[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- Subject: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- From: "David Zaber" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:29:06 -0600
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: "David Zaber" <email@example.com>
MUCC's knee-jerk and ill-conceived reaction to the Sierra
Club suit over wildlife management on public lands in Michigan reflects the
organization's view that maintaining ecosystems in early successional stages to
maximize herbivore abundance for game purposes is sound management.
If MUCC were truly interested in sound management and
accurate environmental assessment, then they would be leading the charge for a
full Environmental Impact Statement on use of the PR funds. That way, the
merits of their arguments, and the arguments of groups such as the Ruffed Grouse
Society will be evaluated for all to see. That's all that Sierra Club is
asking for in the lawsuit, after all.
For far too long, federal tax dollars have gone to support
management practices with a growing record of adverse impacts. Finally, we
have the opportunity to verify the assertions of MUCC and other groups regarding
the suitability and success of land management practices in Michigan.
Unfortunately, rather then support sound analysis opponents have turned to
patently false statements and exageration. Opponents of this suit should
reexamine their opposition in light of the need for sound environmental analysis
of a program with such large impacts and such great possibilities.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:58
Subject: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News
Tim, without taking sides as to the merits of either sides
case, I think you better be careful criticizing the "honesty" of the MUCC, et
al, if you are going to suggest in the same breath that an
Environmental Impact Statement would take "a couple of weeks."
>>> Tim Flynn <firstname.lastname@example.org> 02/27/01 07:07PM
Thanks for posting this
press release. As a party to this suit, I'd like to clear up a few
things, the comments below are my personal response to this clearly misleading
>From the press
release by MUCC, Ruffed Grouse Society, etal.
> The action is in
response to a suit filed in early October against the MDNR
> and USFWS
by the Sierra Club. If successful, the suit could halt wildlife
habitat management practices on state lands in Michigan.
statement is completely disingenuous, or in the alternative maybe these
"outstanding" conservation orgs haven't read our brief and they’re just
ignorant of the case.
We have worked for more than 5 years to
get the State and the Feds to comply with Federal law, we did so for the
specific reason that we did not want to stop the funding of wildlife projects,
even though we object strongly to some of them.
We have been
asking for more than 5 years, that they review, as required by federal law,
the environmental consequences of their program. This includes a public
disclosure of what they intend to do with OUR money, a look at alternative
ways of protecting and restoring wildlife habitat, a consultation on the
effects of the program on endangered species, and a disclosure the cumulative
environmental effects of their actions.
suit further contends the
> Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
the Fish and Wildlife Service have
> violated federal law by using
monies collected from sportsmen through excise
> taxes on firearms and
ammunition to fund these habitat management projects.
personally help pay the tax on firearms, and ammunition, as I am a deer
hunter. Many Sierra Club members also hunt or fish, so many of our
members also pay into this fund. We do have a stake in this funding,
along with our rights to see that Michigan's habitat is in fact protected and
restored. This is in fact the purpose of the P-R Act in question.
Second, we contend they are violating Federal law, not by using
the monies for habitat management projects, but instead the violation comes
from not specifying what they intend to do with the money, and by not
assessing the environmental effects of they actions. This press release
by these "conservationists" is clearly intended to mislead the press and
public about this suit, honesty does not seem to be part of their conservation
> MUCC Executive Director James
Goodheart explains, "The Sierra Club's lawsuit
> is a deliberate attempt
to stall the pace of wildlife management. Wildlife
> within our
forestlands have been successfully managed for decades first by
Department of Conservation and then by the DNR. We do not need
> federalize management of our natural resources."
James, seems to be reading our minds, nice trick. What we are doing,
deliberately, is to get the State and the FWS to evaluate the effects of their
management on the habitat they claim to be improving. James claims that
their management has been successful, well then just show that to the public
in an environmental assessment. For over five years we've been asking
the State and the Fed's to do just that, had they done so there would be not a
lawsuit, and no delay in funding.
Any funding delays must clearly be
laid at the feet of the Governor, his DNR Director Mr. Cool, and the lack of a
true conservation ethic in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Federal Aid
Division. All they had to do was follow the clear mandates of NEPA and
the ESA. If the program is so above board, what are they afraid
> "We are concerned that this lawsuit may
impede the development of critically
> important wildlife habitats on
state lands in Michigan," stated Adam Bump,
> Regional Wildlife
Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society in Michigan. "By
proactively managing our state forests, we can ensure the proper
> between young and old forests, and provide habitats for all
If the agencies had proactively follow
Federal law, there would be no problem. Had these "conservation"
organizations pressured the agencies, over the last five plus years, to follow
the law as they implemented of this program they wouldn't have to worry today.
We are asking them, simply, to evaluate the “proper balance”, to
assess what are the most scientifically justified, critically important,
wildlife habitat projects. Are 40,000 acres of industrial clearcuts, or
the planting of non-native plants the most critically needed habitat projects.
I personally doubt it, but all we’ve asked is that they prove it in an
assessment of the environmental consequences, as require by Federal
> The WCFA echoed these
> "The idea that wildlife management would suffer
by denying the use of
> sportsmen's dollars is unconscionable," said
Rick Story, WCFA vice
Here we agree.
That is why we waited more than five years, that is why we seek to have
this money spent wisely, not just willy nilly. It is also unconscionable
to have these funds spent on less than critically important habitat
NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) is designed to
make sure federal moneys are spent wisely with regards to the environment.
This program is supposed to help the environment by having Federal
Agencies look before they leap. Why not spend a couple of weeks,
upfront, assessing whether the proposed actions will be the best use of our
Maybe some of these "conservationists" can explain this
fear of looking at the consequences to us! Or are they really just
interested in protecting they own interests without regard to the actual
effects of this program on Michigan's