By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times

April 25, 2013, 6:20 p.m.

PNP comment: What they won’t think of next to spend money on! — Editor Liz Bowen

By Elizabeth Devitt

edevitt@mercurynews.com

Posted:   04/26/2013 10:56:51 PM PDT

Megan Parker carries poop in her purse. At least she does when she’s working with her dog Pepin, who’s trained to track the scat of endangered wildlife.

Having the right scent on hand allows Parker to direct her dog during a search.

Parker and Pepin have helped conservation workers protect wildlife all over the world. With Pepin’s superior sense of smell, the 7-year-old Belgian Malinois has tracked everything from endangered kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley to the perilously small population of Cross River gorillas in the mountains of Cameroon.

“Scat is a gold mine of information,” said Parker, one of four co-founders of Working Dogs for Conservation, a nonprofit group of six biologists who trained

Pepin, a Belgian Malinois with Working Dogs for Conservation, gets ready for a demonstration in Palo Alto, Calif. on April 13, 2013. (LiPo Ching)

their canines to work on behalf of wildlife.

Scientists can extract DNA — the genetic blueprints found in cells — from scat samples to check the sex of animals and learn who’s related to whom. Stool can also be used to evaluate diets, test hormone levels and check for diseases. By mapping areas where samples are found, an animal’s home range can also be determined. All that information helps conservationists keep tabs on endangered animals without having to hunt, trap or tag them.

“People see and hear the world,” said Parker. “But dogs are really good at this because they smell the world.”

With samples of wolverine and cheetah scat from her stash, Parker recently demonstrated Pepin’s search skills. From the moment Parker

fastened a bright orange service-dog vest on Pepin, the dog focused on finding his target scents. He sniffed relentlessly around a cavernous lecture hall and trotted briskly among 50 people seated in rows of chairs. In less than 10 minutes Pepin made his finds, alerting Parker by promptly sitting down and throwing her a hard stare.

Pepin is one of nine dogs on staff at Working Dogs for Conservation. A mix of breeds — retrievers, border collies and German shepherds — most of the dogs come from shelters where their high-maintenance traits made them great for detection training, but not so perfect for the easy life of a pet.

The dogs all live with their handlers. That close relationship is part of what makes their teamwork so successful, said Parker. In the field, the dogs work off-leash. So it’s critical to know the dog well enough to know whether he has truly found a target or is just testing the handler, she said.

With highly sensitive noses, dogs such as Pepin have proven they find samples quickly and more accurately than human-based methods, said Alice Whitelaw, another cofounder of the group. Reliability matters because testing scat samples from the wrong animals wastes time and money. Using dogs is also less costly than capturing and radio-collaring animals, which are intensive efforts in terms of manpower, money and handling the wild animals, she said. So far, the dogs have worked on 38 projects in 11 countries.

Scat isn’t the only thing these dogs can find. With scent-discrimination capabilities at least twice as good as those of people, the dogs have nosed out specific plant species — a critical skill on islands where one invasive species can wreak havoc on the rest of the ecosystem, said Whitelaw.

More:

http://www.marinij.com/ci_23133258/conservation-dogs-sniff-out-endangered-animals

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Http://www.capitalpress.com/newsletter/mp-critical-habitat-analysis-032713

by MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI

Capital Press

The federal government wants to clarify the Endangered Species Act with two upcoming policy changes that ranching interests fear will greatly increase the law’s scope.

In both cases, the Obama administration is attempting to resolve legal disputes over language in the act — and appears to side with arguments that would interpret its authority more broadly.

Ranchers would be affected by a more expansive understanding of the ESA’s scope, as many rely on public lands for grazing and own property potentially inhabited by protected species.

The combined effect of the policies would be to subject more land to ESA restrictions while relieving the government from considering the law’s full economic impact, according to rancher advocates.

The first policy deals with how the government deals with a species that faces varying levels of danger across its range.

Under the ESA, protections are extended to a species that is endangered or threatened “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

The Bush administration understood the law to mean that protections may only apply to the “significant portion” where the species is threatened or endangered, not to areas where it’s healthy.

However, two federal judges disagreed with that approach because it excluded some members of a listed species from ESA protection.

The Obama administration withdrew the previous policy and has proposed a replacement to resolve “tensions and ambiguities” in the law.

The proposed policy states that if the viability of a species is at risk in a significant portion of its range, protections will apply across all of its range.

One practical effect of the new policy will be to open more of the landscape to designation as “critical habitat,” said Karen Budd-Falen, an attorney who represents ranchers and other natural resource industries.

“It will be more designations and bigger designations,” she said.

Federal agencies cannot “adversely modify” critical habitat, even if an area isn’t occupied by a species.

For example, cattle can be subject to greater restrictions on grazing near streams that are considered critical habitat even if no endangered or threatened fish swim in them, said Budd-Falen.

Another looming policy change involves the economic analysis that the government must conduct when designating an area as critical habitat.

Faced with conflicting appeals court rulings, the administration has chosen to adopt an interpretation that minimizes the full measure of economic disruption.

The policy assumes that a protected species already inhabits an area, said Budd-Falen. The economic analysis is thus limited to the incremental impact of the critical habitat designation.

In reality the species may not occupy the area at all, so the approach fails to consider the full economic consequences associated with the designation, she said.

Under the ESA, areas can be excluded from critical habitat based on economic harm, Budd-Falen said. If the administration assumes there’s no impact, though, more land will qualify for designation.

“It’s pretty critical to us to have economic considerations included in the Endangered Species Act,” she said.

The issue is especially worrisome because critical habitat designations could result in restrictions on private land if ranchers receive federal crop insurance or other federal assistance, Budd-Falen said.

“It is massively far-reaching,” she said.

Dustin Van Liew, executive director of the Public Lands Council, which advocates for grazing, said it’s troubling that the federal government is trying to resolve a conflict between two appellate rulings, which should be the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Van Liew said he’d like Congress to resolve these questions more permanently as part of a broad ESA reform law.

“We’d like to see this as part of that discussion, so there would be certainty afforded to ranchers,” he said.

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, believes the Obama administration’s definition of “significant portion” is too restrictive.

Under the proposal, an area is considered significant only if it’s absence would put the species in danger of extinction.

Noah Greenwald, endangered species director for group, said that bar has been set too high.

He said it’s an “erroneous conclusion” that the overall policy change would result in more critical habitat designations.

As for the economic analysis policy, Greenwald said it makes sense to consider the listing itself separately from the critical habitat designation.

Even if an area doesn’t contain the species, it may be needed for critical habitat to provide stability for the population, he said.

====================================================

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

Breaking News from Big Game Forever

On Friday, 72 members of Congress sent a letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe in support of expanded wolf-delisting.  This letter shows strong bi-partisan support for sportsmen and our efforts to protect abundant wildlife.  You may recall that over a week ago, 52 members of Congress sent a letter opposing expanded delisting.  There is a reason for all of this activity.  US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the status of Canadian Wolves in the United States.  Many observers expect that the service will delist wolves in states where wolves are not mandated. This would return management authority over Canadian wolves to the states.

The effort on this “Dear Colleague” letter was led by US Senators Orrin Hatch and John Barrasso in the US Senate and Representatives Cynthia Lummis and Doc Hastings in the US House of Representatives.  Big Game Forever remains committed to its efforts to protect abundant wildlife and to ensure states have full authority to manage wolves.  We will need your support in coming days and weeks.  Stay tuned for any action alerts from Big Game Forever.  As always Big Game Forever will make it fast, easy and free to make your voice heard on this important issue.

A copy of the letter is attached here: 72 Member Wolf Delisting Letter   Below is a copy of the press release about the letter.

72 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS URGE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO DELIST THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of 72 Members of Congress have written to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to urge that the Agency delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the Continental United States. The letter was spearheaded by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Barrasso (R-WY), and Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

In the letter, the Members of Congress write that “[w]olves are not an endangered species and do not merit federal protections. The full delisting of the species and the return of the management of wolf populations to State governments is long overdue. As you know, State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.”

The lawmakers added that an unmanaged wolf population poses a threat to the communities and surrounding livestock and indigenous wildlife, but that “currently State wildlife officials have their hands tied any time wolves are involved.” They add that State wildlife managers “need to be able to respond to the needs of their native wildlife without being burdened by the impediments of the federal bureaucracy created by the ESA.”

In addition to Hatch and Barrasso, Senators signing the letter were Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Lee (R-UT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), James Risch (R-ID), John Thune (R-ND), and David Vitter (R-LA).

Members of the House signing the letter in addition to Lummis and Hastings were Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Dan Benishek (R-MI), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Howard Coble (R-NC), Tom Cole (R-OK), Mike Conaway (R-TX), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steven Daines (R-MT), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Sam Graves (R-MO), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), John Kline (R-MN), Doug Lamalfa (R-CA), Bob Latta (R-OH), Blayne Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny Marchant (R-TX), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Candice Miller (R-MI), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Steve Palazzo (R-MS), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Jim Renacci (R-OH), Reid Ribble (R-WI), Dennis Ross (R-FL), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Steve Scalise (R-LA), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Austin Scott (R-GA), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Chris Stewart (R-UT), Steve Stivers (R-OH), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Marlin Stutzman (R-TX), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Tim Walz (D-MN), Randy Weber (R-TX), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Don Young (R-AK).

The full text of the letter is below:

The Honorable Dan Ashe

Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Ashe:

We understand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is in the process of reviewing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery status of the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and is preparing to announce the delisting of the species. We support the nationwide delisting of wolves and urge you to move as quickly as possible on making this a reality. We were supportive of the USFWS decision in 2009 when most wolves were delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains, again in 2011 when wolves in the Great Lake States were delisted, and the 2012 delisting in Wyoming.  It is unfortunate that these decisions were met with lawsuits from environmental activists.

Wolves are not an endangered species and do not merit federal protections.  The full delisting of the species and the return of the management of wolf populations to State governments is long overdue. As you know, State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are able to meet both the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.

Unmanaged wolves are devastating to livestock and indigenous wildlife. Currently State wildlife officials have their hands tied any time wolves are involved. They need to be able to respond to the needs of their native wildlife without being burdened by the impediments of the federal bureaucracy created by the ESA. During the four decades that wolves have had ESA protections, there has been an uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations resulting in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching in America as well as tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep, and mule deer.

As you consider these much needed changes to federal protections with regard to the gray wolf, we urge you to expand the delisting of the species to all of the lower 48 states.  It is critical that the states be given the ability to properly manage all of the species within their boundaries.

 72 member wolf-delisting letter

ICTMN Staff

Indian Country Today Media Network.com

March 06, 2013

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/03/06/us-fish-wildlife-department-about-decide-hundreds-animals-under-endangered-species-act

IN THE NEWS

 Liberty Scene

Liberty and Property Rights Coalition

EPA’s Secret Deals with Environmentalists

The EPA is under investigation for a practice called Sue and Settle. Environmentalists in government and private organizations have found ways to create new regulations by fashioning lawsuits tailored to have courts institute policy changes. Both parties involved in the lawsuits secretly decide in advance what the outcome will be and how much taxpayer money will be transferred to the environmental group in the settlement. In other words, they are exploiting the courts to change laws, and in the process, helping to fund radical environmental groups without legislative or taxpayer consent. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been given to these groups.

(You Tube)

Pacific Legal Foundation asks Supreme Court to Protect Western Water Rights

Recently, PLF attorneys filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the estates of Nevada ranchers, E. Wayne and Jane Hage. The Hages, and their children, have been fighting for over twenty years to preserve their water rights from federal agencies.

Water rights, like those owned by the Hages, are essential to ranching and other natural resource industries throughout the western United States. In their case, a federal agency interfered with the Hages’ rights to access and maintain the flow of water to their ranch. The U.S. Claims Court determined that the agency’s actions resulted in physical and regulatory takings of their water rights. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s conclusion without addressing the merits of their claims. The court held that the Hages’ case—which arose nearly a quarter century ago—is premature!

(Pacific Legal Foundation)

Is Corporate Funding of Environmental Groups a Form of Hush Money and Necessary Cost of Business?

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho – The Sierra Club, a group with a documented history of shilling for cash accused via Twitter this morning the oil and gas lobby of buying support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Sierra Club took a shot at the American Petroleum Institute, a pro-oil and gas development group, with this tweet: (See article)

(Watchdog.org)

A New Spotted Owl?

The western sage grouse is just the latest in the long list of endangered species which have been successfully used by their environmental proponents as economic weapons of destruction in the West.  After the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species in the 1990’s the western timber industry was eradicated from our nation’s forests, leaving the timber to rot from disease and be consumed by catastrophic fires.

Thirty Clark County, Nevada ranchers went broke as a result of the ESA listing of the desert tortoise.  Tortoise eggs were determined to be in danger of cows stepping on them.  Despite the fact that cattle, sheep and tortoises had cohabitated in the southern Nevada desert for more than a century, ranchers were forced to abandon their vested water rights and forage rights for the tortoise.  Once the lands were cleared of ranchers then Nevada BLM Chief, Bob Abby pursued a public land selling spree to Las Vegas developers armed with excavators and paving equipment.  (Emails Link Former Chief of the BLM’s Ex BLM Chief Bob Abbey to Henderson, NV Land Scandal) Environmentalists and bureaucrats were suddenly mute on the subject of the desert tortoise.

History shows that endangered species listings have less to do with saving the lives of animals and more to do with taking property and water rights by circumventing that pesky provision in the Constitution—just compensation.  See this special report in Range Magazine about the new spotted owl, “The Sage Grouse”.

(Range Magazine)

Ron Arnold: A Journalism Nonprofit’s Nonagenda Agenda

Among the standout names of outfits recently whacking the Donors Trust is the nonprofit investigative journalism organization known as the Center for Public Integrity. To many, the group’s name seems presumptuous and agenda-laden, despite its insistence that it is “nonpartisan and does no advocacy work.”

(Washington Examiner)

The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition is committed to promoting and preserving Constitutional rights to liberty and property in public policy and the law.

For more information or to be removed from this list email rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net.

A service of Liberty and Property Rights Coalition 2013

PNP comment: Well, we knew this was coming. Continued hypocrisy and fraudulent science backs up these Greenies. Multiple studies prove cattle are beneficial to Sage Grouse! 

Also, I am taking this reporter to task. Talk about a biased article in favor of the Greenies. No ranchers or Public Lands Council folks were quoted. Guess the reporter doesn’t realize there is a whole other side to the story. This is truly disgusting to be printed in what is supposed to be an agricultural newspaper. Shame on Capital Press! — Editor Liz Bowen