[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- Subject: Re: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
- From: Murphwild1@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:00:56 EST
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: Murphwild1@aol.com
Enviro-Mich message from Murphwild1@aol.com
I would also add that on state lands there are no substantial threatened and
endangered species studies done to reflect "sound" analysis in EIS's,
environmental assessments or biological evaluations-even when done.
Biologists on state land are often not allowed to do endangered species
survey work because their incomes and wages are largely paid through funds
from the Deer Range Improvement Program. This program embraces a policy of
clearcutting forests for deer food, so-called "habitat improvement projects".
The artificially inflated deer herd numbers result in cycles of starvation
and severe overgrazing of forests. For instance, In Menominee County (and on
thousands of acres across the state) deer herds have been so high that
hardwoods do not grow back due to heavy deer grazing. White cedar, hemlock,
and Canadian yew are components of old growth forests that simply do not grow
back where deer overgraze, or where cuts have occurred under "wildlife
improvement projects." MUCC, DNR and the FS presume to think that all of
Michigan's residents are content with tree farms of aspen, grouse and
When MUCC, foresters and public officials from the DNR and FS talk about
science, it is the science of agricultural tree-farming-which happens to
favor grouse, whitetails, and other edge species.
Tree species such as hemlock, white cedar, eastern white pine and yellow
birch are tragically missing because industrial "forest science" has been
unable to successfully regenerate those species. These species take at least
100-150 years to begin maturing into forests that provide habitat for many
forest species dependent on old growth. This is too long for our Industrial
On federal lands, "boiler-plate" environmental assesments and biological
evaluations are used in place of site specific assesments. FS and DNR also
regularly ignore peer reviewed data on T& E species which has been conducted
outside the agency.
Dave Zaber wrote:
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 -----
From: Kenneth Vermeulen
To: firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release
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 statement.
>From the press release by MUCC, Ruffed Grouse Society, etal.
> The action is in response to a suit filed in early October against the
> and USFWS by the Sierra Club. If successful, the suit could halt wildlife
> habitat management practices on state lands in Michigan.
This 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.
> The suit further contends the
> Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Fish and Wildlife Service
> violated federal law by using monies collected from sportsmen through
> taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund these habitat management
First, I 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 ethic!
> MUCC Executive Director James Goodheart explains, "The Sierra Club's
> is a deliberate attempt to stall the pace of wildlife management.
> within our forestlands have been successfully managed for decades first by
> the Department of Conservation and then by the DNR. We do not need to
> federalize management of our natural resources."
Here 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 of?
> "We are concerned that this lawsuit may impede the development of
> important wildlife habitats on state lands in Michigan," stated Adam Bump,
> Regional Wildlife Biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society in Michigan.
> proactively managing our state forests, we can ensure the proper balance
> between young and old forests, and provide habitats for all forest
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 law.
> The WCFA echoed these sentiments.
> "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
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 money?
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
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"