[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: Re: Re: E-M:/ WLFA News Release

Enviro-Mich message from Murphwild1@aol.com


My apologies.  I meant to say "Which IS a special interest." 

"The latter being manufactured through depletion of resources and 
wildlife--which is NOT a special interest."

Regardless of similarities between Sierra Club and MUCC as large powerful 
money generating membership organizations, (not ideological similarities), 
the EARTH's PROTECTION is NOT a special interest.  The only reason one could 
call conservation a special interest is perhaps due to mere tax status and 

murray dailey

To:      Murphwild1, dzaber@chorus.net, VERMEUKW@wnj.com, 
enviro-mich@great-lakes.net, timf@mac.com


 I think it would be prudent to call for an end to the Deer Range Improvement 
Program, or any similarly funded programs.  Protecting and restoring T & E 
species is not a special interest such as MUCC and Grouse Society special 
interest in a sporting activity.   The latter being manufactured through 
depletion of resources and wildlife--which is NOT a special interest.  

Funds from the DRIP should be reinvested in T & S surveys and evaluations 
with an emphasis on including data from legitimate academics and others 
outside the agency to translate into actual on the ground understanding and 
cessation of logging on public lands. 

Murray Dailey


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 
white-tailed deer.    

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 
tree farmers. 

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. 

Murray Dailey

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.  


Dave Zaber

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Kenneth Vermeulen 

  To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net ; timf@mac.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 <timf@mac.com> 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.

  Tim Flynn

  >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 int

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"