Hit with the ugly stick

If you are going to attack endangered species it is wise to choose one of the less charismatic ones. Rep. Joe Baca of San Bernardino County has chosen well with the Delhi sands flower loving fly.

Here is the summary of House Resolution 1042 which is currently in committee. What do you think?

Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to treat a limited listed species as extinct for purposes of this Act upon the expiration of the 15-year period beginning on the date it is determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be an endangered species, unless the Secretary publishes a finding that: (1) there has been a substantial increase in the population of the species during that period; or (2) the continued listing of the species does not impose any economic hardship on communities located in the range of the species. 

Defines "limited listed species" as any species that is listed as an endangered species for which it is not reasonably possible to determine whether the species has been extirpated from the range of the species that existed on the date the species was listed because not all individuals of the species were identified at the time of such listing.

For the back story on this fly see this article in the San Bernadino County Press enterprise Newspaper with the fabulous title: Colton: City moving on two fronts to battle fly.

At stake is the city's long-sought plan to establish a Superblock development of restaurants and stores along the west side of Pepper Avenue across from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center. Those plans have been stalled by restrictions imposed since the fly, which depends on the area's sandy soil, was placed on the federal endangered list in 1993.  

The fly is linked to the dunes created by centuries of Santa Ana winds scooping sand from the mountains and depositing it in the valleys below.
Development has paved over much of the dunes, leaving only 1,200 acres scattered across Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

"This community can't afford to sit and watch that pile of sand" remain undeveloped, Councilman Vincent Yzaguirre said.

For lots more fly information you can read the 5-year status review of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Fear itself

Clothed in innocence, the treaty is in fact designed to radically transform Western Civilization into a society where wolves and other entities of nature have more rights than humans.
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay.
Sovereignty International Corporation

I've tried to look into this several times but it's just not easy for me to understand exactly why the US did not ratify the Convention on Biodiversity. In search of answers I've been doing some reading on websites written by those who opposed the Convention. This has proven more enlightening but the level of paranoia is scary.

The open letter to congress I mentioned in class (from 293 signers, representing four million American voters) only specifically mentions two issues - alien species and the transfer of technology. However the testimony given to congress focused on a third issue - private property rights and the threat of a massive property grab by the federal government if not the United Nations themselves. Here is testimony given by Senator Hutchison (Texas) from the Congressional Record S13790, Friday, September 30, 1994.

I am especially concerned about the effect of the treaty on private property rights in my State and throughout America. Private property is constitutionally protected, yet one of the draft protocols to this treaty proposes "an increase in the area and connectivity of habitat." It envisions buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas where human use will be severely limited. Are we going to agree to a treaty that will require the U.S. Government to condemn property for wildlife highways? Are we planning to pay for this property? One group, the Maine Conservation Rights Institute, has prepared maps of what this would mean. I do not know if they are accurate yet, but that is my point. Neither do the proponents of this treaty.

This is the map, presented on the Senate floor, that quite possibly convinced them to vote against the ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty. Note the heading - As mandated by the convention on biological diversity.

The areas you see in red represents "wilderness reserves" which will be off limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas.

In the minds of some the UN Convention on Biodiversity has become associated with the Wildlands Project (now known as the Wildlands Network). This organization focuses on scientific and strategic support for creation of “networks of people protecting networks of connected wildlands.”  They identified existing protected areas and proposed wildlife corridors that would connect them as pathways for wide-ranging species in need of room to roam. Their ideas are not exactly radical and their maps are very general but it is these rather general maps that were apparently the inspiration for the scary map above.

Worst of all, the basis for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems was to be centered on what is known as the Wildlands Project. This draconian plan calls for setting aside vast areas (about 50 percent) of America into reserve wilderness areas, interconnecting corridors, and human buffer zones where human use would be eliminated or severely restricted. According to the June 25, 1993 issue of Science magazine, such a system of reserves and corridors would create "an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas."
Biodiversity treaty more than senate willing to pay.
Sovereignty International Corporation

The Rewilding Project is brought to us from the United Nations. A relevant tentacle of Agenda 21, the Rewilding Project is designed to restore a major portion of the planet to its 'original' state before man came along and messed it all up; however, it could not be happening if it were not being implemented by state and local legislation.

Suffice to say that when they want your property you WILL sell and at a price they set. Otherwise, they'll remove you forcefully. Private land is being taken all over America by local, state and federal governments under 'eminent domain'. ... In the case of Wildlands and their Corridors, it will be dedicated exclusively to plants, insects, bees, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and animals. Carnivores figure heavily in their plan.
From The Rewilding Project

This video tells the complete story (check out how the map changes at 3:34 to 'simulated map'). Wetland mitigation, critical habitat and conservation easements are all part of the same conspiracy....

Ballotpedia again

 

Having recently discovered Ballotpedia I have been meaning to find some time to browse the fate of measures and amendments affecting conservation in the recent election in states other than California. Not exactly comprehensive but here are a couple from neighboring states that caught my eye.

Oregon Lottery Funds for Natural Resources Amendment, Measure 76 called for continuing lottery funding for parks, beaches, wildlife habitats, wastershed protection that are set to expire in 2014. The measure passed by a 2:1 margin. It is interesting that this passed so easily when California's proposition 21 (car license fees to fund State Parks) failed - although they do differ in several important ways.

The Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer, also known as Proposition 301, would have transferred $123.5 million from a land-conservation fund to the general fund. The measure was introduced in order to help balance the state budget. In a state that voted for a GOP sweep of statewide offices the proposition failed  by a margin of 3:1. It would be nice to read this as a vote for conservation but the Arizona Republic suggests it shows public distrust of politicians - by refusing to allow the Legislature to raid funding for early-childhood education and health and land-conservation programs - which is, I suppose, a vote for Conservation.

Happiness in Bhutan

Last week I briefly mentioned Bhutan, a small country on the Eastern end of the Himalayas, as a country that has a lot of forest left. Bhutan is largely a budhist country and it is one of the few countries in the world to have embraced happiness. Bhutan is the happiest country in Asia and the eighth-happiest in the world based on a global survey. The government must consider every policy for its impact not only on Gross Domestic Product, but also on GNH: "Gross National Happiness".

I mention Bhutan and happiness because it illustrates why this topic is important to conservation - Bhutan's gross national happiness measure has led to decrees that 60 percent of the country remain covered in forest.

However other measures, whether you agree with them or not, involve a lot more government intervention than most Americans would he happy with. The examples are from this BBC article in 2006 but there are lots of articles on Bhutan and its quest for happiness - just google Bhutan and happiness.

• Bhutan was the last nation in the world to introduce television in 1999. Recently they banned a number of channels including international wrestling and MTV, which they felt did little to promote happiness.
• Bhutan has banned plastic bags and tobacco on the grounds that they make the country less happy.
• Bhutan had one traffic light but they got rid of it because people found it frustrating. There's a person directing traffic there now.

Easement Incentives

With a title like 'Easement Incentive Cosponsors in the 111th Congress' I think I'm going to have to tag this 'boring but important'. There's lots of information at the Land Trust Alliance:

The enhanced tax deduction for conservation easement donations has helped America’s land trusts work with farmers, ranchers and other modest-income landowners to increase the pace of land conservation by at least 250,000 acres a year! But unless Congress acts, this important conservation tool will expire at the end of 2009!

Fortunately, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in the House have co-sponsored legislation to make the easement incentive permanent!
An amazing 261 Representatives from all 50 states -- including majorities of both parties -- have signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 1831! Senate legislation, S. 812, now has 38 co-sponsors.

Into the future

Just because we aren't invited to the party doesn't mean that we can ignore what goes on there.

The Convention on Biodiversity has a pretty nice and, I think, fairly easy to navigate website with a whole lot of information.

You can find out just what goes on at those parties....

You can check out progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity target.

You can see plans for the 10th Convention of the parties to be held in Japan in 2010.

2010 will also be the International Year of Biodiversity and there are some details about that.

And much, much more.

(Oh, and they still have the wonderful theme song from Bonn archived. All together now.....).

Endangered species

The Fish and Wildlife service keep a nicely organized webpage on endangered species that makes it easy to pull out virtually any statistic you might want. Although they don't have a listing by administration they do have a listing by year and 2009 has seen the addition of one animal, the Reticulated flatwoods salamander (due to taxonomy change - one species was divided into two and so a new listing is required), and two plants the Slick Spot Peppergrass and Phyllostegia hispida - a member of the mint family with no common name.

Good news today as one more species was removed from the endangered species list - the Brown Pelican was removed - and for genuine recovery reasons too!

And a correction. Just because I just heard about it doesn't mean this news was quite as minty fresh as I thought. The announcement by the Obama administration that it will take steps to confront the candidate species backlog actually dates back to September this year.

The law says Interior must issue a "finding" -- a decision on whether a species deserves a listing -- 12 months from its receipt of a listing petition. But petitions are going unanswered for an average of 11 years, the center says, and often are not addressed until forced by a judicial order.

The Obama administration says it is going to change how candidate species are handled. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior agency responsible for the management of endangered species, is working on an accelerated listing process, said Doug Krofta, the service's listing chief. With new techniques and more funding, Krofta said, the service can trim the candidate list by 25 percent by the end of 2010.

Good news everybody

An important follow up Michael's post on George W. Bush's Last Environmental Stand. I came across this article on the Politico website and it turns out that President-elect Obama may have a much easier job than anticipated in overturning the numerous Bush administration regulations that have recently been implemented. Many of these regulations significantly weakened environmental protections - for example by allowing federal agencies to determine on their own whether their policies will threaten endangered species, rather than requiring them to go through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approval.

It could take Obama years to undo ... rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate. In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

“If these rules are overturned, the benefits for the environment are potentially significant,” said Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy at OMB Watch, a liberal regulatory watchdog group.

Supreme Court Says Navy Trumps Whales

Thanks to Jessica for pointing this one out.

In the first decision of the new term the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy's use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises off the coast of southern California.

The use of MFA sonar under realistic conditions during training exercises is clearly of the utmost importance to the Navy and the Nation. The Court does not question the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests, but it concludes that the balance of equities and consideration of the overall public interest tip strongly in favor of the Navy. The determination of where the public interest lies in this case does not strike the Court as a close question.

The case was seen as a test of whether the U.S. government could sidestep some environmental restrictions on national security grounds......

I'm a part of it

The TREE paper I mentioned is online here: The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation.

The website for the ninth Conference of the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity, going on now in Bonn, Germany, is here. It's interesting to see what they are up to.

If you are not used to the sheer awfulness of European pop music you should steel yourself before clicking on this link for their theme song.

Procedure and policy

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a month or so ago about how, without actually changing the law, the administration can influence how it is used.

With little-noticed procedural and policy moves over several years, Bush administration officials have made it substantially more difficult to designate domestic animals and plants for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the administration cannot avoid the public initiation of the listing process it is fairly amazing that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne had not declared a single native species as threatened or endangered when this article was written. He has since broken his unblemished record with the Polar Bear.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said, in a ruling in late January:

"If the [Fish and wildlife] Service were allowed to continue at its current rate, it is hard to imagine anytime in the near or distant future when these species will be entitled to listing. Such delay hardly qualifies as 'expeditious progress' and conflicts with the purpose of the ESA to provide 'prompt action' [if there is] substantial scientific evidence that the species is endangered or threatened."

Take a read of the article, it's interesting stuff. If you have a strong stomach and want to read the views of red-blooded and blue-blooded America on the endangered species act and the Bush administration then take a look at some of the comments.