© 2011 Joshua Stark
In my previous post, I asked where they were, and I've got my answer:
A couple days back, a number of conservation and environmentalist groups testified before a California Assembly Committee - among them, representatives from the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA), our hunting lobby. What were they talking about?
They were informing the California Legislature of the horrible, horrible proposals of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the devastation they will wreak on conservation.
If you want to read what they have to say, click here: "Congress Considers Massive Cuts to Wildlife Programs".
I often despair that large, corporate enterprises have eaten American conservatism. It allows for large, corporate enterprises, but it holds many other values equally, or more, important than the mere hoarding of capital. I'm heartened to see conservatives making clear that wildness, and its appreciation, are American virtues.
In other, related news about conservative conservation, Western Farm Press reports that, "California farms and ranches now make up more than 20 percent of all operations in the nation with solar, wind and methane digester use", according to the USDA.
Lest ye forget, amidst the shock-media decrying our horrific fiscal situation, California still leads the nation in many things. Including green energy. And agriculture.
Showing posts with label environmental community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental community. Show all posts
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A voice for High Country News
© 2010 Joshua Stark
If you live in the Western United States, then you must subscribe to High Country News. If you romanticize the West for its grand expanses and wildness, then you, too, should be a subscriber to HCN.
If you've never heard of High Country News, check out their website. They are a great paper, with thorough expose's on any number of issues impacting the Western U.S., & with some excellent commentary, to boot.
This morning, for example, I read an opinion piece by Ben Long, a Wyoming hunter decrying the widespread acceptance of poaching wolves in his community. After expressing his disgust with local gun rafflers alluding to poaching while marketing their raffles, he makes absolutely clear that poaching is a sick attitude that does nothing to promote hunting or the rule of law. Mr. Long makes an especially good point about the rule of law and its value in protecting our hunting heritage and wildlife. A couple years ago, I, too, wrote a bit about the "sss" to which he refers. I'll add to Mr. Long's piece and say that hunters, as the public face of gun owners and the power this infers, have an even greater responsibility to promote and follow the rule of law.
If you clicked to read the HCN opinion piece, and you are not a subscriber to HCN, you cannot read the entire article. Usually, I'm a bit miffed when that happens to me, but HCN isn't a gigantic paper with loads of pop-up ads to make up for our cheap asses. In fact, the first thing you should notice is that the website is a .org, because they are a nonprofit organization. They pay for their work through subscriptions (gasp!) and donations, and they do good work.
I'm not affiliated with HCN, (though I'd love it!), I just think they do good and valuable work. If you are interested in the West, then do yourself a favor and subscribe.
If you live in the Western United States, then you must subscribe to High Country News. If you romanticize the West for its grand expanses and wildness, then you, too, should be a subscriber to HCN.
If you've never heard of High Country News, check out their website. They are a great paper, with thorough expose's on any number of issues impacting the Western U.S., & with some excellent commentary, to boot.
This morning, for example, I read an opinion piece by Ben Long, a Wyoming hunter decrying the widespread acceptance of poaching wolves in his community. After expressing his disgust with local gun rafflers alluding to poaching while marketing their raffles, he makes absolutely clear that poaching is a sick attitude that does nothing to promote hunting or the rule of law. Mr. Long makes an especially good point about the rule of law and its value in protecting our hunting heritage and wildlife. A couple years ago, I, too, wrote a bit about the "sss" to which he refers. I'll add to Mr. Long's piece and say that hunters, as the public face of gun owners and the power this infers, have an even greater responsibility to promote and follow the rule of law.
If you clicked to read the HCN opinion piece, and you are not a subscriber to HCN, you cannot read the entire article. Usually, I'm a bit miffed when that happens to me, but HCN isn't a gigantic paper with loads of pop-up ads to make up for our cheap asses. In fact, the first thing you should notice is that the website is a .org, because they are a nonprofit organization. They pay for their work through subscriptions (gasp!) and donations, and they do good work.
I'm not affiliated with HCN, (though I'd love it!), I just think they do good and valuable work. If you are interested in the West, then do yourself a favor and subscribe.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The ethical conundrum that is the apprenticeship
© 2010 Joshua Stark
I am unemployed. Of course, that means much anxiety about the future and the present, although I don't have to worry nearly as much as many others, my family and friends being who they are (wonderful). But still, it's been hard.
The past few years I've attempted to switch professions, from teaching high school to something that involved the outdoors more, because it overwhelmed me one day that I need to be outside more, and I need to be involved in the outside.
But, few outdoors-oriented jobs are currently open to me, because my educational background is in social science, and many outdoors jobs require biology or "related fields". In fact, I'm confident in my environmental science knowledge, but without papers, I can rarely get even an interview.
And so, for about five seconds, I considered the option of apprenticeships, in order to get my foot in the door. I went to California FarmLink's (a great organization, by the way) section on apprenticeship options, and found one close by. However, when I read the position description, I felt like I'd been hit in the stomach: Five months, 40-65 hours of work per week, for $300 per month.
A familiar rant welled up inside me.
I'm not from the movement that spawned environmentalism, 'back-to-the-land'-ism, urban farming and the like. Namely, I'm not from the urban & suburban upper-middle and upper class white community. We were not poor by any means, but to quote a famous song, "I was born in a small town." The landscape was riddled with conservationists, but not one bona fide environmentalist that I can remember.
Every Summer, then, to help get through college, I worked in agriculture - every pear packing shed on the Delta and in Ukiah. I did every job in the shed except pack, eventually getting a great gig as a USDA/CDFA fruit grader, 50+ hours per week at its best, for a decent wage.
There was never any option about taking a Summer off and touring Europe. There was never an option for a free apprenticeship to get a foot in the door at some company or industry. I needed to help cover my college expenses as much as I could, and so part-time work during the Semester, and work with overtime during the Summer was the only way.
Today, many in the environmental movement are derided by others as "limousine liberals", folks out of touch with real America. I'm not so harsh a judge, because I share most of their goals. But I know that there is a kernel to that truth, and a large part of that image comes from the way in which the industry (because it is an industry, too) chooses its employees.
People taking this road must often sacrifice, not just time, but financially to a level below a living wage. This may feel like one is only choosing the true followers of these ideas, but in reality it is only choosing for those who can support themselves by other means, as well. Typically, this is a young, single person with family to provide for tuition, room and board, and health insurance. Other options are spouses with enough time for both to work, but one making enough money to cover the basics (health, mortgage, insurance), leaving the other free to pursue a more altruistic profession, or the single and wealthy individual, or the retiree looking to help out. All of these are fine people, and do great work.
But what this method excludes are myriad voices - passions and perspectives that would make the environmental movement the complete system it needs to be in order to effectively reach its goals. Poor folks who need employer-based insurance, single parents who want to dedicate their vocation to a calling, college kids who need a living wage during the Summer in order to cover exorbitant tuition rates, families who want to be a part of the solution, who want to advocate and who have talents and skills to contribute, but who cannot live on less than minimum wage. These people bring different perspectives about what the wild means to them, and these people can often more effectively talk to those people living in similar circumstances.
So I am frustrated with the apprenticeships and entry-level positions offered in the nonprofit, environmental world. I understand the difficulties often faced by fickle funding, but I'm much more frustrated at being "offered" positions that cannot provide my family an honest living, and I'm a tad offended that they would expect me to continue to impoverish my family for The Cause.
A great friend (and nonprofit veteran) once quoted me Confucius during a conversation about this. She said, "that which is expensive is not expensive, and that which is cheap is not cheap."
I am unemployed. Of course, that means much anxiety about the future and the present, although I don't have to worry nearly as much as many others, my family and friends being who they are (wonderful). But still, it's been hard.
The past few years I've attempted to switch professions, from teaching high school to something that involved the outdoors more, because it overwhelmed me one day that I need to be outside more, and I need to be involved in the outside.
But, few outdoors-oriented jobs are currently open to me, because my educational background is in social science, and many outdoors jobs require biology or "related fields". In fact, I'm confident in my environmental science knowledge, but without papers, I can rarely get even an interview.
And so, for about five seconds, I considered the option of apprenticeships, in order to get my foot in the door. I went to California FarmLink's (a great organization, by the way) section on apprenticeship options, and found one close by. However, when I read the position description, I felt like I'd been hit in the stomach: Five months, 40-65 hours of work per week, for $300 per month.
A familiar rant welled up inside me.
I'm not from the movement that spawned environmentalism, 'back-to-the-land'-ism, urban farming and the like. Namely, I'm not from the urban & suburban upper-middle and upper class white community. We were not poor by any means, but to quote a famous song, "I was born in a small town." The landscape was riddled with conservationists, but not one bona fide environmentalist that I can remember.
Every Summer, then, to help get through college, I worked in agriculture - every pear packing shed on the Delta and in Ukiah. I did every job in the shed except pack, eventually getting a great gig as a USDA/CDFA fruit grader, 50+ hours per week at its best, for a decent wage.
There was never any option about taking a Summer off and touring Europe. There was never an option for a free apprenticeship to get a foot in the door at some company or industry. I needed to help cover my college expenses as much as I could, and so part-time work during the Semester, and work with overtime during the Summer was the only way.
Today, many in the environmental movement are derided by others as "limousine liberals", folks out of touch with real America. I'm not so harsh a judge, because I share most of their goals. But I know that there is a kernel to that truth, and a large part of that image comes from the way in which the industry (because it is an industry, too) chooses its employees.
People taking this road must often sacrifice, not just time, but financially to a level below a living wage. This may feel like one is only choosing the true followers of these ideas, but in reality it is only choosing for those who can support themselves by other means, as well. Typically, this is a young, single person with family to provide for tuition, room and board, and health insurance. Other options are spouses with enough time for both to work, but one making enough money to cover the basics (health, mortgage, insurance), leaving the other free to pursue a more altruistic profession, or the single and wealthy individual, or the retiree looking to help out. All of these are fine people, and do great work.
But what this method excludes are myriad voices - passions and perspectives that would make the environmental movement the complete system it needs to be in order to effectively reach its goals. Poor folks who need employer-based insurance, single parents who want to dedicate their vocation to a calling, college kids who need a living wage during the Summer in order to cover exorbitant tuition rates, families who want to be a part of the solution, who want to advocate and who have talents and skills to contribute, but who cannot live on less than minimum wage. These people bring different perspectives about what the wild means to them, and these people can often more effectively talk to those people living in similar circumstances.
So I am frustrated with the apprenticeships and entry-level positions offered in the nonprofit, environmental world. I understand the difficulties often faced by fickle funding, but I'm much more frustrated at being "offered" positions that cannot provide my family an honest living, and I'm a tad offended that they would expect me to continue to impoverish my family for The Cause.
A great friend (and nonprofit veteran) once quoted me Confucius during a conversation about this. She said, "that which is expensive is not expensive, and that which is cheap is not cheap."
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Cap & Squander Strikes Back! (or, the economic mantra: incentives matter)
© 2010 Joshua Stark
The Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC), organized to provide an economic study of California's cap & trade carbon regulation, has come back with a recommendation: Rebates!
flx1247rg
Let me step back a year and explain both my title and the concepts and controversy. Last year, I attended a session, organized by a coalition of environmental groups, on cap & trade at the federal level. One member of a national enviro. group, who will remain nameless (hint: we have a subscription to their kids magazine) described the various ideas surrounding the revenues from a cap-&-trade regulation. He first started with the one he thought the least of: a cap & rebate, where the funds from the carbon price are returned directly to individuals in the form of checks. He derisively labeled it, "cap & squander", and pointed out the obvious (to him) problem of people blowing their money on big-screen televisions. Then he moved on to describe all the great things that would happen with the money if it were used by the federal government to protect wild lands and clean our air and water.
I was dumbfounded. I understand people wanting control over the gigantic sums of money that will be generated through a carbon regulation, but again, I had to sit in stunned silence while an "expert" was allowed to railroad basic economics. The words "paternalistic", "regressive taxation", and "really?!?", repeatedly flashed through my mind.
So to quickly debunk the gentleman's concern, let me ask you, dear reader, this (rhetorical) question: Where will all this money come from?
This money will come from our economy, and in our economy, most markets are oligopolies (markets with very few producers). Now, it is not true that all new costs to businesses are automatically shuffled off to consumers; where the final cost winds up depends on a number of factors. But, it is true that one of the biggest factors in determining where that cost will settle is the number of competitors in a market. The fewer the competitors, the more the costs can be given to consumers. In monopolies and oligopolies, then, the vast majority of that additional cost is paid by consumers.
So when a carbon price hits, the prices of televisions and electricity will depend on the ability of the producers to limit their carbon emissions. "Dirtier" TV's and electricity will be more expensive, cleaner ones will be cheaper. The consumer will get a check from the carbon price, but this consumer will be playing in vastly different marketplaces, and will have many new incentives in her purchase decisions.
Now, a nationally recognized group of economists who are far more intelligent than I am (or that feller I saw last year) have suggested the same thing. They don't recommend a rebate of everything, (nor do I), but they do recommend a big rebate (me, too).
With the remaining amount, I recommend funding the parts that can't play in our market system: Wild lands, wildlife, etc. But, that's for another post. Also, I must iterate that a carbon price must be expensive (or a cap tight - same difference), or else it will not be effective. The only way to alleviate the disproportionate burden on poor folks, then, is to issue a rebate of equal amount to everybody.
Go cap & squander, everybody!
The Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee (EAAC), organized to provide an economic study of California's cap & trade carbon regulation, has come back with a recommendation: Rebates!
flx1247rg
Let me step back a year and explain both my title and the concepts and controversy. Last year, I attended a session, organized by a coalition of environmental groups, on cap & trade at the federal level. One member of a national enviro. group, who will remain nameless (hint: we have a subscription to their kids magazine) described the various ideas surrounding the revenues from a cap-&-trade regulation. He first started with the one he thought the least of: a cap & rebate, where the funds from the carbon price are returned directly to individuals in the form of checks. He derisively labeled it, "cap & squander", and pointed out the obvious (to him) problem of people blowing their money on big-screen televisions. Then he moved on to describe all the great things that would happen with the money if it were used by the federal government to protect wild lands and clean our air and water.
I was dumbfounded. I understand people wanting control over the gigantic sums of money that will be generated through a carbon regulation, but again, I had to sit in stunned silence while an "expert" was allowed to railroad basic economics. The words "paternalistic", "regressive taxation", and "really?!?", repeatedly flashed through my mind.
So to quickly debunk the gentleman's concern, let me ask you, dear reader, this (rhetorical) question: Where will all this money come from?
This money will come from our economy, and in our economy, most markets are oligopolies (markets with very few producers). Now, it is not true that all new costs to businesses are automatically shuffled off to consumers; where the final cost winds up depends on a number of factors. But, it is true that one of the biggest factors in determining where that cost will settle is the number of competitors in a market. The fewer the competitors, the more the costs can be given to consumers. In monopolies and oligopolies, then, the vast majority of that additional cost is paid by consumers.
So when a carbon price hits, the prices of televisions and electricity will depend on the ability of the producers to limit their carbon emissions. "Dirtier" TV's and electricity will be more expensive, cleaner ones will be cheaper. The consumer will get a check from the carbon price, but this consumer will be playing in vastly different marketplaces, and will have many new incentives in her purchase decisions.
Now, a nationally recognized group of economists who are far more intelligent than I am (or that feller I saw last year) have suggested the same thing. They don't recommend a rebate of everything, (nor do I), but they do recommend a big rebate (me, too).
With the remaining amount, I recommend funding the parts that can't play in our market system: Wild lands, wildlife, etc. But, that's for another post. Also, I must iterate that a carbon price must be expensive (or a cap tight - same difference), or else it will not be effective. The only way to alleviate the disproportionate burden on poor folks, then, is to issue a rebate of equal amount to everybody.
Go cap & squander, everybody!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Hello! Hunting organizations, sign up!
© 2010 Joshua Stark
To elaborate on a passing reference I made two blogs earlier, the biggest threat to Southern California's wild lands is development, and more specifically, the development of solar thermal facilities and their subsequent energy corridors.
flx1247rg
In this light, Senator Feinstein has authored a bill, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, that would set aside more land for protection. You can read a good summary of the bill here at the Senator's website.
Now, the NRA-ILA is fighting hard to maintain hunting in Mojave National Preserve, but where are they in supporting this issue? The reason I ask is because, like the Ca. Desert Protection Act of 1994, it specifically supports hunting as an activity in much of the lands it is attempting to protect.
At the very least, let's see some hunting groups signing on, because I know full-well that the NRA isn't a hunting organization.
Here's a list of supporters:
This bill also straddles the constituent fence, as it were, by both adding wilderness land and including space for OHV use. Neither side in that battle will probably be happy in public, but the long-term effects of having the federal legislation specifically refer to both of them will help both groups.
Come on, hunters, this is something to support!
Special thanks to Defenders of Wildlife for bringing this to my attention.
To elaborate on a passing reference I made two blogs earlier, the biggest threat to Southern California's wild lands is development, and more specifically, the development of solar thermal facilities and their subsequent energy corridors.
flx1247rg
In this light, Senator Feinstein has authored a bill, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, that would set aside more land for protection. You can read a good summary of the bill here at the Senator's website.
Now, the NRA-ILA is fighting hard to maintain hunting in Mojave National Preserve, but where are they in supporting this issue? The reason I ask is because, like the Ca. Desert Protection Act of 1994, it specifically supports hunting as an activity in much of the lands it is attempting to protect.
At the very least, let's see some hunting groups signing on, because I know full-well that the NRA isn't a hunting organization.
Here's a list of supporters:
- The California Wilderness Coalition
- The Wildlands Conservancy
- The Wilderness Society
- The National Parks Conservation Association
- Friends of the River
- Campaign for America's Wilderness
- Cogentrix Energy
- Edison International (parent company of Southern California Edison)
- Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve
- Friends of the Desert Mountains
- Mojave Desert Land Trust
- Desert Protective Council
- Amargosa Conservancy
- Death Valley Conservancy
- Cities of Barstow, Desert Hot Springs, Hesperia, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino and Yucaipa
- Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley
- San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry
- Imperial County Supervisor Wally Leimgruber
- Coachella Valley Association of Governments
- SummerTree Institute
- Route 66 Preservation Foundation
This bill also straddles the constituent fence, as it were, by both adding wilderness land and including space for OHV use. Neither side in that battle will probably be happy in public, but the long-term effects of having the federal legislation specifically refer to both of them will help both groups.
Come on, hunters, this is something to support!
Special thanks to Defenders of Wildlife for bringing this to my attention.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
If only they'd called first...
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Last week, my good cousin Kevin shot me an email from the NRA-ILA on yet another attempt by those anti-hunting, lawyering, pinko enviros to take away my right to bear arms...
flx1247rg
or, to put it another way-
Last week, my good cousin Kevin sent me an email from the whack nut-job NRA about something or other that they hoped would rile their base enough to help them keep their vice-like neocon death-grip power-hold on Washington, D.C....
or, (and this is the reason, I swear, I'm not a popular site on the internet)-
Last week, my good cousin Kevin sent me an email alert from the NRA (no need to explain who they are) about a request by the Center for Biological Diversity and a few other environmental and conservation groups. This "Request for Rule Change", sent to the California Fish & Game Commission, concerns management within the Mojave National Preserve, specifically to limit hunting.
Reading the original NRA-ILA bulletin, one is forced to pick a side, which always bothers me about email alerts of any kind. I understand that, in advocacy, the job is to rile folks, but it also has the effect of creating too polarized a conversation.
So I looked up the CBD request. Sadly, neither the NRA nor the CBD thought the public intelligent enough to understand the issue without their interpretation, and it took some digging before I could find it. Some folks think we should read the primary source material for ourselves, and a hearty thanks goes out to the folks at CalGunLaws.com for the copy you can read here.
Second, after some conversations, I also read the Mojave National Preserve's General Management Plan, which is the guiding document for managing the Preserve. Last, I perused the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, searching for references to hunting.
Here's the issue: The Center for Biological Diversity is requesting that the California Fish & Game Commission change the rules for hunting within the Preserve. They want to: restrict hunting to Sept. 1st-Jan. 31st (except for bighorn); end rabbit, hare, and nongame animal hunting; and disallow the use of dogs and spotlights. The reason they are asking for these rule changes on these 1.5 million acres of wildlands is to protect the desert tortoise, a species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
As I read the CBD's request, I grew more and more frustrated. If ever there were a document that could be used to split the hunting community from the environmental community, exploiting an already frustrating and unnatural rift for political purposes, this would be the one. Yet, when I read it, I knew that it didn't come from a group of anti-hunting, New World Order totalitarians. It comes from a group of people who want to protect the desert tortoise, and who do not hunt, nor understand the traditions that arise from hunting, nor the regulatory manners involved in California hunting.
So, if the folks at CBD had called or emailed me (please do!) to ask my honest opinion about their request, here is what I would have said:
-----
Ideally, you should have local hunters among your ranks, and you need to talk to them to understand what they hunt, when, where, and why. Obviously, looking at the request, you do not have this, nor have you solicited input from independent, local hunters about their habits, places, and the like. Okay then, next step.
The next step would be starting from California hunting regulations. It is common practice for the state to manage its preserves by season, opening up hunting for multiple species on a particular refuge, but only during the season for one type. It is also common for the State to restrict access to certain parts of a refuge to protect particular species, while allowing hunting in other parts of the refuge.
Looking at the identified critical habitat for desert tortoises, I see that about 800,000 acres has been identified within the Preserve. That should be your start, because if you just take the Preserve's border, without connecting it in some way to tortoise habitat or hunting habits, then you alienate people due to this arbitrary boundary. Hunters are land-oriented; they think spatially, geographically. They also think in terms of habitat. So, telling them that a particular habitat and spot is off-limits may be unpopular, but it is understood, especially when it comes with real reasons. In fact, if you knew the hunting hot-spots for rabbits, hares, and nongame animals, then you could possibly have avoided this fight to begin with, or at least shown hunters that you really are trying to consider their activities and the real impacts on desert tortoises.
One thing you should avoid like the plague is allowing wealthier hunting opportunities, and even making exceptions for them, while banning hunting for poorer folks. Bighorn sheep is a very limited hunt, and the people who hunt them often spend many thousands of dollars to bag a trophy. Rabbit hunters, on the other hand, are typically poorer, and often times rabbit can provide a valuable, nutritious supplement. You definitely should not ask for an exception.
I understand that there is a problem with carcasses left from people shooting ground squirrels, coyotes, and hares, and those carcasses unnaturally feeding tortoise predators. Again, though, this problem is more easily solved by restricting hunting within tortoise habitat during the time of year they need. I don't hunt nongame animals, but I'm fairly certain that removing predation from a mid-level predator, making it the apex predator in a region, can have dramatic and unintended consequences. Now, if coyote hunting isn't so intensive as to impact them in this dramatic a manner, then is it really impacting tortoises?
I would definitely reconsider disallowing the use of dogs. Instead, I would have an educational campaign about the proper use of hunting dogs, and their environmental benefits. Dogs find downed game, and have a tremendous impact on decreasing the number of carcasses in a field. Unruly dogs in tortoise habitat can wreak havoc, so restrict hunting within tortoise habitat, not within the entire Preserve.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the largest threats to desert tortoises are climate change and development (including development that is an attempt to help cure climate change, ironically). I don't seriously believe that the impact from hunting is so large as to severely inhibit tortoise recovery, especially in the 700,000 acres not designated as tortoise habitat within the Preserve.
Ultimately, you have two good documents concerning both the management of tortoises and the management of the Preserve, (the Recovery Plan and General Management Plan, respectively) - use those! The first suggests restricting hunting that leaves carcasses, and restricting hunting to a season. The second suggests restricting hunting to a season, but not by type. CBD can do two great things with this: Talk to local hunters, to minimize the impact to hunting while maximizing long-term desert and tortoise protections when determining which locales and times to restrict; and encourage folks to eat jackrabbits (which are hares and very popular in Europe), to cut down on carcasses left in the field.
As for the rule change request, CBD should request that hunting within designated critical tortoise habitat be restricted by season, that season being the quail season (usually the end of January). This is both scientifically sound, and within the scope of everybody's capabilities. However, since I am not a local hunter, I am painting a broad picture that could be further refined by local experience, which would have the added bonus of local support (or at least understanding).
-----
Those would have been my points. Instead, CBD has taken the recommendation by the Fish & Wildlife Service in its Recovery Plan and tried to apply it to a set of boundaries with no bearing on tortoise habitat, while exempting wealthy desert bighorn hunters from the restrictions. In doing so, CBD has ignored the purpose of recommendations from the Recovery Plan, the Preserve's own General Management Plan, and California hunting tradition and hunters.
I'll admit that I am a fan of the Center for Biological Diversity, and for the Endangered Species Act and the National Park Service. The spirit that drives the folks at CBD emerged from hunters' hearts generations ago, as did parks and a desire to protect those species we see in the wild. As a hunter, I cannot deny my own impacts, or worse yet, only pretend to see my positive impacts while denying I also have negative ones. And, just as I try to walk more and more quietly and lightly upon the land when I hunt if I am to be successful, I must maturely understand my place and responsibility to wild things, too.
Hunting is different from all other outdoors activities in that it is an inclusive experience, it lets me be a part of the wild, to participate in the wild, rather than merely observe it or ride it like a roller-coaster. Hunters will do well to remember that this wild we seek and experience and love includes so much more than our prey and the burger joint on the way home. It includes and requires desert tortoises, and bighorns, all of it, and where we see that our impacts have a negative effect, where we see our impacts are wrong, we must responsibly change.
So one more time, please CBD, reconsider this rule change in light of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, the Mojave General Management Plan, the history and traditions of California hunting and hunting laws, and for hunters like me, who see that our communities should not be split at all, but who are split over politics, so that we may both be used as pawns in others' games.
Last week, my good cousin Kevin shot me an email from the NRA-ILA on yet another attempt by those anti-hunting, lawyering, pinko enviros to take away my right to bear arms...
flx1247rg
or, to put it another way-
Last week, my good cousin Kevin sent me an email from the whack nut-job NRA about something or other that they hoped would rile their base enough to help them keep their vice-like neocon death-grip power-hold on Washington, D.C....
or, (and this is the reason, I swear, I'm not a popular site on the internet)-
Last week, my good cousin Kevin sent me an email alert from the NRA (no need to explain who they are) about a request by the Center for Biological Diversity and a few other environmental and conservation groups. This "Request for Rule Change", sent to the California Fish & Game Commission, concerns management within the Mojave National Preserve, specifically to limit hunting.
Reading the original NRA-ILA bulletin, one is forced to pick a side, which always bothers me about email alerts of any kind. I understand that, in advocacy, the job is to rile folks, but it also has the effect of creating too polarized a conversation.
So I looked up the CBD request. Sadly, neither the NRA nor the CBD thought the public intelligent enough to understand the issue without their interpretation, and it took some digging before I could find it. Some folks think we should read the primary source material for ourselves, and a hearty thanks goes out to the folks at CalGunLaws.com for the copy you can read here.
Second, after some conversations, I also read the Mojave National Preserve's General Management Plan, which is the guiding document for managing the Preserve. Last, I perused the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, searching for references to hunting.
Here's the issue: The Center for Biological Diversity is requesting that the California Fish & Game Commission change the rules for hunting within the Preserve. They want to: restrict hunting to Sept. 1st-Jan. 31st (except for bighorn); end rabbit, hare, and nongame animal hunting; and disallow the use of dogs and spotlights. The reason they are asking for these rule changes on these 1.5 million acres of wildlands is to protect the desert tortoise, a species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
As I read the CBD's request, I grew more and more frustrated. If ever there were a document that could be used to split the hunting community from the environmental community, exploiting an already frustrating and unnatural rift for political purposes, this would be the one. Yet, when I read it, I knew that it didn't come from a group of anti-hunting, New World Order totalitarians. It comes from a group of people who want to protect the desert tortoise, and who do not hunt, nor understand the traditions that arise from hunting, nor the regulatory manners involved in California hunting.
So, if the folks at CBD had called or emailed me (please do!) to ask my honest opinion about their request, here is what I would have said:
-----
Ideally, you should have local hunters among your ranks, and you need to talk to them to understand what they hunt, when, where, and why. Obviously, looking at the request, you do not have this, nor have you solicited input from independent, local hunters about their habits, places, and the like. Okay then, next step.
The next step would be starting from California hunting regulations. It is common practice for the state to manage its preserves by season, opening up hunting for multiple species on a particular refuge, but only during the season for one type. It is also common for the State to restrict access to certain parts of a refuge to protect particular species, while allowing hunting in other parts of the refuge.
Looking at the identified critical habitat for desert tortoises, I see that about 800,000 acres has been identified within the Preserve. That should be your start, because if you just take the Preserve's border, without connecting it in some way to tortoise habitat or hunting habits, then you alienate people due to this arbitrary boundary. Hunters are land-oriented; they think spatially, geographically. They also think in terms of habitat. So, telling them that a particular habitat and spot is off-limits may be unpopular, but it is understood, especially when it comes with real reasons. In fact, if you knew the hunting hot-spots for rabbits, hares, and nongame animals, then you could possibly have avoided this fight to begin with, or at least shown hunters that you really are trying to consider their activities and the real impacts on desert tortoises.
One thing you should avoid like the plague is allowing wealthier hunting opportunities, and even making exceptions for them, while banning hunting for poorer folks. Bighorn sheep is a very limited hunt, and the people who hunt them often spend many thousands of dollars to bag a trophy. Rabbit hunters, on the other hand, are typically poorer, and often times rabbit can provide a valuable, nutritious supplement. You definitely should not ask for an exception.
I understand that there is a problem with carcasses left from people shooting ground squirrels, coyotes, and hares, and those carcasses unnaturally feeding tortoise predators. Again, though, this problem is more easily solved by restricting hunting within tortoise habitat during the time of year they need. I don't hunt nongame animals, but I'm fairly certain that removing predation from a mid-level predator, making it the apex predator in a region, can have dramatic and unintended consequences. Now, if coyote hunting isn't so intensive as to impact them in this dramatic a manner, then is it really impacting tortoises?
I would definitely reconsider disallowing the use of dogs. Instead, I would have an educational campaign about the proper use of hunting dogs, and their environmental benefits. Dogs find downed game, and have a tremendous impact on decreasing the number of carcasses in a field. Unruly dogs in tortoise habitat can wreak havoc, so restrict hunting within tortoise habitat, not within the entire Preserve.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the largest threats to desert tortoises are climate change and development (including development that is an attempt to help cure climate change, ironically). I don't seriously believe that the impact from hunting is so large as to severely inhibit tortoise recovery, especially in the 700,000 acres not designated as tortoise habitat within the Preserve.
Ultimately, you have two good documents concerning both the management of tortoises and the management of the Preserve, (the Recovery Plan and General Management Plan, respectively) - use those! The first suggests restricting hunting that leaves carcasses, and restricting hunting to a season. The second suggests restricting hunting to a season, but not by type. CBD can do two great things with this: Talk to local hunters, to minimize the impact to hunting while maximizing long-term desert and tortoise protections when determining which locales and times to restrict; and encourage folks to eat jackrabbits (which are hares and very popular in Europe), to cut down on carcasses left in the field.
As for the rule change request, CBD should request that hunting within designated critical tortoise habitat be restricted by season, that season being the quail season (usually the end of January). This is both scientifically sound, and within the scope of everybody's capabilities. However, since I am not a local hunter, I am painting a broad picture that could be further refined by local experience, which would have the added bonus of local support (or at least understanding).
-----
Those would have been my points. Instead, CBD has taken the recommendation by the Fish & Wildlife Service in its Recovery Plan and tried to apply it to a set of boundaries with no bearing on tortoise habitat, while exempting wealthy desert bighorn hunters from the restrictions. In doing so, CBD has ignored the purpose of recommendations from the Recovery Plan, the Preserve's own General Management Plan, and California hunting tradition and hunters.
I'll admit that I am a fan of the Center for Biological Diversity, and for the Endangered Species Act and the National Park Service. The spirit that drives the folks at CBD emerged from hunters' hearts generations ago, as did parks and a desire to protect those species we see in the wild. As a hunter, I cannot deny my own impacts, or worse yet, only pretend to see my positive impacts while denying I also have negative ones. And, just as I try to walk more and more quietly and lightly upon the land when I hunt if I am to be successful, I must maturely understand my place and responsibility to wild things, too.
Hunting is different from all other outdoors activities in that it is an inclusive experience, it lets me be a part of the wild, to participate in the wild, rather than merely observe it or ride it like a roller-coaster. Hunters will do well to remember that this wild we seek and experience and love includes so much more than our prey and the burger joint on the way home. It includes and requires desert tortoises, and bighorns, all of it, and where we see that our impacts have a negative effect, where we see our impacts are wrong, we must responsibly change.
So one more time, please CBD, reconsider this rule change in light of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, the Mojave General Management Plan, the history and traditions of California hunting and hunting laws, and for hunters like me, who see that our communities should not be split at all, but who are split over politics, so that we may both be used as pawns in others' games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)