Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Greenies & grant $ category.

Oregon: Nedsbar Timber Sale in the Applegate Valley Has Been Tree Spiked

Greenies & grant $

Earth First! Newswire!

submitted to the Earth First! Newswire

IMG_20160908_134510“The Nedsbar timber sale in the southern Oregon Applegate Valley has been tree spiked.

The BLM’s decision to go forward with this project is unacceptable, any company who bids on the logging of these trees should also consider itself a possible target of sabotage.

For those opposed to the Nedsbar timber sale we would like to remind you that known green scare snitch Suzanne Savoie and her almost equally untrustworthy partner Luke Ruediger are active in groups opposing nedsbar, anyone serious about challenging the current state of ecological devastation would be wise to exclude them from their lives and especially environmental organizing.

Rather than begging for concessions from, or trying to use the institutions that perpetuate the current state of affairs how about working in small leaderless groups and taking direct action in anyway you see fit?

some Anarchists

1 Comment

‘Massive’ ESA lawsuit threatened—again

Agriculture, Congress - Senate, CORRUPTION, Courts, Endangered Species Act, Greenies & grant $, Lawsuits

NEWS

Western Livestock Journal

AUG 26, 2016

By THEODORA JOHNSON, WLJ CORRESPONDENT

—History set to repeat itself; environmental group tries to force USFWS’ hand

Is it 2016 or 2011? Or perhaps just a bad case of déjà vu?

Last Tuesday saw the history of 2011 repeated as an environmental litigation group threatened to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to force Endangered Species Act (ESA) decisions on 417 species.

Five years ago saw an ESA “mega-settlement” which forced USFWS to crank out over 1,200 backlogged listing and critical habitat decisions. In return, the two environmental groups that brought the case—Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and WildEarth Guardians—were expected (although not required) to back off on further litigation and additional listing petitions.

But now, the CBD is threatening to sue again, hoping to force “12-month finding” decisions on this new group of species. In fact, CBD and other groups never did stop filing petitions or lawsuits. Since the 2011 settlement, CBD and others have petitioned roughly 140 species, and CBD and WildEarth Guardians alone have filed over 130 of them since 2013, according to CBD’s own website.

Legal details

The 12-month finding is one step in the ESA listing process. One year after a species is petitioned for listing, USFWS is required to determine whether listing is “not warranted;” “warranted,” which leads to 60 days of public comments, then a final listing decision; or “warranted but precluded,” which places the species on the “candidate” list.

According to CBD, those 12-month findings on the 417 species are anywhere from one to seven years late. The species’ locations span from Washington State to Florida. They include 235 invertebrates (mussels, snails, beetles, etc.), 87 plants, 58 amphibians and reptiles, 27 fish, six birds, and seven mammals.

“This is precisely why the [ESA] is broken,” said Ethan Lane of the Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) in the groups’ statement.

“Groups like [CBD] are attempting to force their agenda on [USFWS] through litigation abuse. Substantive ESA reform is needed now to allow [USFWS] the autonomy necessary to prioritize species conservation according to need, rather than political agenda.”

Litigation: exception or rule?

CBD cites a recent study that found that “lawsuits from conservation groups … have played a key role in speeding protection for imperiled species.” The study was co-authored by CBD’s own Endangered Species Director, Noah Greenwald, and published last month in the academic journal, Biological Conservation.

Under the ESA, anyone can petition to list a species as threatened or endangered. From that point on, USFWS faces multiple deadlines and must issue multiple decisions. Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen, who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on April 20, said the listing process for just one species provides environmental groups with eight different opportunities to sue USFWS. And, she added, the ESA allows litigants to reap attorney fees. She told WLJ that she has seen groups charge $775 per hour for attorney fees. ESA litigation, she said, is a “business decision” on the part of environmental groups, and said it’s having the effect of “shutting down the [USFWS] from implementing the entirety of the ESA.”

Budd-Falen said USFWS is so swamped with petitions and the ensuing lawsuits that species recovery has become an afterthought. As of April, only 63 of the total 2,258 listed species had been delisted. Many of those delisted were not actually recovered; 19 of them were removed because of an error in the original data, and 10 of them, she said, had gone extinct.

Budd-Falen said USFWS is trending away from creating species recovery plans, which are usually a prerequisite to delisting a species.

In the 1990s, 843 species had recovery plans. From 2010 to today, only 177 species have been included in recovery plans.

The ESA requires USFWS to develop recovery plans and measurable objectives that would trigger a species’ delisting. However, the law doesn’t put a time frame on recovery plans and objectives. The lack of an enforceable time frame, Budd-Falen said, adds to USFWS’ propensity of putting recovery plans on the back burner.

Litigation versus science

Budd-Falen stated that one effect of all the litigation has been a shift away from science-based decision making and recovery plan development. Instead, USFWS has turned its focus to meeting court-ordered deadlines.

One of USFWS’ documents says as much: A memorandum from May 20, 2014 states, “Our primary (and perhaps only) focus will be on meeting court-ordered and settlement deadlines for findings…we do not plan to carry out… non-[2011 settlement] findings and proposed rules, or recovery plan revisions.”

The imposition of litigation deadlines has been felt on the ground in various ways, according to Budd-Falen. For example, according to the USFWS, the 2011 settlement prevented it from delaying its listing decision on the lesser-prairie chicken, rather than give the locally-driven and USFWS-approved range-wide conservation plan a chance to work (the decision has since been overturned nationwide by court order).

Similarly, the agency did not have enough time to update the Mexican wolf recovery plan in light of litigation-imposed deadlines.

“In other cases, USFWS has denied requests for extensions of time to comment on [experimental population rules] or has stated that certain activities have not been done because of the requirement imposed by litigation deadlines,” Budd- Falen testified.

Solutions?

In May of 2015, the Obama administration proposed new regulations to slow down listing petitions by requiring more scientific documentation and consultation with state wildlife agencies. However, Budd-Falen told WLJ that USFWS backed off on their proposal after receiving pushback from environmental groups. The revised proposal, she said, makes very little changes to the current procedures.

“Congress needs to fix [the ESA] so that there’s either an annual limit on petitions, or added flexibility on time frames,” she told WLJ.

Budd-Falen reported she has testified at least seven times on ESA problems over the years, but that so far Congress hasn’t enacted any reforms to the 1972 act. Several worthy bills have been introduced in recent years though, she said. They would have required more scientific rigor in ESA decisions; public posting of scientific documentation; capping of attorney fees; and specific involvement of state, local and tribal governments for species on their land.

“Congress has got to take away the cause of action— the courts can’t do it,” Budd- Falen said. “Congress has got to get its collective act together.” — Theodora Johnson, WLJ Correspondent

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Ammon Bundy Demands His Right To Be Heard In Portland Courtroom Judge Loses Her Composure

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, cattle, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $

The Pete Santilli Show.com

While Government quietly hands over a 111 name list of witnesses for the Prosecution

AP_ammon_bundy_cf_160127_12x5_1600

Above photo is of Ammon Bundy

Guerilla Media Network LLC – July 7, 2016 –  GMN Staff-writer

HER COURT WAS OUT OF ORDER

High drama is what took place in the Portland Courtroom of Judge Anna Brown today when once again Ammon Bundy refused to sit down when being ordered to do so after she denied his motion for a continuance.  The judge said she couldn’t grant the Bundy brothers a delay without a showing that the two, who had initially insisted on a trial starting in April and opposed the court’s designation of the case as complex, couldn’t prepare for trial within the next nine weeks.  She found it difficult to accept that the Bundy brothers — the “loud and clear leaders in this case from the beginning” — wouldn’t have time to prepare for trial by Sept. 7 and rejected their motions for any delay.

The room was filled with animosity between Brown, Ammon Bundy, and Bundy’s attorney Marcus Mumford.  That tension quickly escalated into a dramatic confrontation between Bundy and the Judge, said one courtroom observer.  A shouting match ensued between the two that caused the Judge to lose her composure and briefly lose control of the courtroom when the gallery full of supporters joined Mr. Bundy in his reprimand of the Judge.

Ammon stood up and just started to speak when the Judge shouted at him to sit down. Speak to me through your attorney, she said.  She rose to her feet flailing her arms and was yelling at him —  Her face was pretty red and full of anger – She was visibly pissed off  – Ammon was yelling back at her telling her that it was unfair  that he was always being told to shut-up and sit down.  He was tired of being told to be quiet and having his right to be heard dismissed by her — Then it felt like the whole courtroom kind of  joined in the yelling — the Marshalls’ were all on their feet and took someone out — it got pretty crazy there for a second — 

To regain control of herself and the proceeding, Brown cleared the courtroom by calling a brief recess  and shortly after returned to continue with the “ex parte hearing”  without the Government or spectators.  That hearing is said to have gone better.

Several other things were brought to light in today’s hearing as well as the Judge and Ammon Bundy’s apparent lack of patience for one another;  Shawna Cox told the Court she was ready to part with her attorney and join the ranks of Ryan Bundy and a few others by representing herself when the trial gets underway.

Peter Santilli and his attorney Tom Coan were told by the Prosecution, they will not be calling witness Kevin Johnson to the stand during Santilli’s portion of the trial.  Kevin Johnson is the man who falsely told the FBI he saw Mr. Santilli at a December 22nd “Committee Of Safety” meeting in Burns, Oregon where the takeover of the Refuge was allegedly first planned.  Pete Santilli was overheard telling the prosecutor, “Good, — maybe we will call him to testify against you then.”

Oral arguments for the second round of motions were set to begin on July 18th, and a tentative time table for the trial itself was also set.  Prosecutors are saying the Government will need at least 3-4 weeks to present their case in full, while the defense is estimating roughly 3 -5 days per defendant to get through their portion of the trial.

Nothing was said today about how long jury selection would be expected to take once it begins on September 7th, 2016.   Judge Brown has noted they have 1,000 potential jurors from counties surrounding and including Multnomah County, where the trial is set to take place.

The Government also released a list to the defense today which contains the names of 111 people which mostly consists of with-held names of FBI agents and law enforcement whom they plan [to use to some capacity] their various cases for their case against the defendants.  True to their word kevin Johnson’s name was not on that list.

However, there is one surprise on the list; Found among names like Sheriff David Ward, Steven Grasty and no name FBI agents – was the name Glen Palmer, the Sheriff of Grant County.

160318-grantcounty-sheriff-glenn-palmer-yh-0723a_83f5436d89a0959bbd56ae4d7445e6ba.nbcnews-ux-320-320Glen Palmer Sheriff of Grant County Oregon

The state Department of Justice opened an investigation this past March into Palmer, who faces nine complaints, some from government employees, accusing him of promoting a personal agenda “over the welfare and safety of the general public he is sworn to protect.  Many are claiming government pressure on Palmer has been oppressive after threatening to end his career in law enforcement.  Others have expressed that they cannot imagine him being a cooperative witness for the Government.  We reached out to Sheriff Palmer and as of the filing of this report we had received no comment.

Other names included were Chad and Rhonda Kargas – Husband and wife team working for the BLM and Fish and Wildlife respectfully.

Another interesting person on the list is Kieran Suckling.  Kierán Suckling is a founder and the executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity and known agitator whom Carol Bundy, will quickly tell you is the group that started this fight between them and the BLM in 2014.

Suckling came to the Malheur Refuge to protest the Occupation and almost incited a riot according to some witnesses.  Suckling is disliked by many, including some of his peers who say Suckling has done more harm than good in the environmental movement;

Ted Williams is proud of his credentials as an environmental provocateur and he uses those credentials to defend his criticism of Center for Biological Diversity in an article in High Country News (1).  He expresses his opinion that CBD is motivated by money.  He points out that CBD has filed hundreds of suits against the federal government, using environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, and that every time it wins it collects attorney fees from the federal government.   The cost and number of these suits has become a major obstacle to US Fish & Wildlife and the Environmental Protection Agency in fulfilling their mandate to protect rare species.

Suckling has his own ideas about how he and the CBD will rule the world someday according to milliontrees.me – an environmental group dedicated to saving trees in the San Francisco Bay area : If you read the article we have attached here Suckling even goes so far to say that his group hopes to ban all foreign trees from being planted in America and get rid of what is already here by hunting them down and burning them all to the ground.

Mr. Suckling implies that CBD’s control of the environment is only temporary until the new order is established in which plants and animals are in control.  This reminds us of a similar fantasy about a new social and economic model which was originally proposed by Karl Marx.  In creating the concept of communism, he envisioned a temporary dictatorship of elites which would eventually be ceded to a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”  The world has now witnessed many attempts to install communism as the governing economic model, but we have not seen the dictatorship of elites willingly cede their power to the people. 

This quote of CBD’s Executive Director from Ted Williams’ article, also helps us to understand why CBD sues the federal government to achieve their goals: 

“’They [employees of federal agencies] feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are,’ he told the High Country News.  ‘So they become much more willing to play by our rules.’”   In other words, suing—and the threat of suit—is CBD’s means of controlling the federal agencies that are responsible for protecting the environment, i.e., forcing them to do what CBD wants.

 

Ammon Bundy Demands His Right To Be Heard In Portland Courtroom Judge Loses Her Composure

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Judge refuses to overturn Oregon grazing plans

Agriculture, cattle, Courts, Endangered Species Act, Greenies & grant $, Lawsuits

PNP comment: Wow, what a concept! The fish doesn’t even live in the area, so how can cattle harm the fish if it isn’t there? Now this is a sensible judge! — Editor Liz Bowen

Mateusz Perkowski

Capital Press

Published on June 22, 2016 10:59AM

Ranchers, environmentalists and federal agencies recently engaged in oral arguments at the James A. Redden U.S. Courthouse in Medford, Ore., as part of a lawsuit over grazing’s effects on bull trout habitat in Oregon’s Fremont-Winema National Forest.

A federal judge has rejected environmentalists’ arguments that grazing along Oregon’s Sprague and Sycan rivers unlawfully harms bull trout habitat where the fish doesn’t live.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has held that grazing plans for 10 federal land allotments comply with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.

Several ranching families, who had intervened in the case to defend the grazing plans, are relieved by the judge’s ruling, said Scott Horngren, an attorney with the Western Resources Legal Center, who represented them.

“An adverse decision would have been very disruptive and harmful to their grazing plans this year,” Horngren said.

If the judge had found the grazing plans were unlawfully approved, the environmental plaintiffs likely would have sought to curtail grazing at a time when the ranchers are preparing to release cattle onto public land, he said.

Horngren noted that ranchers already face restrictions on grazing duration and grass stubble height, among other factors.

“This isn’t uncontrolled grazing,” he said.

Last year, Oregon Wild, Friends of Living Oregon Waters and the Western Watersheds Project filed a complaint against the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approving the grazing plans in the Fremont-Winema National Forest.

The plaintiffs argued that bull trout, a federally protected threatened species, wasn’t occupying its “critical habitat” in the area due to degradation caused by grazing.

Clarke said the environmental groups raised “legitimate concerns” about the future of bull trout populations due to higher water temperatures and sediment in streams.

However, he said the federal agencies adequately studied whether grazing would adversely affect the fish’s critical habitat.

“While plaintiffs disagree with the Forest Service’s conclusion that grazing can continue despite these concerns, they have not demonstrated that the agency disregarded or irrationally analyzed them,” the judge said.

Capital Press was unable to reach an attorney for the environmental groups as of press time.

Aside from the Endangered Species Act allegations, Clarke also rejected the environmentalists’ claims that grazing was authorized in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The “best management practices,” or BMPs, for protecting water quality in the national forest were approved by Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, which administers the Clean Water Act, he said.

“Though plaintiffs speculate that the Forest Service has not fully implemented its BMPs, there is no evidence that the agency has failed to undertake any specific commitment or otherwise acted in bad faith,” Clarke said.

Clarke ruled that environmental groups “have not connected” water quality problems with the grazing plans.

“As such, the court cannot conclude that authorized grazing is to blame,” he said.

http://www.capitalpress.com/20160622/judge-refuses-to-overturn-oregon-grazing-plans

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

IJ Forums probes the future of cattle ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore

Agriculture, cattle, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $

Marinij.com

Posted:

Cattle ranching and dairy farms have been part of West Marin’s culture and economy for generations, but how much longer will that continue in the Point Reyes National Seashore?

The question takes center stage in the newest session of IJ Forums, which puts the spotlight on a lawsuit filed against the National Park Service by three environmental groups. They contend cattle are causing erosion, polluting waterways, producing greenhouse gases, harming endangered species and blocking public access.

They seek a National Park Service examination of the impact of ranching and other activities in the national park as part of a general management plan, which they say the park service has abandoned in favor of a plan focused on how — and not whether — to manage ranching over the next 20 years.

Guests on the half-hour show, hosted by IJ columnist Dick Spotswood, are Sam Dolcini, a West Marin resident and president of the Marin County Farm Bureau, and Jeffrey Chanin, a Tiburon resident and attorney who represents the three plaintiffs in the case: the Resource Renewal Institute of Mill Valley, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Project, based in Idaho.

When asked for their visions of the Point Reyes National Seashore in 25 years, Dolcini and Chanin offered revealing takes.

MORE

http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160528/NEWS/160529795#.V0okMnRvv4s.email

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Oregon: 3 lawmakers hit with ethics complaint over wolf bill

Agriculture, Greenies & grant $, Lawsuits, Liberty, Oregon governments, Wolves

 

PNP comment: The group threatening the lawsuit is Cascadia Wildlands — wolf lovers! Canadian gray wolves shouldn’t be listed to the Oregon Endangered Species Act, because they are not native wolves. And the Canadian gray wolves are not threatened with extinction, but are actually multiplying faster than there is food (wildlife) available for them. — Editor Liz Bowen

 

  • By KRISTENA HANSEN

  • Updated

Marysville Daily Forum

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An environmental group filed an ethics complaint Monday against three Oregon lawmakers, accusing them of knowingly making false statements to their colleagues about the intent of a bill that has blocked an environmentalists’ lawsuit over the delisting of the gray wolf.

At the center of the complaint is House Bill 4040, which upholds in state law the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s decision last year to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list — a move aimed at managing the species’ growing population in certain parts of Oregon.

The bill was unusual for the Oregon Legislature, but the intent was to ultimately block an ongoing lawsuit by environmentalists, who argued delisting was premature and scientifically flawed and petitioned the court for a judicial review.

But that’s not how the bill was presented when it was first introduced in early February, and some lawmakers repeatedly denied that was the intent at all.

“Does this basically prevent litigation? … and the answer that I have come up with, or the answer that I could find was, no it doesn’t,” Republican Rep. Greg Barreto said during a February House floor session when HB 4040 was up for vote. “They can still have their day in court.”

The Oregon Court of Appeals ultimately tossed out the lawsuit last month, citing the new law.

It was those kinds of statements that prompted Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands to file an ethics complaint against Barreto, his fellow Republican Rep. Sal Esquivel and Democratic Rep. Brad Witt at the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.

MORE

http://www.maryvilledailyforum.com/article_011bd29a-4185-51fb-9443-2f14e9549784.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

 

No Comments

Lawsuit Brings Out Environmentalists on Both Sides of Debate Over Cattle Ranching at Point Reyes

Agriculture - California, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $, Lawsuits, Liberty

For history on the oyster farm go to:

http://pienpolitics.com/?s=oyster+farm+point+reyes

The Point Reyes National Seashore is at the center of another bitter legal battle.

Two years ago the fight was over an oyster farm.

Now it’s over cattle, and the future of the cattle-ranching families who call Point Reyes home.

Bill Niman may be the most famous rancher in the Bay Area. His Niman Ranch was founded in the 1970’s on land that’s now part of the Point Reyes National Seashore. (The seashore was founded in 1962, and Niman’s land was later added to the park.)

“Actually if you could fly, we’re eight miles from San Francisco,” he says.

Cattle have grazed Point Reyes since the 1800s, and many ranching families go back generations. But livestock is now at the center of a heated dispute – with environmentalists speaking out on both sides.

“No impacts of ranching have ever been conducted in the national seashore,” says Chance Cutrano, director of special projects and strategic initiatives at Mill Valley-based Resource Renewal Institute.

The Institute and two other environmental groups – the Center for Biological Diversity and the Western Watersheds Projects – are suing the National Park Service.

They want a full accounting of the impact of cattle ranching, and they say a General Management Plan is long overdue to guide the preservation of the park.

”When you haven’t come to understand the impacts at all, if those haven’t been assessed, it’s very difficult to try to create a positive dialogue outside of, say like a courtroom, when you can’t get that information,” says Cutrano.

The plaintiffs are also concerned about the health of Tule elk. The National Park Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife re-introduced the native species and now Tule elk graze alongside cattle in some areas, despite calls for elk fences.

Michael Wara, an associate professor at Stanford Law School, says a U.S District Court judge in San Francisco will likely take into account the location of Point Reyes, which is unusual among the national parks.

“The Point Reyes National Seashore is kind of an odd duck in the national parks system,” he says. “It’s really close to a major urban center, so the visitation patterns are probably very different than they would be for Yosemite, or Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon.”

In addition, Wara says the seashore’s unique history will also be important in this case.

“The usage, the fact that there is this historic usage is really different,” he says.

Nicolette Hahn Niman, Bill Niman’s wife, is a former environmental attorney and a vegetarian, but also a defender of beef.

“The people who are on these ranches are very passionate about the environment,” she says. ”“When ranches are well stewarded they are a huge economic but also ecological beneficiary for an area. When environmental groups are attacking ranches they’re alienating an absolutely necessary ally.”

There is no doubt, there are strong feelings on all sides about this local, and national, treasure.

The National Park Service does not comment on pending litigation.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lawsuit-Brings-Out-Environmentalists-on-Both-Sides-of-Debate-Over-Cattle-Ranching-at-Point-Reyes-378190021.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Mendocino County dumps federal killings of livestock predators

Agriculture - California, Greenies & grant $, Wildlife, Wolves

PNP comment: They will be sorry as there are an overabundance of predators in California. This is such a biased article, but, at least, they gave ranchers two short paragraphs at the bottom as a rebuttal. Truly a sad, soft and fuzzy, unpractical decision. — Editor Liz Bowen

SF Gate

Peter Fimrite 

on April 26, 2016

Wildlife advocates scored a major victory Tuesday when Mendocino County agreed to terminate its contract with the federal agency that helps ranchers kill predators such as mountain lions and coyotes that feast on livestock.

Environmental groups have long crusaded against what they characterize as indiscriminate killing of wildlife by an agency whose philosophy amounts to “the only good predator is a dead predator.” The decision by Mendocino County supervisors to sever ties with the division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture marks a rare instance of a California county opting to consider nonlethal methods of carnivore control.

Environmentalists had accused the county of violating the California Environmental Quality Act by hiring the Agriculture Department division known as Wildlife Services. Six environmental and animal protection groups claimed in a lawsuit that the county failed to consider nonlethal methods of animal control and should have done an environmental study on the effect that killing predators would have on the ecosystem before signing a contract with Wildlife Services.

“We’re thrilled,” said Jessica Blome, senior staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “This is the first lawsuit in the country that attacks Wildlife Services based on its relationships with local governments.”

Todd Smith of Oakland’s Thomas Law Group, which represented Mendocino County, said the Board of Supervisors had agreed to set aside the contract while conducting an environmental study.

“The county is happy to undertake this analysis so the members of this community can understand the benefits and the impacts associated with the wildlife management program,” Smith said. “The program has been effective for almost 30 years, so the county was a little surprised (by the lawsuit). That said, the county wants to comply with the law. In the end, the analysis will drive what the program looks like in the future.”

The issue has exacerbated tensions between ranchers and conservationists. Livestock owners in the far northern part of the state have threatened to use the “three S’s” — shoot, shovel and shut up — when confronted with environmentalists’ efforts to protect wolves, coyotes and other “vermin.”

Ranchers’ concerns

There are as many as 700,000 coyotes in the state, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mountain lions are also abundant, and both predators kill a lot of livestock, which are commodities that contribute to the state and local economy, said the California Cattlemen’s Association.

The recent discovery of a wolf pack in Siskiyou County has turned the issue of predator control into a major area of concern among ranchers.

http://m.sfgate.com/science/article/Mendocino-County-dumps-federal-killings-of-7377250.php

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

No Comments

Common conservation

Agriculture, cattle, Clean Water ACT - EPA, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Greenies & grant $, Op-ed, Over-regulations, Property rights, Ranch life

Western Livestock Journal

March 14, 2016

I’ve been traveling to a lot of bull sales around the western U.S. during the past few weeks. For the most part the sales are off a bit but the quality of the bulls is much better. It has also given me the opportunity to visit with a lot of public land ranchers to find out how they are getting along with their local BLM range conservation officers. I don’t recall anyone telling me they have had major issues with their local office. I’m sure there are exceptions, but it sounds like there is really a spirit of cooperation with ranchers and the BLM on range issues.

The federal government is throwing a lot of money at conservation projects, especially the Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. The industry avoided having the grouse placed on the endangered species list this past fall. Most resource users felt that the existing conservation efforts sufficed in increasing habitat. But the federal land agencies went ahead and implemented the land management plans anyway.

It’s perplexing that on the local level ranchers and land management folks seem to get along. And then you have these heavy-handed initiatives come out of Washington, D.C. that disrupts any harmony that exists at the local level.

Last week the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Public Lands Council, and many state cattlemen and farm groups had to file an amicus brief supporting Idaho’s suit against the sage-grouse land management plan, saying the BLM and U.S. Forest Service’s restrictive land management plans are a back-door alternative to not listing the sagegrouse under the Endangered Species Act.

This should illustrate that any land management decisions on public lands should be made at the local level. Tracy Bruner, the new President of NCBA, said in a press release that “Ongoing state management has led to a 63 percent increase in sage-grouse population in the past two years alone, further illustrating that these range management plans and land-use plan amendments are unnecessary. They added that, if these new standards are implemented, they will have a negative economic impact on ranchers and rural communities without any corresponding benefit to the grouse habitat.”

Also, last week a group of environmental organizations—including Wild Earth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and our favorite, the Center for Biological Diversity—filed a suit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife asserting that they are not protecting a subspecies sage-grouse in the Mono Basin in California and Nevada and that the birds need to be placed on the endangered species list.

It’s no secret to anyone in the livestock business that these groups have an agenda to remove livestock grazing from public lands and the sage-grouse is one of their tools to do just that. I’ve traveled through a lot of sagebrush country over the past few weeks and the ground looks healthy to me. I have seen what restoration efforts are being made; they are positive for all.

In Utah alone, they are removing junipers and reseeding 18,000 acres to improve sage-grouse habitat.

It is a huge effort being made by the government and private landowners.

As I said, the folks on the ground in the local communities seem to be getting along fine. But when these national efforts get underway, they eventually end up in court and the game is on. These environmental groups knew what the ultimate results would be after listing the spotted owl on the endangered species list; it killed the logging industry in the Northwest.

The bad thing about these environmental litigator groups is that everyone wants them to go away. The BLM, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife want to reduce their litigation load. Yet, the groups file lawsuits with reckless abandon and we pick up the tab with the Equal Access to Justice Act.

They intend on using the same playbook on the cattle industry and it appears they will stop at nothing to get the greater sage-grouse on the endangered species list. They will use the courts with no intention of cooperating and finding common and workable ground.

It’s crazy how these nonprofit organizations work.

They may not show a profit but they pay plenty of salary and benefits to those who start and operate them. These non-governmental organizations are becoming a major nuisance to society. They use selective science and the courts to fight their cause, yet it appears to me that they should have little standing to even use the courts.

It’s vital that we obtain a new political climate in this country because common sense left the building and nobody noticed him leaving. — PETE CROW, publisher

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

LaMalfa criticizes dam removal process

Doug LaMalfa Congressman CA, Greenies & grant $, Karuk Tribe on Klamath, Klamath River & Dams

PNP comment: Redding Record Searchlight runs article on Congressman Doug LaMalfa exposing “shell company” that federal and state agencies, along with major support from PacifiCorp and Greenies, are setting up (in a hurry) to use to purchase the dams from PacifiCorp and demolish them.  All without the legal process of environmental studies and public review and comment. Yep, something stinks with these arrogant agency higher-ups. Oh and regarding Karuk’s spokesman Craig Tucker, Congressman LaMalfa has been fighting to save the dams for 10 years. He has thawrted the Klamath dam destroyers every step of the way. Tucker is a flat-out liar!  — Editor Liz Bowen

“LaMalfa believes that because the dams are private property the federal government should not be paying to have them removed, Eastman said.” — from further down in the article.

http://www.redding.com/news/local/lamalfa-criticized-dam-removal-process-2cf81491-89a6-2e3c-e053-0100007f8293-370868711.html?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_content=&utm_campaign=TopHeadlines_Newsletter

By Damon Arthur

of the Redding Record Searchlight

March 4, 2016

A North State Congressman accused the federal government this week of creating a “shell corporation” to disguise its role in removing dams on the Klamath River.

U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa also said there are meetings being held in secret to work out details of a dam removal plan, and leaders of the negotiations are forcing those who attend to sign nondisclosure agreements.

MORE at above link:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

No Comments
« Older Posts