A blog about News.
|
A ride to the doctor can mean life or death Reaction to the proposed raises at the county Pay raises for Kern electeds? Uh, no Girl's death leaves painful lessons KHSD loses steady hand in rough waters Like voting? Thank a poll worker This election is long past its freshness date Voice mails on Boom Boom starting to come in now. For something completely different... "Boom Boom" Mettler's actions not good example August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Cattle, condors both need better management
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many cowboy hats in one place without a major piece of meat on the grill. But there they were, more than 120 cowboys and cowgirls (even a few cowgrammas and grampas too) crowded into a tiny hall above Frazier Park on the last day of September waiting to have their say. It had been a long time coming. This was the first — and only — public meeting held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service inviting open discussion of its plans for managing the Bitter Creek Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is 14,000 acres of hilly grasslands above Maricopa that was home to a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years before the government bought it in 1986 as California condor habitat. It’s closed to public use but had allowed limited cattle grazing, for a fee, to keep down fire hazards and encourage native grasses. About three years ago, however, Fish and Wildlife managers kicked the cows off entirely while they crafted a new management plan. The options were outlined in a draft environmental assessment released last spring. The “preferred alternative” in that document would allow some seasonal grazing. In case grazing doesn’t work, and ranchers told me restrictions included in the plan would make it infeasible, the preferred alternative also calls for burning on up to 9,000 acres of the refuge. Great idea in this air basin, huh? In my last column on this issue, I railed about how this plan came to fruition without a public hearing and not even any notification to Kern County. Well, turns out this lone wolf act is par for the course with the Ventura-based Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which oversees Bitter Creek and the entire Condor Recovery Program. And it’s not just me saying that. A lengthy and thorough audit of the condor program commissioned by Audubon California and released this August describes an archaic and autocratic management style by Hopper Mountain that is plagued by poor communication and operates under a Byzantine structure that makes information sharing difficult, if not impossible. To be fair, the condor audit and its lead author, Virginia Tech biology professor Jeff Walters, told me Fish and Wildlife has been operating in such a crisis mode to try to save the condors it hasn’t had time to step back and assess whether the recovery program’s structure is optimal. True enough, they started in the mid-1980s with 22 birds left on earth. Twenty-two! Through a lot of hard work and incredible determination, there are now about 300 condors either in captivity or swirling around California, Arizona and Mexico. (The audit is clear, though, that unless lead poisoning from hunter’s ammo is brought under control, there won’t be much more forward movement for the condors.) Fish and Wildlife’s efforts so far truly deserve praise. And the audit gives that praise. But it also doesn’t stint on the problems. “Program inequity and lack of shared and effective leadership make new partners feel uninformed and undervalued. They often feel out-of-sight and out-of-mind when it comes to programmatic decision-making and coordination. Similarly, stakeholders outside the program must navigate a confusing programmatic structure to voice concerns and remain informed about recovery.” The Bitter Creek area ranchers can surely relate to this, having to get a congressman and the newspaper involved before Fish and Wildlife would deign to hold a public meeting about how our own public land should be managed. In the case of the condors, Fish and Wildlife’s arcane management style, particularly in regards to Bitter Creek, has led to high turnover among field personnel, worsening communication between the zoos that breed the birds in captivity and the field workers who release them into the wild and monitor their nesting. “The panel found this situation shocking...” the audit says. The overall lack of leadership has also created a dearth of independent scientific evaluation from outside the condor program, according to the audit. Another familiar ring. The environmental assessment on managing Bitter Creek similarly lacked a lot of scientific backup, prompting Congressmen Kevin McCarthy, who attended the public meeting, to call for a full environmental impact report if Fish and Wildlife insists on keeping burning as an option. The audit doesn’t conclude that the situation is hopeless and neither do I. It does, however, make numerous recommendations to open the recovery program to outside expertise and create a streamlined structure that allows more input, information sharing and consensus. Coincidentally, that’s all the ranchers at that Sept. 30 meeting wanted as well. Before opening the meeting to public comments, Marc Weitzel, the Hopper Mountain project leader, said he was astounded by the turnout. Considering Fish and Wildlife did everything to keep turnout low — even picking a tiny public hall in a remote location despite an offer, in writing, to use Maricopa Unified School District’s 300-person capacity hall right there in town — Weitzel’s comment wasn’t surprising. This agency isn’t exactly a shining example of collaboration, though perhaps things are changing. “Hindsight is 2020, and we do realize now that we should have held a workshop at the beginning of the scoping process to reach out better,” Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Barr told me. “We regret we did not do that.” At least we agree on that. These are Lois Henry’s opinons, 12 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
ActaNonVerba
on Oct 7, 2008 at 07:43 PM
The Condors definitely need something. They were 26-37-2 last year!
posted by
stateshermind
on Oct 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Lois, You are self deluded if you think you are being fair. What you've done in your latest article is just as biased, unreasoned and ignorant as the last. I really think you are in over your head on this subject. What credentials do you have to judge a scientific report? You didn't stay long enough at that meeting to hear any comments in support of the EA and option D. The point that is being missed is that Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge is not a ranch now. The previous owner (Hudson) put it up for sale, a developer wanted to split it up into 5 acre parcels but luckily the sale didn't go through and yes those same people at that meeting were happy to see it go to the Fish & Wildlife Service then. It was available to anyone with the funds to buy it. The main point of Bitter Creek becoming a refuge (23 years ago) is that it falls under federal laws. This means that USFWS is charged with managing refuges according to the Refuge System mission and the refuge purpose. The mission and the purpose are not to provide cheap grazing to two individuals. "The mission of the System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." Every activity on a refuge must be compatible with this objective. The tools available to restore and maintain the grasslands on Bitter Creek Refuge are grazing, herbicides, mowing, and prescription burning. These are tools period. These "tools" must be compatible and they must be beneficial to Refuge restoration. It is nonsensical to think that the managers are going to burn indiscriminately, without following the law. That was a tool used to inflame the public, as you are a tool. Exact quotes from draft Environmental Assessment for Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge written by USFWS: 4.3.1.1 Impacts on Air Quality Prescribed burns have the potential to pose a considerable negative effect on the air quality of San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, therefore all policies, regulations, and standards will be followed. The prescribed burns would be conducted in a manner that does not exacerbate local area air conditions. Each prescribed burn has a developed prescription which includes air quality standards. 4.3.2.2 Impacts on Grasslands The burns would be closely coordinated with the Kern County Fire Department and would be subject to strict adherence to the standards and guidelines for seasonal prescribed burning prescribed by the county and USFWS. Additionally, conducting small-scale prescribed burns would greatly decrease potential future negative effects resulting from wildfires by reducing the thick fuel layer. Incidentally, there are more than a dozen pages in this scientific document discussing prescribed burning. How could you miss this Lois? http://www.fws.gov/hoppermo... Of course, the fact that the previous grazer grazed the land indiscriminately has escaped you. He had a permit that was renewed annually; he had no guarantees beyond a 30 day notice ever. This man abused the land and this privilege, he is a bully. He would threaten and harass every refuge manager over the years who had to deal with him, especially women. I’ve met him; I’ve heard him yelling at the staff. The last female manager felt physically threatened by him. Beyond this bad behavior he was uncooperative, blatantly ignored herd limits and fences. This man (I don’t want to call him a rancher, because I don’t think many ranchers who know him consider him one of them) overgrazed the refuge, causing such damage that after 3 years it is not completely healed. Why don’t you contact the Cattlemen’s Association and ask them what their recommendation was on the EA, I think you’ll be surprised. I have included a link if any of your readers are interested in the document you have misquoted. http://ca.audubon.org/pdf/A... In the case of the condors, Fish and Wildlife’s arcane management style, particularly in regards to Bitter Creek, has led to high turnover among field personnel, worsening communication between the zoos that breed the birds in captivity and the field workers who release them into the wild and monitor their nesting. “The panel found this situation shocking...” the audit says. Misquote – the panel, evaluating the Condor Program, found the lack of funding and personnel shocking. The release program run by Hopper Mountain NWRC is dependent on volunteers, interns and temporary employees, that lack of funding is shocking. The fact is that the Service and the Refuge system are woefully underfunded. Many refuges are not staffed at all. Bitter Creek NWR has a staff of one, the manager. I was a temporary employee for FWS for more than 5 years and I saw the incredible professionalism and dedication from everyone involved in this program. More often than not these same people shunned by the Congressman and disrespected by the ranchers worked well beyond the 8 hour day (unpaid) to make this program a success. Many times putting themselves in dangerous situations to try and save ailing condors. You should be ashamed for slamming them. It would be nice if Congressman McCarthy were interested in the refuge system, it could certainly use his help, instead of sitting at that meeting not acknowledging anyone other than the ranchers and laughing and applauding at the most inflammatory things said. The overall lack of leadership has also created a dearth of independent scientific evaluation from outside the condor program, according to the audit. These are your words, not found in the document. Most of the scientific evaluation of the Condor Program has been done outside the program, most certainly outside the Service which has no funds for research and welcomes such scientific evaluation from qualified scientists. Why don’t you take a moment to do some research? It is very disheartening to hear journalists and public officials just echo the same misrepresentations of the 2 ranchers involved without taking an open minded look at the facts. Here’s some more research for you, it really is easy to Google this stuff you know. http://www.publiclandsranch... posted by
threerafterranch
on Oct 9, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Lois, How about a point of view from the rancher. I read this article and believe that there is a serious lack of progression with regards to the this grazing opportunity. Part of something is better than all of nothing. Right now we are facing a third drought year, feed is short from the past two years and water is scarce and the ability to have any feed would and should be a bonus. I know in my neighborhood we have neighbors, with renters, that not only say when, where and how many cattle they can graze but in some instances, how often they are rotate from field to field. In addition there would be a line a mile long for people wanting the opportunity, regardless of the perameters, to graze. Also I would be interested in knowing why grazing was suspended? I know that some MAJOR violations had to occur for the grazing to be suspended. I would imagine it had to do with thoughts like "we have been running cattle here for ( fill in the blank) years" or " You don't understand the cattle business, I am umtinth generation rancher in this area." The Fish and Wildlife has an opportunity to graze. This is where it starts and is only limited by the abilities of the rancher to work with the U.S. F.& W. Once a foundation is set, Fish and Wildlife can expand the grazing opportunities, ask for input and listen to the ranchers perspective to help solve the problem. I know this first hand because I hold a Cooperative Land Management Agreement (CLMA) with the Fish and Wildlife Service. I can tell you that we started out by only running 200 cows seasonally and now we are up to 500 cows year round. We work closely with Fish and Wildlife and understand their needs. Our relationship has grown such that when I lost a private lease, and mentioned it in passing to one of the Refuge staff, within hours I had a call from another staff member that needed to know how many cows I needed feed for. Another instance I had a ranch flood overnight, and cows standing in two feet of water and the refuge found a place to put 250 cows for 2 weeks until the water went down. The refuge has great opportunities for those willing to be progessive and listen carefully and perform for the refuge. I know other CLMA operators that would tell you the same story that I have told today. For those closed minded ranchers that run 60's model cows and want to tell us how they used to graze cattle, do not apply. This closed minded way of thinking is jeopardizing, at the very least, grazing on public lands. As much as you may dislike it they are the owners/landlords/controllers of the grazing. And when treated with respect and understanding of their job, your rewards will be great. Sincerely Bob Erickson posted by
noholdsbarred
on Oct 9, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Stateshermind: I'm sorry you've missed the point of my two articles on this issue. FWS tried to get this new management plan through under the radar, WITHOUT involving the public despite the fact that burning has a serious detrimental effect on the air and a potential for escaping control. Only through extreme pressure from McCarthy, the county and this newspaper did FWS extend public comments and hold one public meeting. You can read what you want to in that EA, as you obviously have. But FWS has told me they will be rewriting it to be more clear as to their intentions. My belief is that it was purposefully vague in order to allow managers to operate however they wished without any real accountability. Ater reading about the management issues listed in the Audubon report, it seems to me the problems are deeper at Hopper Mountain than just poor relationships with area ranchers.
posted by
TruthandIntegrityandFairness
on Oct 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Lois, YOU'VE missed the point. This is a WILDLIFE REFUGE, not a RANCH. posted by
CheshireCat
on Oct 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I am quite familiar with the management philosophy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service having worked as an technician as well as executive in the Department of the Interior for 26 years. USF&WL has a very strong ethic that says their primary objective is the betterment of FISH & WILDLIFE. Their technical and scientific staff are almost single purposed in that regard. If a collateral and incidental activity such as cattle grazing is determined to not get in the way of their mandate to FISH & WILDLIFE, they will allow it. If it is their determination that burning the grasses is what should be done to provide the correct WILDLIFE habitat, you can bet your bottom dollar they will do that. Whether they went through the proper public involvement procedures regarding the burning issue needs to be separated from the issue of grazing and cattle. They are two different and separate issues. posted by
on Oct 10, 2008 at 01:03 PM
#yiv2109201164 .EmailQuote {margin-left:1pt;padding-left:4pt;border-left:#80 0000 2px solid;} Lois, You can't admit you were used. You weren't open minded, your weren't fair and you let those people write your article for you. Since when is keeping a 30 day comment period open for FIVE months "under the radar." It was published in 2 local papers 5 months ago, submitted to the local library and hand carried in some cases to the neighbors 5 months ago. And you know what, when I was still with the service a few years back I happen to know that McCarthy and Watson were on the mailing list for the EA. I don't believe they didn't get it. I think they totally disregarded it as unimportant until those two ranchers brought it up to them. Definition of Comment Period= public involvement It was extended to a 3 month period as soon as the ranchers asked and that was before any supervisors meeting, any McCarthy involvement, any Watson involvement or your first article so don't pat yourself on the back so fast. People might ask, why did they need FIVE months to comment. The answer is to drum up some hysteria about burning up the refuge by the cow hating govenment. Maybe, just maybe they can force the refuge management to put the Overgrazer back on the refuge and forget about this silly nonsense about restoration and preservation of species. Using your scientific expertise, you read the EA and those dozen pages about the positive and negative issues on prescribed burning and THEN you decided that the FWS was being irresponsible for including it as a possible tool? I don't think so, I think you wrote what you were told. The California Condor Recovery Program is much to complex to pull some stuff out of a report and try to twist it so it fits your argument. I heard the comments that night I know who fed you that one too. I'm not naïve though, I know there are many people who will take your word for it as you did with your source and think this is some sort of "evidence." Direct Quote from the AOU Condor Report: Audubon California believed that issues that were impeding progress toward recovery needed outside evaluation in order for USFWS, which administers the program, and other policy-makers to make the best decisions about the direction of the program. Such an evaluation would also help funding organizations better invest in the program. USFWS concurred and encouraged the review.
Shame on you Lois Henry, what have you got against Wildlife Refuges and why do you think one special interest group should have exclusive use of a refuge. posted by
Lmelvoin
on Oct 10, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Isn't a wildlife refuge for wildlife? If cows are allowed back on then the wildlife will be impacted which destroys the whole point of repurposing the land as a refuge. There is a ton of land out there for cows. If ranchers want to lease why don't they just go to another landowner? It's not like this is the ONLY parcel of land in the area?
posted by
MMW
on Oct 10, 2008 at 04:59 PM
WILDLIFE REFUGES are for WILDLIFE not cows. Public lands do not belong to ranchers. period.
posted by
jmabbott888
on Oct 10, 2008 at 06:10 PM
I have a question on the lead ammo poisoning condors..... Why don't the coyotes, vultures, ground squirrels (yes they do eat dead squirrels) & other scavengers get lead poisoning from eating dead animals shot by hunters? The other question I have is how can the condors be smart enough to not eat dead animals between I-5 & Hwy 99 where the lead ban doesn't exist & on the same hand not be smart enough to not eat a piece of lead? The last condor I heard of that died from lead poisoning was found on Bitter creek, it shares a property line with Tejon ranch which has outlawed lead ammo, where did the condor get meat that had a lead slug in it? posted by
stateshermind
on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM
jmabbott88, There is evidence that other species are indeed suffering from lead poisoning.Here is a quote below from the AOU condor report that addresses your concerns.
I would also suggest you look at page 10 of the report (link is above in my first blog) and if you are eating the deer you hunt using lead ammo you might want to reconsider the non-toxic alterntives. When I saw the radiograph of the "snowstorm" in the carcass my first thought was of the venison I've eaten and fed my kids... As far as the original wild condor (AC3) that was found dead on Bitter Creek, he was known to forage in the Sierra Madres above Cuyama and that may be where he got it. Being poisoned has nothing to do with intelligence. It is our intelligence or lack of it that is the issue. Don't be like Lois Henry -Support Wildlife Refuges for all Americans! Over the past few years, the plight of the condors has brought attention to the lead issue, resulting in a much better understanding of the dynamics of lead exposure and the actions required to solve the problem. Recent studies suggest the lead ammunition issue goes well beyond condors, potentially affecting most other terrestrial scavengers and even human health (see below). Thus condors are functioning as coal mine canaries in the western ecosystems they inhabit, acting as sentinels of environmental problems that have yet to be resolved. posted by
jmabbott888
on Oct 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Thank you for your answer on the dead condor, the Sierra Madre,s as I remember are up by Carrizo Plains & when the condor was found lead ammo was still allowed up there so that is plausable. My question on the I-5/ 99 area still exists though, why was that are not banned on the lead free area? the condors would fly & eat there passing over to go to other areas. I am (or should say was) a hunter in California until this ban. My reasoning for not hunting is a direct result of the ban. Part of the ban was to sell lead free ammo in the lead ban areas at a reduced price. That part of the ban was never enacted, my firearms are in calibers not supplied with lead free ammo including 22lr. The area between I5 & 99 is mostly privately owned, hence very hard if not impossibble to get access to, is this the reason this area was left out of the ban?
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |