High Sierra Topix

Flux wrote: Maybe I missed it, but it sure would be nice to see a summary of plan of action to accomplish their protection goals once the areas are established. I did read the generalized statement about logging, grazing, gill netting, etc.

I know some refuse to see this as ceding power and control of a resource to a group with little over site and instead they would rather paint the rest of us a scare mongering but it seems to me that the public has gone through this before with the spotted owl. As to a plan, they don't need a plan yet. They give you details after you give them control.

USFW proposal wrote:Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary.

Any and all methods and procedures sounds pretty open-ended.

Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species

1.1 million acres isn't the max limit.

Here is thought, why not start with a small area to "experiment on?" If they are successful, they can legally expand whenever and where ever they want.


Link to proposal:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04 ... -09598.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder why "Disease" is not listed as a threat in the identified habitats tables??

I gotta scan through the document to see where it talks about disease.

Flux wrote:I wonder why "Disease" is not listed as a threat in the identified habitats tables??

That would be pointing the finger at what actually is the cause of the decline and it might also implicate those that introduced and spread the fungus

I gotta scan through the document to see where it talks about disease.

It's sorta mentioned under "request for information" guidelines for public comments


(b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the species;

That would be pointing the finger at what actually is the cause of the decline and it might also implicate those that introduced and spread the fungus

How convenient. Put everything else that really did not have much to do with the rapid decline on the list and leave out the most important factor.

If this goes the way of ammunition restrictions, then this is just the beginning because the people behind it have a hidden agenda. Case in point: CA banned lead ammunition and shot in 3 zones to help to CA Condor even though research was not definitive—some claimed most of the the lead uptake was environmental not from ammunition. During the decades old ban, the lead levels in Condor have actually increased indicating ammunition is not the culprit—but the ban still stands and there is a pending bill to ban all lead ammunition throughout CA in direct defiance of the results of the previous restriction as well as new evidence that no other predators have been affected by lead poisoning from ammunition. The three co-sponsoring groups are all anti-hunting groups who have a public goal of eliminating all hunting in CA. This is their backdoor—make ammunition prohibitively expensive and hunting will decline precipitously. It's a dirty under-handed "end justifies the means" game and hurts the reputation of the conservation cause.

I don't know the hidden agenda here or am I certain there is one, but the pattern is the same so I suspect there is one: ignore the real culprits, largely irreversible, of the species decline and focus the blame on a scape-goat behavior you want to militate against using species protection as a ruse because of it's judicial and legislative power. Frogs are on the decline across the globe—are Trout to blame everywhere? Should we preserve some habitat? Perhaps, but so much? Doubtful and it probably will not save them anyway.

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels

Lead is bad. We had to abandon it for waterfowl as well. Yes the alternatives cost more but the resolution is inert to everyone and everything, and given some of our water flows through the delta, that is actually a good thing.

Also, you have two too many quotations on your sig in my opinion.

rlown wrote:Lead is bad. We had to abandon it for waterfowl as well. Yes the alternatives cost more but the resolution is inert to everyone and everything, and given some of our water flows through the delta, that is actually a good thing.

Also, you have two too many quotations on your sig in my opinion.

I agree with the water fowl restriction—it as based on good science, the bullet one is not and masks another agenda, but we are getting off topic. My point was less the legitimacy of the bullet ban and more on the tactics to support another hidden agenda. That is the point.

They are not banning bullets. they are banning lead bullets. There are options, and us yahoos will still hunt.

The funny thing is I asked this exact question to Yose about lead sinkers. All they responded with was "they were looking into it." I know other parks have banned lead sinkers.