a very smart guy, so you will have an equally hard time convincing me that you honestly believe the lawsuits over management plans of cash cows like bears, wolves, lions, lynx etc. have anything to do with concerns of habitat.

Lastly, if you've heard that the feral horse/burro topic is about grazing, I would politely suggest you seek additional sources from which to hear. Or better yet, go hunt some of those areas and see the impacts first hand.

 

[RobG]

Well, we definitely disagree with the meaning of conservation. I know many of the people doing those lawsuits and their heart is in the right place - they are certainly not in it for the money. So I guess I'll disagree there too.

Germane to the topic, I found this is in the SHARE bill and seems reasonable to me, which is not to imply there aren't other issue with the bill.

[FONT=&quot]TITLE XVI—Open Book on Equal Access to Justice[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]SEC. 1601. Short title. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This title may be cited as the “Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 1602. Modification of equal access to justice provisions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Agency proceedings.—Section 504 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking “, United States Code”;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (i); and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(e) (1) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, after consultation with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, shall report to the Congress, not later than March 31 of each year through the 6th calendar year beginning after the initial report under this subsection is submitted, on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this section. The report shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in the controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. The report shall be made available to the public online. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(2) (A) The report required by paragraph (1) shall account for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under this section that are made pursuant to a settlement agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(B) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under subparagraph (A) does not affect any other information that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(f) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create and maintain, during the period beginning on the date the initial report under subsection (e) is submitted and ending one year after the date on which the final report under that subsection is submitted, online a searchable database containing the following information with respect to each award of fees and other expenses under this section: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(1) The case name and number of the adversary adjudication, if available.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(2) The name of the agency involved in the adversary adjudication.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(3) A description of the claims in the adversary adjudication.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(4) The name of each party to whom the award was made, as such party is identified in the order or other agency document making the award.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(5) The amount of the award.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(6) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency concerned was not substantially justified.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(g) The online searchable database described in subsection (f) may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(h) The head of each agency shall provide to the Chairman of the Administrative Conference in a timely manner all information requested by the Chairman to comply with the requirements of subsections (e), (f), and (g).”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) Court cases.—Section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(5) (A) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States shall submit to the Congress, not later than March 31 of each year through the 6th calendar year beginning after the initial report under this paragraph is submitted, a report on the amount of fees and other expenses awarded during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to this subsection. The report shall describe the number, nature, and amount of the awards, the claims involved in each controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. The report shall be made available to the public online. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(B) (i) The report required by subparagraph (A) shall account for all payments of fees and other expenses awarded under this subsection that are made pursuant to a settlement agreement, regardless of whether the settlement agreement is sealed or otherwise subject to nondisclosure provisions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(ii) The disclosure of fees and other expenses required under clause (i) does not affect any other information that is subject to nondisclosure provisions in the settlement agreement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(C) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall include and clearly identify in the annual report under subparagraph (A), for each case in which an award of fees and other expenses is included in the report— [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(i) any amounts paid from section 1304 of title 31 for a judgment in the case;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(ii) the amount of the award of fees and other expenses; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(iii) the statute under which the plaintiff filed suit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(6) The Chairman of the Administrative Conference shall create and maintain, during the period beginning on the date the initial report under paragraph (5) is submitted and ending one year after the date on which the final report under that paragraph is submitted, online a searchable database containing the following information with respect to each award of fees and other expenses under this subsection: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(A) The case name and number.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(B) The name of the agency involved in the case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(C) The name of each party to whom the award was made, as such party is identified in the order or other court document making the award.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(D) A description of the claims in the case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(E) The amount of the award.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(F) The basis for the finding that the position of the agency concerned was not substantially justified.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(7) The online searchable database described in paragraph (6) may not reveal any information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or court order.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“(8) The head of each agency (including the Attorney General of the United States) shall provide to the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States in a timely manner all information requested by the Chairman to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (5), (6), and (7).”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](c) Clerical amendments.—Section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, is amended— [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) in subsection (d)(3), by striking “United States Code,”; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) in subsection (e)— [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](A) by striking “of section 2412 of title 28, United States Code,” and inserting “of this section”; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](B) by striking “of such title” and inserting “of this title”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](d) Effective date.— [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]N GENERAL.—The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall first apply with respect to awards of fees and other expenses that are made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I[/FONT][FONT=&quot]NITIAL REPORTS.—The first reports required by section 504(e) of title 5, United States Code, and section 2412(d)(5) of title 28, United States Code, shall be submitted not later than March 31 of the calendar year following the first calendar year in which a fiscal year begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]NLINE DATABASES.—The online databases required by section 504(f) of title 5, United States Code, and section 2412(d)(6) of title 28, United States Code, shall be established as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, but in no case later than the date on which the first reports under section 504(e) of title 5, United States Code, and section 2412(d)(5) of title 28, United States Code, are required to be submitted under paragraph (2) of this subsection.

[FONT=&quot]It's getting late so enjoy Colorado. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[1_pointer]

I know very little about the wild horse issue, but I've heard it is a lot about lost cattle grazing opportunity and, more germane, it is not on the list in the announcement.

I know of more than one instance in NV that a judge ruled that the cattle grazing cannot be reduced as the wild horse herds were over objective. Therefore, it could not be determined that the cattle were the cause for the range conditions not meeting standards. AFAIK the funding for horse gathers comes from DC and is not a part of the normal budget. If DC doesn't appopriate the funds, which they haven't been for some time for some places, the horse numbers cannot be removed. That is not "conservation" with any focus on the habitat.

It is quite apparent from you comments you are more a fan of hands off management than I and IMO Big Fin.

 

[Khunter]

Will the presentation delve into the topic of so-called conservation groups that profiteer off the notable species and speak of doing good conservation work but actually do a best nothing and at most great harm?

SFW and BGF as a couple examples...

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I agree mostly with the original topic but I do have a problem with the definition of "environmentalism." Straight from Google: "Environmentalism or Environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements." Thus, I would consider myself an environmentalist. Somehow certain groups and people have turned the definition of environmentalist to "some commie, liberal who loves big government and wants to take jobs from hard working Americans to save some stupid owl or hummingbird." (or something like that).

The rival to conservation would be preservation.

Also, all groups choose their species. A lot of animal right groups want overabundant wolves and a lot of hunting groups want overabundant deer. Both scenarios are harmful, but these are the folks talking with the biggest mouths and are in the ear of politicians.

Lastly, I have some background knowledge with the wild horse thing, and I agree there needs to be some changes. However, lets not hold our noses too high in the air. I would say the wild boar situation (in which some instances hunters have released them into new territories) and game farming (largely supported by hunting dollars") are causing a lot more landscape level damage than wild horses.

 

[Khunter]

The problem with your attachment to definition of environmentalism you found online is that many environmental activist actions plainly fight for nothing short of 100% preservation. Thus true conservation principles are tossed out. They want to shred any reasonable opportunity for true 'multiple use' of lands and resources. Sure one can be an environmentalist and conservationist, but...

while a dictionary might meld environmentalism and conservation--in actual practice (and far too many policy proposals and decisions supported by environmentalists to ignore) they are at odds.

My 2 cents.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I would say the groups you are describing are animal rights groups, not environmental groups. I would not consider HSUS, for example, an environmental group