by Jim Beers


A reader in Florida, like me, was recently refused any information about the
secret 15 or more months scheming by US Department of the Interior and
selected environmental and land-buying non-government organizations
concerning the "discovery" of the "formerly extinct" Ivory-billed Woodpecker
in Arkansas.  We were each told we would have to deposit what would
eventually be hundreds of thousands of dollars to "begin" a government
search for and copying of documents, meeting notes, phone calls, etc.  In
fact they would never search everywhere and documents they wanted to
withhold could simply be declared not found because we didn't pay enough to
search everywhere.  The difference between having to provide all documents
concerning X and conducting $150,000 worth of searching for X is the
difference between "everything" and what you want to release or withhold
because there is no accountability if later you (the bureaucrat) are exposed
as having not provided certain things that become known later.  My response
is below as A.

Subsequently, a reader in Arkansas asked me what questions he should ask
Federal bureaucrats concerning the future plans by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and their "partners" like The Nature Conservancy and Audubon and the
National Wildlife Federation concerning the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.  My
response is below labeled B.

A.) Guys,

Good luck, and I mean it.  I abandoned any hope of getting any information
from them.  They will bleed you dry of money fiddling away "searching and
copying" and will easily delay ever revealing what they don't want revealed.

Only when they are obligated to give you "everything" (not just whatever $4K
or $40K or $400K worth of "searching and copying" revealed) are they in any
way to be held accountable.  For instance, if a year later some "smoking
gun" memo or statement from some greenie reveals something they didn't hand
over, they just shrug and tell the judge you didn't pay enough for them to
"find" the documents.  The very employees and bigwigs that hide the stuff or
just don't turn it over (like those that stole the $45 to $60M from P-R &
D-J a few years ago) will get awards and bonuses and retire to gated
communities in seamless careers.

The Secretary's staff has already stuffed some papers about the woodpecker
at an FWS facility that has nothing whatever to do with End. Sp. or
woodpeckers.  How much will we have to pay to finance enough "searching" to
"find" those documents?  The answer is never enough.

The "conservation" outfits that "represent" us (DU, Turkey Federation, NTA,
et al) are not just AWOL here, they are giving us a glimpse of their
"partnering " in silence with the State agencies in acquiescing to whatever
the FWS and the environmentalists and animal righters want because Congress
promises to be their future sugar daddy when you and I are gone and our kids
are living in cities watching movies.

Sorry to be so negative but this whole affair stinks to high heaven and I am
helpless to do anything about it.  Except for a few guys like you, no one
seems to get it or give a dam.

Feel free to share this with whomever you want.

Jim

B.) Could you give me an example of the questions that should be posed to
the
USF&WS?

Thanks,

1.) How much Federal land acquisition is anticipated to be requested from
Congress in the next 10 years for IBW habitat?

2.) Since the IBW "looks like a pintail" in flight (Tanner, 1942), how can
you allow duck hunting in any southern bottom lands?

3.)  How much Congressional or agency (USFWS) financial assistance will FWS
support for acquisition and/or easements by The Nature Conservancy for IBW?

4.) What is your response to the 5 Million acres of IBW habitat claimed in
the following article? While sighting of 1 male bird is all that has been
confirmed, are there more?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_3816251,00.html

Speakout: At-risk species need roadless habitat
By Gary Wockner, Special to the News
May 30, 2005

I'd call it "hope." Yes, that's the sound of thousands of scientists and
millions of wildlife advocates celebrating the apparent return from
extinction of the ivory billed woodpecker.

Not seen for more than a half-century in the United States, the ivory billed
woodpecker made international news a few weeks ago with its
back-from-the-dead performance. The cause of its return, though, has hardly
made a blip in the newsreel, and it's one word: "habitat." The woodpecker's
habitat is the bottomland forests and swamps of the lower Mississippi River.
Prior to European settlement, these forests covered 50 million acres of what
is now the southern United States.

Today, about 5 million acres of that habitat remains, and more is
disappearing every day due to the relentless shrill of human development.
The woodpecker - which hid from us for more than 50 years in these southern
swamps - needs this roadless wild habitat to survive.

However, almost simultaneously with the announcement of the woodpecker's
return, came a very ironic and unfortunate announcement from President Bush
that he is rescinding the federal "Roadless Rule" enacted in 2001 that
protects nearly 60 million acres of roadless wildlife habitat throughout the
U.S.

Apparently, the president doesn't see the connection between roadless
habitat and the preservation of endangered species. Issues here in Colorado
should help drive this connection home.

For example, Colorado has about 4.4 million acres of roadless habitat that
the president has now opened to exploitation and development. And we too
have endangered species - just like the ivory billed woodpecker - that were
previously thought extirpated from our state but may be depending on these
roadless areas for survival.

First, lynx: Trapped to near extirpation in the lower 48 states, the lynx
was mostly gone from Colorado by the 1950s. Prior to reintroduction in 1999,
people still reported intermittent lynx sightings in the most remote and
roadless parts of our state. With reintroduction, Colorado's lynx population
is increasing and its prognosis for recovery is good.

But the roadbuilding, logging, mining, and other commercial enterprises that
President Bush might allow in our roadless areas could change this
prognosis.

Second, wolves: Trapped and shot to near extirpation in the lower 48 states,
wolves were completely exterminated from Colorado by 1945. Due to their
reintroduction into Wyoming in 1994, wolves are now slowly migrating back
into Colorado. Recent research in the Northern Rockies and in Wisconsin
clearly confirms that wolf survival is enhanced by roadless habitat. A few
weeks ago, Colorado adopted a plan to manage migrating wolves; more roads in
wolf habitat might jeopardize the wolf's return.

Third, wolverines: Again, this wild badgerlike critter was trapped and shot
to near extirpation in the lower 48 states. Remnant populations currently
live in the Northern Rockies, and various sightings have been reported in
Colorado over the past several years. Multiple unconfirmed sightings have
also been reported in Rocky Mountain National Park, and the Park Service has
requested a research project to confirm a wolverine presence there. Like
lynx and wolves, wolverines thrive in remote roadless areas, and could be
reintroduced into Colorado.

Finally, grizzly bears: The grizzly bear was thought extirpated in Colorado
throughout the last half of the 20th century, and then, surprisingly, a
grizzly was shot in 1979 in the San Juan Mountains. Over the last 30 years,
many unconfirmed sightings of grizzlies have occurred throughout Colorado,
including a sighting in the foothills southwest of Denver in 2004.
Grizzlies - more than any other creature - need wild, roadless habitat to
survive. Research undertaken in the San Juans suggests that significant
roadless habitat still exists that can, and should, support grizzly bears.

The connection between endangered species and roadless habitat is important
and direct, and hits home for us in Colorado. Unfortunately, President Bush
doesn't see this, and so ignored the federal government's responsibility.
Instead, he's turned that responsibility over to the states. Now, we
Coloradans will decide the future of our roadless areas - that job rests
with Gov. Bill Owens and the Colorado legislature.

Like the ivory billed woodpecker in the South, Colorado's endangered species
survive in roadless habitat throughout our state. And, also similarly, lynx,
wolves, wolverines, and grizzlies give millions of us hope. Can we give it
back to them?
Gary Wockner is a writer and wildlife ecologist in Fort Collins. He can be
reached at www.garywockner.com.

5.) Will FWS be "girdling trees" that then serve as rich food sources for
IBW (from insect infestations) as recommended in Tanners 1942 book?  If not,
why not?

6.) Will FWS defend the rights of spring turkey hunters and duck hunters and
mushroom hunters and fishermen and boaters and deer hunters and trappers to
continue their pursuits in southern bottomland hardwood stands?

7.) Will southern bottomland hardwood property owners be coerced to sign
easements (like Weyerhauser in spotted owl "critical" habitats and Georgia
Pacific in red-cockaded woodpecker "critical" habitat) that limit their uses
of their property or face prosecution for cutting trees or otherwise
disturbing their property?

8.) What actions are FWS (or anyone else for that matter) taking to find
ways to manage Listed species WITHOUT intrusive Federal usurpation of
private property rights or State jurisdictions?

9.) Has there been any attempt to assure that this (one?) bird was not
brought in surreptitiously from Cuba.

10.) Why was this "discovery" kept secret from the US public for 15 or more
months?

11.) Why does the USDI and FWS refuse to make public (by forcing citizens to
pay huge and inestimable up-front deposits that would never be "enough" to
search for "all" records) all correspondence, phone calls, meetings, etc.
with "IBW partners" during this secret period?

12.) On what basis were organizations like TNC and Audubon and NWF included
in these secret negotiation and planning schemes while others such as DU and
the Wild Turkey Federation and BASS and Alabama Forest Owners Association
and other such resource owner groups excluded?

13.) What role is anticipated for State governments?  Are Governors or State
Legislatures or THEIR agencies completely out of the picture now that
Federal ESA authority has been invoked?

14.) Is any State fish and wildlife agency (with the exception of Wyoming)
or the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in
Washington, DC trying to develop alternatives to this Federal control of all
aspects of an Endangered Species?

15.) How wide-reaching is or will be the FWS declaration of Ivory-billed
Woodpecker habitat and range to be targeted for IBW restoration?  Is it all
of the range specified by Tanner that stretches from Miami to southern
Missouri and from North Carolina to East Texas?  How many acres do you
intend to encumber by your claims of bottomland hardwoods?

16.) Will you also declare "critical" habitat or target cleared or cropped
or grazed bottom lands that were (like all the South) formerly woodlands or
that now "link" (ala the Wildlands Project) existing pieces of bottomland
hardwoods?

17.) Do you plan to release Florida or other panthers or mountain lions
(since they are all the same species) on these Federal acres or TNC acres
that you are now closing or plan to close (ala wolves in Yellowstone)?

18.) What is the State (of Arkansas or fill in your own State here) position
on FWS releasing Florida panthers or other such animals without State
permission or authority? (If your State would go along with this business -
you need a new Governor, State Legislative majority and especially an
overhauled State fish and wildlife agency.)

19.) What control do you (FWS) have over the environmental and animal rights
organizations that (as with the spotted owl, wolf, etc.) force more
restrictive regulations and government actions and citizen oppression
through spurious lawsuits in Federal Courts?  If none, how can any of us
believe what you tell us about the future human impact from this species'
"discovery"?

20.) Will spring turkey hunting or summer fishing or outboard motors be
allowed on public or private lands declared to have, or potentially have, or
used to have IBW's?

This is all I have time for now because I have to go to a meeting.  Let me
know if you need more.

Jim Beers
25 June 2005

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.  Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net