R L SUBMITTS REASON TO VOTE

Part 1

In just one year .  Remember the election in 2006? 
Thought you might like to read the following: 
A little over one year ago: 

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. 

Since voting in a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006 we have seen: 

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon; 
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase); 
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); 
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; 
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 

America voted for ‘change’ in 2006, and we got it! 

Remember it’s Congress that makes the law, not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him. 

    Quote of the Day……..’My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.’ — Barack Obama 

    Part 2:

    Taxes…Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
     www.taxfoundation.org/publ ications/show/151.html

    Taxes under Clinton 1999                   Taxes under Bush 2008
    Single making 30K – tax $8,400              Single making 30K – tax $4,500
    Single making 50K – tax $14,000          Single making 50K – tax $12,500
    Single making 75K – tax $23,250          Single making 75K – tax $18,750
    Married making 60K – tax $16,800       Married making 60K- tax $9,000
    Married making 75K – tax $21,000       Married making 75K – tax $18,750
    Married making 125K – tax $38,750     Married making 125K – tax $31,250

    Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

    It is amazing how many people who fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people who fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.

PART 3:

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
      Read this:

Boy am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.                                                                                                      
I have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.

1.      $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments.     Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2.      $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3.      $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4.     $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at:  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5.      $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the

American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by the illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12.  The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of  between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
Verify at:  http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14.  ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million
Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. 

Are  we  Voters  that  stupid?
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message.  If, on the other
hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you
forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in
Washington, D.C. – five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof….

      I  say  America  needs  to Vote  !!!!…

KARAN BERRY SUBMITS RON PAUL ARTICLE ON BAILING OUT BANKS

There has been a lot of talk in the news recently about the Federal Reserve and the actions it has taken over the past few months. Many media pundits have been bending over backwards to praise the Fed for supposedly restoring stability to the market. This interpretation of the Fed’s actions couldn’t be further from the truth.

The current market crisis began because of Federal Reserve monetary policy during the early 2000s in which the Fed lowered the interest rate to a below-market rate. The artificially low rates led to overinvestment in housing and other malinvestments. When the first indications of market trouble began back in August of 2007, instead of holding back and allowing bad decision-makers to suffer the consequences of their actions, the Federal Reserve took aggressive, inflationary action to ensure that large Wall Street firms would not lose money. It began by lowering the discount rates, the rates of interest charged to banks who borrow directly from the Fed, and lengthening the terms of such loans. This eliminated much of the stigma from discount window borrowing and enabled troubled banks to come to the Fed directly for funding, pay only a slightly higher interest rate but also secure these loans for a period longer than just overnight.
After the massive increase in discount window lending proved to be ineffective, the Fed became more and more creative with its funding arrangements. It has since created the Term Auction Facility (TAF), the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF), and the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF). The upshot of all of these new programs is that through auctions of securities or through deposits of collateral, the Fed is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars of funding into the financial system in a misguided attempt to shore up the stability of the system.
The PDCF in particular is a departure from the established pattern of Fed intervention because it targets the primary dealers, the largest investment banks who purchase government securities directly from the New York Fed. These banks have never before been allowed to borrow from the Fed, but thanks to the Fed Board of Governors, these investment banks can now receive loans from the Fed in exchange for securities which will in all likelihood soon lose much of their value.
The net effect of all this new funding has been to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system and bail out banks whose poor decision making should have caused them to go out of business. Instead of being forced to learn their lesson, these poor-performing banks are being rewarded for their financial mismanagement, and the ultimate cost of this bailout will fall on the American taxpayers. Already this new money flowing into the system is spurring talk of the next speculative bubble, possibly this time in commodities.
Worst of all, the Treasury Department has recently proposed that the Federal Reserve, which was responsible for the housing bubble and subprime crisis in the first place, be rewarded for all its intervention by being turned into a super-regulator. The Treasury foresees the Fed as the guarantor of market stability, with oversight over any financial institution that could pose a threat to the financial system. Rewarding poor performing financial institutions is bad enough, but rewarding the institution that enabled the current economic crisis is unconscionable.   Ron Paul

 


POSITIVE LAW, TITLE 16, TITLE 28, THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE ESA

The Endangered Species Act has never been enacted into positive law, which applies within the states and to all Citizens.  Title 1 USC, Section 204 (notes) states Title 16 has never been enacted into ‘positive’ law.  28 USC Section 1603 defines “United States” as it only applies where the United States has been ceded jurisdiction by the sovereign states, of which New Mexico is a sovereign state.  New Mexico has not ceded state sovereignty to the United States. 

The Endangered Species Act has not been made into positive law.  The ESA only applies with in the United States as defined by 28 USC Section 1603.  Unless the ESA or defined expansion of federal authority and jurisdiction are enumerated by Artile 1 Section 8, the ESA does not apply to the sovereigns of New Mexico.  Below are the USC, CFR, and Congressional acts that define the United States, the jurisdiction of the United States and the mission and authority of the U.S. Forest Service.  Thanks for Dan Martinez guiding my research. 


TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 3 > § 204

Prev | Next

§ 204. Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

How Current is This?

 

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States—

(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

(b) District of Columbia Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of the District of Columbia current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature.

(c) District of Columbia Code; citation.— The Code of the District of Columbia may be cited as “D.C. Code”.

(d) Supplements to Codes; citation.— Supplements to the Code of Laws of the United States and to the Code of the District of Columbia may be cited, respectively, as “U.S.C., Sup.  ”, and “D.C. Code, Sup.  ”, the blank in each case being filled with Roman figures denoting the number of the supplement.

(e) New edition of Codes; citation.— New editions of each of such codes may be cited, respectively, as “U.S.C.,  ed.”, ed.”, the blank in each case being filled with figures    and “D.C. Code,  denoting the last year the legislation of which is included in whole or in part.

 


TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 > § 1603

Prev | Next

§ 1603. Definitions

How Current is This?

For purposes of this chapter—

(a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).

(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—

(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and

(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and

(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

(c) The “United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.

(e) A “commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.

 

Section 8: Powers of Congress

[edit] Enumerated powers

Main article: Enumerated powers

Congress’s powers are enumerated in Section Eight:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

TITLE 40 > SUBTITLE II > PART A > CHAPTER 31 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3111

Prev | Next

§ 3111. Approval of sufficiency of title prior to acquisition

How Current is This?

(a) Approval of Attorney General Required.— Public money may not be expended to purchase land or any interest in land unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to the land for the purpose for which the Federal Government is acquiring the property.

(b) Delegation.—

(1) In general.— The Attorney General may delegate the responsibility under this section to other departments and agencies of the Government, subject to general supervision by the Attorney General and in accordance with regulations the Attorney General prescribes.

(2) Request for opinion of attorney general.— A department or agency of the Government that has been delegated the responsibility to approve land titles under this section may request the Attorney General to render an opinion as to the validity of the title to any real property or interest in the property, or may request the advice or assistance of the Attorney General in connection with determinations as to the sufficiency of titles.

(c) Payment of Expenses for Procuring Certificates of Title.— Except where otherwise authorized by law or provided by contract, the expenses of procuring certificates of titles or other evidences of title as the Attorney General may require may be paid out of the appropriations for the acquisition of land or out of the appropriations made for the contingencies of the acquiring department or agency of the Government.

(d) Nonapplication.— This section does not affect any provision of law in effect on September 1, 1970, that is applicable to the acquisition of land or interests in land by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

 

TITLE 40 > SUBTITLE II > PART A > CHAPTER 31 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3112

Prev | Next

§ 3112. Federal jurisdiction

How Current is This?

(a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required.— It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.

(b) Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction.— When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.

(c) Presumption.— It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.

 

Title 16: Commercial Practices
PART 0—ORGANIZATION

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 0.5   Laws authorizing monetary claims.

The Commission is authorized to entertain monetary claims against it under three statutes. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671–2680) provides that the United States will be liable for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their employment or office. The Military Personnel and Civilian Employees Claims Act of 1964 (31 U.S.C. 3701, 3721) authorizes the Commission to compensate employees’ claims for damage to or loss of personal property incident to their service. The Equal Access to Justice Act (5 U.S.C. 504 and 28 U.S.C. 2412) provides that an eligible prevailing party other than the United States will be awarded fees and expenses incurred in connection with any adversary adjudicative and court proceeding, unless the adjudicative officer finds that the agency was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. In addition, eligible parties, including certain small businesses, will be awarded fees and expenses incurred in defending against an agency demand that is substantially in excess of the final decision of the adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with such decision under the facts and circumstances of the case, unless the adjudicative officer finds that the party has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith, or special circumstances make an award unjust. Questions may be addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, (202) 326–2462.

 

Title 36 CODE FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Subpart B—Functions and

Procedures

§ 200.3 Forest Service functions.

(a)    Legislative authority. The basic

laws authorizing activities of the Forest

Service are set forth in the U.S.C.

in title 7 (Agriculture), chapters 14, 17,

33, 55, 59, and 61; title 16 (Conservation),

chapters 2, 3, 4, 5C, 6, 23, 27, 28, 30, 36,

and 37; title 29 (Labor), chapter 17; and

title 43 (Public Lands), chapters 22 and

35.

(b)    Work of the Forest Service. Under

delegated authority from the Secretary

of Agriculture, the broad responsibilities

of the Forest Service are:

(1)  Leadership in forestry. The Forest Service provides overall leadership in forest and forest-range conservation,

development, and use. This involves determination

of forestry conditions and

requirements, and recommendations of

policies and programs needed to keep

the Nation’s private and public lands

fully productive.

(2)  National Forest System administration.

(i)    The Forest Service administers

and manages the National Forest System

lands in accordance with the Multiple-

Use Sustained-Yield Act of June

12, 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531); the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (16

U.S.C. 1600–1614); and the National Forest

Management Act of October 22, 1976

(16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 500, 513–516, 521b;

576b, 1600–1602, 1604, 1606, 1608–1614).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 10:32 Aug 01, 2007 Jkt 211136 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\211136.XXX 211136 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with CFR

10

§ 200.4 36 CFR Ch. II (7–1–07 Edition)

(ii)   The National Forest System comprises

about 188 million acres of land in

the National Forests, National Grasslands,

and other areas which have been

transferred to the Forest Service for

administration. On these public lands:

(A) Forestry methods are applied in

growing and harvesting timber,

(B) Forage is scientifically managed

for the use of domestic livestock whose

numbers are kept in balance with the

carrying capacity of the range,

(C) Wildlife habitat and species are

managed,

(D) Watersheds are managed to safeguard the water supply and stabilize streamflow,

(E) Recreation resources are managed

for public enjoyment and benefit,

(F) Many forms of land and resource use are granted under permit or lease, and

(G) Physical and resource improvements needed to develop, protect, and use all resources are built and maintained.

(3)  Cooperative forestry. The Forest

Service carries out cooperative forestry

programs for public benefit

through programs initiated by State,

county, and other Federal agencies in

accordance with the Cooperative Forestry

Assistance Act of July 1, 1978 (16

U.S.C. 2101–2111). These programs are

directed at the protection, development,

and sustained production of all

forestry resources, both public and private.

(4)  Forest research. The Forest Service

conducts research on problems involving

protection, development, management,

renewal, and continuous use of

all resources, products, values, and

services of forest lands in accordance

with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of June

30, 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1641–1647). Research is

conducted on:

(i)   Forest and range management, including

the five basic resources of timber,

forest soil and water, range forage,

wildlife and fish habitat, and forest

recreation,

(ii)  Forest protection from fire, insects,

and disease,

(iii) Forest products and engineering,

and

(iv) Forest resource economics including forest survey, forest economics, and forest products marketing.

[44 FR 37505, June 27, 1979]

§ 200.4 Administrative issuances.

(a)  The regulations of the Secretary

of Agriculture governing the protection

and administration of National

Forest System lands and other programs

of the Forest Service are set

forth in Chapter 2 of Title 36 of the

Code of Federal Regulations.

(b)  Administrative policy, procedure,

and guidance to Forest Service employees

for the conduct of Forest Service

activities are issued as directives,

or through correspondence, by the office

of the Chief of the Forest Service

and by the field officers listed in § 200.2.

(1)  Directives are issued through the

Forest Service Directive System,

which is comprised of the Forest Service

Manual and related Forest Service

Handbooks. The Directive System codifies

the agency’s policy, practice, and

procedure affecting more than one unit

and the delegations of continuing authority

and assignment of continuing

responsibilities; serves as the primary

administrative basis for the internal

management and control of all programs;

and is the primary source of administrative

direction to Forest Service

employees.

(2)  In contrast to direction issued

through the Directive System, guidance

issued to one or more organizational

units through letters and memoranda

relate to decisions or interpretations

on specific activities, cases, or incidents

or to other matters of agency

business, especially those matters of

short-term duration or immediate interest.

(c)  Forest Service Directive System issuances are published under delegated authority as follows:

(1)  The Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook issuances to all Forest Service units are published

(2)  Forest Service Manual and Forest

Service Handbook issuances may be

supplemented as needed for field office

use by a Regional Forester, a Regional

VerDate Aug

 

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1604

Prev | Next

§ 1604. National Forest System land and resource management plans

How Current is This?

(a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary of Agriculture as part of program; coordination

As a part of the Program provided for by section 1602 of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System, coordinated with the land and resource management planning processes of State and local governments and other Federal agencies.

(b) Criteria

In the development and maintenance of land management plans for use on units of the National Forest System, the Secretary shall use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences.

(c) Incorporation of standards and guidelines by Secretary; time of completion; progress reports; existing management plans

The Secretary shall begin to incorporate the standards and guidelines required by this section in plans for units of the National Forest System as soon as practicable after October 22, 1976, and shall attempt to complete such incorporation for all such units by no later than September 30, 1985. The Secretary shall report to the Congress on the progress of such incorporation in the annual report required by section 1606 (c) of this title. Until such time as a unit of the National Forest System is managed under plans developed in accordance with this subchapter, the management of such unit may continue under existing land and resource management plans.

(d) Public participation in management plans; availability of plans; public meetings

The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the development, review, and revision of land management plans including, but not limited to, making the plans or revisions available to the public at convenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit for a period of at least three months before final adoption, during which period the Secretary shall publicize and hold public meetings or comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in the review of such plans or revisions.

(e) Required assurances

In developing, maintaining, and revising plans for units of the National Forest System pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall assure that such plans—

(1) provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C. 528–531], and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness; and

(2) determine forest management systems, harvesting levels, and procedures in the light of all of the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the definition of the terms “multiple use” and “sustained yield” as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and the availability of lands and their suitability for resource management.

(f) Required provisions

Plans developed in accordance with this section shall—

(1) form one integrated plan for each unit of the National Forest System, incorporating in one document or one set of documents, available to the public at convenient locations, all of the features required by this section;

(2) be embodied in appropriate written material, including maps and other descriptive documents, reflecting proposed and possible actions, including the planned timber sale program and the proportion of probable methods of timber harvest within the unit necessary to fulfill the plan;

(3) be prepared by an interdisciplinary team. Each team shall prepare its plan based on inventories of the applicable resources of the forest;

(4) be amended in any manner whatsoever after final adoption after public notice, and, if such amendment would result in a significant change in such plan, in accordance with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this section; and

(5) be revised

(A) from time to time when the Secretary finds conditions in a unit have significantly changed, but at least every fifteen years, and

(B) in accordance with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of this section and public involvement comparable to that required by subsection (d) of this section.

(g) Promulgation of regulations for development and revision of plans; environmental considerations; resource management guidelines; guidelines for land management plans

As soon as practicable, but not later than two years after October 22, 1976, the Secretary shall in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 553 of title 5, promulgate regulations, under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 U.S.C. 528–531] that set out the process for the development and revision of the land management plans, and the guidelines and standards prescribed by this subsection. The regulations shall include, but not be limited to—

(1) specifying procedures to insure that land management plans are prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.], including, but not limited to, direction on when and for what plans an environmental impact statement required under section 102(2)(C) of that Act [42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(C)] shall be prepared;

(2) specifying guidelines which—

(A) require the identification of the suitability of lands for resource management;

(B) provide for obtaining inventory data on the various renewable resources, and soil and water, including pertinent maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids; and

(C) provide for methods to identify special conditions or situations involving hazards to the various resources and their relationship to alternative activities;

(3) specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals of the Program which—

(A) insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish;

(B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan;

(C) insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land;

(D) permit increases in harvest levels based on intensified management practices, such as reforestation, thinning, and tree improvement if

(i) such practices justify increasing the harvests in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and

(ii) such harvest levels are decreased at the end of each planning period if such practices cannot be successfully implemented or funds are not received to permit such practices to continue substantially as planned;

(E) insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where—

(i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged;

(ii) there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest;

(iii) protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat; and

(iv) the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber; and

(F) insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an evenaged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where—

(i) for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan;

(ii) the interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, esthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area;

(iii) cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;

(iv) there are established according to geographic areas, forest types, or other suitable classifications the maximum size limits for areas to be cut in one harvest operation, including provision to exceed the established limits after appropriate public notice and review by the responsible Forest Service officer one level above the Forest Service officer who normally would approve the harvest proposal: Provided, That such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm; and

(v) such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource.

(h) Scientific committee to aid in promulgation of regulations; termination; revision committees; clerical and technical assistance; compensation of committee members

(1) In carrying out the purposes of subsection (g) of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall appoint a committee of scientists who are not officers or employees of the Forest Service. The committee shall provide scientific and technical advice and counsel on proposed guidelines and procedures to assure that an effective interdisciplinary approach is proposed and adopted. The committee shall terminate upon promulgation of the regulations, but the Secretary may, from time to time, appoint similar committees when considering revisions of the regulations. The views of the committees shall be included in the public information supplied when the regulations are proposed for adoption.

(2) Clerical and technical assistance, as may be necessary to discharge the duties of the committee, shall be provided from the personnel of the Department of Agriculture.

(3) While attending meetings of the committee, the members shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate of $100 per diem, including traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.

(i) Consistency of resource plans, permits, contracts, and other instruments with land management plans; revision

Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans. Those resource plans and permits, contracts, and other such instruments currently in existence shall be revised as soon as practicable to be made consistent with such plans. When land management plans are revised, resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments, when necessary, shall be revised as soon as practicable. Any revision in present or future permits, contracts, and other instruments made pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(j) Effective date of land management plans and revisions

Land management plans and revisions shall become effective thirty days after completion of public participation and publication of notification by the Secretary as required under subsection (d) of this section.

(k) Development of land management plans

In developing land management plans pursuant to this subchapter, the Secretary shall identify lands within the management area which are not suited for timber production, considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent feasible, as determined by the Secretary, and shall assure that, except for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other multiple-use values, no timber harvesting shall occur on such lands for a period of 10 years. Lands once identified as unsuitable for timber production shall continue to be treated for reforestation purposes, particularly with regard to the protection of other multiple-use values. The Secretary shall review his decision to classify these lands as not suited for timber production at least every 10 years and shall return these lands to timber production whenever he determines that conditions have changed so that they have become suitable for timber production.

(l) Program evaluation; process for estimating long-term costs and benefits; summary of data included in annual report

The Secretary shall—

(1) formulate and implement, as soon as practicable, a process for estimating long-terms [1] costs and benefits to support the program evaluation requirements of this subchapter. This process shall include requirements to provide information on a representative sample basis of estimated expenditures associated with the reforestation, timber stand improvement, and sale of timber from the National Forest System, and shall provide a comparison of these expenditures to the return to the Government resulting from the sale of timber; and

(2) include a summary of data and findings resulting from these estimates as a part of the annual report required pursuant to section 1606 (c) of this title, including an identification on a representative sample basis of those advertised timber sales made below the estimated expenditures for such timber as determined by the above cost process; and [2]

(m) Establishment of standards to ensure culmination of mean annual increment of growth; silvicultural practices; salvage harvesting; exceptions

The Secretary shall establish—

(1) standards to insure that, prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the National Forest System shall generally have reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth (calculated on the basis of cubic measurement or other methods of calculation at the discretion of the Secretary): Provided, That these standards shall not preclude the use of sound silvicultural practices, such as thinning or other stand improvement measures: Provided further, That these standards shall not preclude the Secretary from salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack; and

(2) exceptions to these standards for the harvest of particular species of trees in management units after consideration has been given to the multiple uses of the forest including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range and after completion of public participation processes utilizing the procedures of subsection (d) of this section.

 

PROPOSED PELONCILLO REGION WILDERNESS

Subject: Proposed NCA for the Peloncillo Region: Trying to Preserve Wild Land
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:07:40 -0600

Every once in awhile it’s good to reach back into the past and pull up some information that may have previously slipped by unnoticed.  So here’s an article – originally published in the Albuquerque Journal in June of 1997 – that needs to be repeated.  Unfortunately, the article can not found on the web, it was written before such items got posted to the internet.  I still have the original article if you care to view it!!
The newly proposed National Conservation Area (NCA) for the Peloncillo Mountains has its roots in this article.  I was sending this information to a gentleman I met yesterday and thought I’d better pass it along for your review too.  Perhaps it will lend some understanding as to what is being planned for our area.
Please note the Wildlands Project, as stated in this article, calls for using conservation biology….  “The idea is to design natural areas for the benefit of animals requiring the most space — bears, wolves, bison and jaguars, for example.”  Conservation biologists call these “umbrella species.”  The theory on which the Wildlands Project is based claims that protecting these species will result “automatically in protection for other plant and animal species.”
The Wildlands Project, as published in 1992, calls for “wilderness areas” to become the “core areas” – home to “unfettered life, free from industrial human intervention …. Vast landscapes without roads, dams, motorized vehicles, powerlines, overflights, or other artifacts of civilization” that must be designed to “save biodiversity.”  Although the land-use restrictions in the buffer zones and corridors “would be less restrictive than in the core areas”, the plan does call for these areas to be managed by federal agencies to protect their “wilderness qualities”.  Within the preserve design would be “wilderness core areas”, with “buffer zones around those cores and corridors connecting the core areas”.
The Wildlands Project is based on the concept that large preserves such as “the “Greater Gila Sky Islands” are needed to protect large “umbrella species”.  Initially, it was planned to “encompass 40,000 square miles, roughly half of which would be in Mexico”.  Just a few years later the preserve design had grown to “70,000 acres”.  It’s anybody’s guess how many acres it has morphed into today.
The Wildlands Project, as acknowledged in this article, is a “theory” folks – an experiment that will be performed on us, the local landowners!!
I’ve attached the map for the proposed “Peloncillo Coordinated Management and Protected Area Planning Boundary”.  It came with the “Executive Summary” for the NCA.  If you’d like to read the executive summary, drop David Hodges, Sky Island Alliance, a note:  dhodges@skyislandalliance.org
Feel free to pass this along!!  I believe everyone who will be impacted by this agenda should get a heads up on what the Sky Island/Nature Conservancy is proposing for our area.  Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, all the NCA will do is take away the private property rights of the people living within its boundaries.  Everyone needs to know what is being planned for their property.
Why do I include the Nature Conservancy?  In my opinion, they are inextricably involved in this planning process.  Other areas all over our nation are already being impacted by this HUGE agenda.
Do your homework.  If you would like to read what a NCA did for landowners in California – please read this article:
Maybe it’s time for a congressional investigation into how the Wildlands Project is being used to determine land-use planning in the New Mexico and Arizona, as well as the other states in our nation.
Judy
The underlines and emphasis were not in the original article.  These have been added by me.


Albuquerque Journal

June 15, 1997

TRYING TO PRESERVE WILD LAND

Mike Taugher Journal Staff Writer

WILD NEW MEXICO: A Delicate Balance

* Conservationists and biologists are working together on a plan to design vast nature reserves

Think of those most lightly touched of western lands — the national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas — as islands in a sea of civilization.

To a growing number of conservationists and biologists, that’s exactly what they are.

And in the field of conservation biology, where scientists agree that steps must be taken to preserve biodiversity, the view is that those islands are not only necessary but may have to be expanded for the survival of numerous plant and animal species.

Conservationists and biologists are working together on a plan to design vast nature reserves around these protected islands.

The Wildlands Project is highly ambitious, if not radical, because it would remap chunks of North America from a conservation biologist’s point of view. Today, it has a small paid staff based in Tucson and a budget of about $500,000, mostly from grants and some individual donations.

Co-founded by Dave Foreman, an Albuquerque resident who in 1980 co-founded the radical environmental group Earth First!, the Wildlands Project shows how over the last few decades wilderness advocates have shifted some of their emphasis on wilderness as a place for scenery and recreation to wilderness as a place for preservation of plant and animal species.

“A lot of this stuff, it’s always been there. It’s just that as we become more and more aware of the extinction crisis going on and the importance of wilderness in preserving that, the ecological values became more and more emphasized,” said Foreman, who has long since disassociated himself from Earth First! because “they turned into a bunch of left-wing, counter-culture radicals.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, wilderness advocates concentrated on high mountain areas that were typically pretty, attractive to users of the outdoors and where wilderness designation was not too objectionable to commercial interests, Foreman said.

The result was that wilderness areas were designated in scenic, high-altitude areas that were beautiful but not necessarily rich in trees, minerals or grazing land.

“We’ve done a really good job of protecting alpine tundra but we’ve done a really poor job of protecting riparian areas. Most of that is due to a recreational bias. Part of it is entirely a practical matter. There hasn’t been a lot of conflict over alpine tundra, but there has been a lot of conflict over riparian areas,” Foreman said.

One of the Wildlands Project’s first proposals would be in southwestern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and northern Mexico.

In its preliminary form, the “Greater Gila Sky Islandsreserve would encompass 40,000 square miles, roughly half of which would be in Mexico. Within that area would be wilderness core areas, buffer zones around those cores and corridors connecting the core areas. Land-use restrictions in the buffer zones would be less restrictive than in the core areas.

The organization for the most part is keeping its cards close to the vest, but it plans to release detailed maps for the Greater Gila Sky Islands project in about a year.

“This is going to be a very political thing in the future,” said Jack Humphrey, program coordinator for the Sky Islands Alliance, an organization formed to design the biological reserve.

“This is the most ambitious thing the conservation movement has ever thought about, and it’s in its infancy still,” he added. “If it takes 200 years, it takes 200 years. This land isn’t going anywhere.”

Humphrey pointed to the bison that were shot after they migrated out of Yellowstone National Park as an example of the need for such designs. Many of those bison were shot because of ranchers’ fears that they might bring disease to their cattle. The Wildlands Project’s cores, buffers and corridors would take into account the space bison need.

The idea is to design natural areas for the benefit of animals requiring the most space — bears, wolves, bison and jaguars, for example. Conservation biologists call those “umbrella species.” The theory on which the Wildlands Project is based says that protecting those species will result automatically in protection for other plant and animal species.

The theory is that if animals at the top of the food chain are protected, the lower species also should flourish. That theory, Foreman and Humphrey said, never has been tested.

Once the maps are completed, wildlands supporters would try to implement the plan by purchasing private land or conservation easements on private land, by influencing planning processes for public lands and through congressional action, for example.

In some cases it’s going to be just a tweaking of a management plan. In other areas, it’s going to take wilderness designation,” Humphrey said.

As proof that the Wildlands Project may not be as pie-in-the-sky as it seems, supporters point to an effort in Florida to protect about half of that state’s land for wildlife. The state Legislature there appropriated $3 billion for the effort, according to Wildlands Project supporters.

Supporters say they may have an advantage in western states that doesn’t exist in Florida: There is a lot more public land out here.


*NOTE: 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

document.getElementById(“MsgContainer”).innerHTML=’FYI\x3cbr\x3e\x3cbr\x3eNote\x3a forwarded message attached.\x3cp\x3e \x0d\x0a \x3chr size\x3d1\x3eBe a better friend, newshound, and \x0d\x0aknow-it-all with Yahoo\x21 Mobile. \x3ca href\x3d\x22http\x3a\x2f\x2fus.rd.yahoo.com\x2fevt\x3d51733\x2f\x2ahttp\x3a\x2f\x2fmobile.yahoo.com\x2f\x3b_ylt\x3dAhu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ \x22 target\x3d\x22_blank\x22\x3e Try it now.\x3c\x2fa\x3e\x3cblockquote\x3e–Forwarded Message Attachment–\x3cbr\x3eFrom\x3a jfkeeler\x40vtc.net\x3cbr\x3eTo\x3a \x3b\x3cbr\x3eSubject\x3a Proposed NCA for the Peloncillo Region\x3a Trying to Preserve Wild Land\x3cbr\x3eDate\x3a Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19\x3a07\x3a40 -0600\x3cbr\x3e\x3cbr\x3e\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x3cmeta http-equiv\x3dContent-Type content\x3d\x22text\x2fhtml\x3b charset\x3dunicode\x22\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cmeta name\x3dGenerator content\x3d\x22Microsoft SafeHTML\x22\x3e\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x3cstyle\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fstyle\x3e\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\x3cfont face\x3d\x22Comic Sans MS\x22 size\x3d2\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eEvery once in awhile it\x27s good to reach back into the past and pull up some \x0d\x0ainformation that may have previously slipped by unnoticed.\u00a0 So here\x27s an \x0d\x0aarticle – originally published in the Albuquerque Journal in June of 1997 – that \x0d\x0aneeds to be repeated.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the article can not found on the web, \x0d\x0ait was written before such items got posted to the internet.\u00a0 I still have \x0d\x0athe original article if you care to\u00a0view it\x21\x21 \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eThe newly proposed National Conservation Area \x28NCA\x29 for the Peloncillo \x0d\x0aMountains has its roots in this article.\u00a0 I was sending this information to \x0d\x0aa gentleman I met yesterday and thought I\x27d better pass it along for your review \x0d\x0atoo.\u00a0 Perhaps it will lend some understanding as to what is being planned \x0d\x0afor our area. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3ePlease note the Wildlands Project, as stated in this article, calls for \x0d\x0ausing conservation biology….\u00a0 \x26quot\x3bThe idea is to design natural areas for \x0d\x0athe benefit of animals requiring the most space — bears, wolves, bison and \x0d\x0ajaguars, for example.\x26quot\x3b\u00a0 Conservation biologists call these \x26quot\x3bumbrella \x0d\x0aspecies.\x26quot\x3b\u00a0 The theory on which the Wildlands Project is based claims that \x0d\x0aprotecting these species will result \x26quot\x3bautomatically in protection for other \x0d\x0aplant and animal species.\x26quot\x3b \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eThe Wildlands Project, as published in 1992, calls for \x26quot\x3bwilderness areas\x26quot\x3b \x0d\x0ato become the \x26quot\x3bcore areas\x26quot\x3b – home to \x26quot\x3bunfettered life, free from industrial \x0d\x0ahuman intervention …. Vast landscapes without roads, dams, motorized vehicles, \x0d\x0apowerlines, overflights, or other artifacts of civilization\x26quot\x3b that must be \x0d\x0adesigned to \x26quot\x3bsave biodiversity.\x26quot\x3b\u00a0 Although the land-use restrictions in the \x0d\x0abuffer zones and corridors \x26quot\x3bwould be less restrictive than in the core areas\x26quot\x3b, \x0d\x0athe plan does call for these areas to be managed by federal agencies to protect \x0d\x0atheir \x26quot\x3bwilderness qualities\x26quot\x3b.\u00a0 Within the preserve design would be \x0d\x0a\x26quot\x3bwilderness core areas\x26quot\x3b, with \x26quot\x3bbuffer zones around those cores and corridors \x0d\x0aconnecting the core areas\x26quot\x3b. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eThe Wildlands Project is based on the concept that large preserves such as \x0d\x0a\x26quot\x3bthe \x26quot\x3bGreater Gila Sky Islands\x26quot\x3b are needed to protect large \x26quot\x3bumbrella \x0d\x0aspecies\x26quot\x3b.\u00a0 Initially,\u00a0it was planned\u00a0to \x26quot\x3bencompass 40,000 square \x0d\x0amiles, roughly half of which would be in Mexico\x26quot\x3b.\u00a0 Just a few years later \x0d\x0athe preserve design had grown to \x26quot\x3b70,000 acres\x26quot\x3b.\u00a0 It\x27s anybody\x27s \x0d\x0aguess\u00a0how many acres\u00a0it has morphed\u00a0into today. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eThe Wildlands Project, as acknowledged in this article, is a \x26quot\x3btheory\x26quot\x3b folks \x0d\x0a- an experiment that will be performed on us, the local landowners\x21\x21 \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eI\x27ve attached the map for the proposed \x26quot\x3bPeloncillo Coordinated Management \x0d\x0aand Protected Area Planning Boundary\x26quot\x3b.\u00a0 It came with the \x26quot\x3bExecutive \x0d\x0aSummary\x26quot\x3b for the NCA.\u00a0 If you\x27d like to read the executive summary, drop \x0d\x0aDavid Hodges, Sky Island Alliance, a note\x3a\u00a0 \x3ca href\x3d\x22mailto\x3adhodges\x40skyislandalliance.org\x22\x3edhodges\x40skyislandalliance.org\x3c\x2fa\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eFeel free to pass this along\x21\x21\u00a0 I believe everyone who will be \x0d\x0aimpacted by this agenda should get a heads up on what the Sky Island\x2fNature \x0d\x0aConservancy is proposing for our area.\u00a0 Unfortunately, in my humble \x0d\x0aopinion, all the NCA will do is take away the private property rights of the \x0d\x0apeople living within its boundaries.\u00a0 Everyone needs to know what is being \x0d\x0aplanned for their property. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eWhy do I include the Nature Conservancy\x3f\u00a0 In my opinion, they are \x0d\x0ainextricably involved in this planning process.\u00a0 Other areas all over our \x0d\x0anation are already being impacted by this HUGE agenda. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eDo your homework.\u00a0 If you would like to read what a NCA did for \x0d\x0alandowners in California – please read this article\x3a\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \x3ca href\x3d\x22http\x3a\x2f\x2fwww.rangemagazine.com\x2farchives\x2fstories\x2ffall99\x2fstrange_equality.htm\x22 target\x3d\x22_blank\x22\x3ehttp\x3a\x2f\x2fwww.rangemagazine.com\x2farchives\x2fstories\x2ffall99\x2fstrange_equality.htm\x3c\x2fa\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eMaybe it\x27s time for a congressional investigation into how the Wildlands \x0d\x0aProject is being used to determine land-use planning in the New Mexico and \x0d\x0aArizona, as well as the other states in our nation. \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eJudy \x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\u00a0\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3eThe underlines and emphasis were not in the original article.\u00a0 These \x0d\x0ahave been added by me.\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x3c\x2ffont\x3e\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\x3cfont face\x3d\x22Comic Sans MS\x22 size\x3d2\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3chr\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp class\x3dEC_MsoNormal style\x3d\x22\x22\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eAlbuquerque \x0d\x0aJournal\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp class\x3dEC_MsoNormal style\x3d\x22\x22\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eJune \x0d\x0a15, 1997\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3ch2 style\x3d\x22\x22\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eTRYING TO \x3cem\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3ePRESERVE\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fem\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3cem\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eWILD\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fem\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3cem\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eLAND\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fem\x3e\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fh2\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp class\x3dEC_MsoNormal style\x3d\x22\x22\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eMike \x0d\x0aTaugher Journal Staff Writer\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eWILD \x0d\x0aNEW MEXICO\x3a A Delicate Balance\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x2a \x0d\x0aConservationists and biologists are working together on a plan to design vast \x0d\x0anature reserves\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThink \x0d\x0aof those most lightly touched of western lands — the national parks, wildlife \x0d\x0arefuges and wilderness areas — as islands in a sea of \x0d\x0acivilization.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eTo \x0d\x0aa growing number of conservationists and biologists, that\x27s exactly what they \x0d\x0aare.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eAnd \x0d\x0ain the field of conservation biology, where scientists agree that steps must be \x0d\x0ataken to preserve biodiversity, the view is that those islands are not only \x0d\x0anecessary but may have to be expanded for the survival of numerous plant and \x0d\x0aanimal species\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eConservationists \x0d\x0aand biologists are working together on a plan to design \x3cu\x3evast nature \x0d\x0areserves\x3c\x2fu\x3e around these protected islands.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThe \x0d\x0aWildlands Project\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e is \x0d\x0ahighly ambitious, if not radical, because it would remap chunks of North America \x0d\x0afrom a conservation biologist\x27s point of view. Today, it has a small paid staff \x0d\x0abased in Tucson and a budget of about \x24500,000, mostly from grants and some \x0d\x0aindividual donations.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eCo-founded \x0d\x0aby Dave Foreman\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e, \x0d\x0aan Albuquerque resident who in 1980 co-founded the radical environmental group \x0d\x0a\x3cu\x3eEarth First\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x21, the \x3cu\x3eWildlands Project\x3c\x2fu\x3e shows how over the last few \x0d\x0adecades wilderness advocates have shifted some of their emphasis on wilderness \x0d\x0aas a place for scenery and recreation to \x3cu\x3ewilderness as a place for \x0d\x0apreservation of plant and animal species.\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x26quot\x3bA \x0d\x0alot of this stuff, it\x27s always been there. It\x27s just that as we become more and \x0d\x0amore aware of the \x3cu\x3eextinction crisis\x3c\x2fu\x3e going on and the importance of \x0d\x0awilderness in preserving that, the ecological values became more and more \x0d\x0aemphasized,\x26quot\x3b said Foreman, who has long since disassociated himself from Earth \x0d\x0aFirst\x21 because \x26quot\x3bthey turned into a bunch of left-wing, counter-culture \x0d\x0aradicals.\x26quot\x3b\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eIn \x0d\x0athe 1960s and 1970s, wilderness advocates concentrated on high mountain areas \x0d\x0athat were typically pretty, attractive to users of the outdoors and where \x0d\x0awilderness designation was not too objectionable to commercial interests, \x0d\x0aForeman said.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThe \x0d\x0aresult was that wilderness areas were designated in scenic, high-altitude areas \x0d\x0athat were beautiful but not necessarily rich in trees, minerals or grazing \x0d\x0aland.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x26quot\x3bWe\x27ve \x0d\x0adone a really good job of protecting alpine tundra but \x3cu\x3ewe\x27ve done a really \x0d\x0apoor job of protecting riparian areas\x3c\x2fu\x3e. Most of that is due to a recreational \x0d\x0abias. Part of it is entirely a practical matter. There hasn\x27t been a lot of \x0d\x0aconflict over alpine tundra, but there has been a lot of conflict over riparian \x0d\x0aareas,\x26quot\x3b Foreman said.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eOne \x0d\x0aof the Wildlands Project\x27s first proposals would be in southwestern New Mexico, \x0d\x0asoutheastern Arizona and northern Mexico\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eIn \x0d\x0aits preliminary form, the \x26quot\x3b\x3cu\x3eGreater Gila Sky Islands\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x26quot\x3b \x3cu\x3ereserve\x3c\x2fu\x3e would \x0d\x0aencompass \x3cu\x3e40,000 square miles\x3c\x2fu\x3e, roughly \x3cu\x3ehalf of which would be in \x0d\x0aMexico\x3c\x2fu\x3e. Within that area would be \x3cu\x3ewilderness core areas\x3c\x2fu\x3e, \x3cu\x3ebuffer \x0d\x0azo\x3c\x2fu\x3enes around those cores \x3cu\x3eand corridors connecting the core areas\x3c\x2fu\x3e. \x0d\x0a\x3cu\x3eLand-use restrictions in the buffer zones would be less restrictive than in \x0d\x0athe core areas\x3c\x2fu\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThe \x0d\x0aorganization for the most part is keeping its cards close to the vest, but it \x0d\x0aplans to release detailed maps for the Greater Gila Sky Islands project in about \x0d\x0aa year.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x26quot\x3bThis \x0d\x0ais going to be a very political thing in the future,\x26quot\x3b said Jack Humphrey, \x0d\x0aprogram coordinator for the Sky Islands Alliance, an organization formed to \x0d\x0adesign the biological reserve.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x26quot\x3bThis \x0d\x0ais the most ambitious thing the conservation movement has ever thought about, \x0d\x0aand it\x27s in its infancy still,\x26quot\x3b he added. \x26quot\x3bIf it takes 200 years, it takes 200 \x0d\x0ayears. This land isn\x27t going anywhere.\x26quot\x3b\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eHumphrey \x0d\x0apointed to the bison that were shot after they migrated out of Yellowstone \x0d\x0aNational Park as an example of the need for such designs. Many of those bison \x0d\x0awere shot because of ranchers\x27 fears that they might bring disease to their \x0d\x0acattle. \x3cu\x3eThe Wildlands Project\x27s cores, buffers and corridors would take into \x0d\x0aaccount the space bison need\x3c\x2fu\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThe \x0d\x0aidea is to design natural areas for the benefit of animals requiring the most \x0d\x0aspace\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e — \x0d\x0abears, \x3cfont color\x3d\x22\x23ff0000\x22\x3ewolves\x3c\x2ffont\x3e, bison \x3cfont color\x3d\x22\x23ff0000\x22\x3e\x3cu\x3eand \x0d\x0ajaguars\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2ffont\x3e, for example. Conservation biologists call those \x26quot\x3b\x3cu\x3eumbrella \x0d\x0aspecies\x3c\x2fu\x3e.\x26quot\x3b \x3cu\x3eThe theory\x3c\x2fu\x3e on which the Wildlands Project is based \x3cu\x3esays \x0d\x0athat protecting those species will result automatically in protection for other \x0d\x0aplant and animal species\x3c\x2fu\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eThe \x0d\x0atheory is that if animals at the top of the food chain are protected, the lower \x0d\x0aspecies also should flourish. \x3cu\x3eThat theory\x3c\x2fu\x3e, Foreman and Humphrey said, \x0d\x0a\x3cu\x3enever has been tested\x3c\x2fu\x3e.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eOnce \x0d\x0athe maps are completed\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e, \x0d\x0awildlands supporters would try to \x3cu\x3eimplement the plan by purchasing private \x0d\x0aland or conservation easements on private land,\x3c\x2fu\x3e \x3cu\x3eby influencing planning \x0d\x0aprocesses for public lands\x3c\x2fu\x3e and \x3cu\x3ethrough congressional action,\x3c\x2fu\x3e for \x0d\x0aexample.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x26quot\x3b\x3cu\x3eIn \x0d\x0asome cases it\x27s going to be just a tweaking of a management plan\x3c\x2fu\x3e. In other \x0d\x0aareas, it\x27s going to take wilderness designation,\x26quot\x3b Humphrey \x0d\x0asaid.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eAs \x0d\x0aproof that the Wildlands Project may not be as pie-in-the-sky as it seems, \x0d\x0asupporters point to an effort in Florida to protect about half of that state\x27s \x0d\x0aland for wildlife. The state Legislature there appropriated \x243 billion for the \x0d\x0aeffort, according to Wildlands Project supporters.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cu\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3eSupporters \x0d\x0asay they may have an advantage in western states\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fu\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0athat doesn\x27t exist in Florida\x3a \x3cu\x3eThere is a lot more public land\x3c\x2fu\x3e out \x0d\x0ahere.\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fb\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e \x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bfont-family\x3aVerdana\x22\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3chr\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x3cspan\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3cp\x3e\x3cspan style\x3d\x22font-size\x3a10pt\x3bcolor\x3ablack\x3bfont-family\x3aArial\x22\x3e\x3cfont face\x3d\x22Comic Sans MS\x22\x3e\x2aNOTE\x3a In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any \x0d\x0acopyrighted material\u00a0 herein is distributed without profit or payment to \x0d\x0athose who have expressed\u00a0a\u00a0prior interest in receiving this \x0d\x0ainformation for non-profit research and\u00a0educational purposes only. For more \x0d\x0ainformation go to\x3a \x0d\x0a\u00a0http\x3a\x2f\x2fwww.law.cornell.edu\x2fuscode\x2f17\x2f107.shtml\x3c\x2ffont\x3e\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fp\x3e\x3c\x2fspan\x3e\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x3c\x2ffont\x3e\x3c\x2fdiv\x3e\x0d\x0a\x3c\x2fblockquote\x3e’;

JAGUAR HABITAT IN THE U.S.

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:57 PM
Subject: Jaguar Habitat in the U.S.
Here are a couple of articles and a little historical information that might be of interest to those that are following the lawsuits the Center for Biological Diversity has been filing in regards to jaguar habitat in the U.S. 
Of particular interest, to me, is a quote from Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity, that I found on a blog site from New York-We wanted to set up refuges over here and create breeding populations that might save the species, but the government has said ‘no way’.
Having worked with Michael Robinson, CBD, on the Jaguar Conservation Team over the last few years, I was pretty sure this is what the Center was aiming at but had never seen them put into words before.  When I read the blog, I remembered how Michael had supported Tony Provolitis when Tony introduced the concept of a captive breeding program and reintroduction effort in the Sierra Institute’s proposal entitled, “Jaguar Habitat in Southern Arizona and New Mexico”, in 2000.  This report and its highly questionable recommendations were “adopted” by the Jaguar Conservation Team shortly after its presentation to the Jaguar Habitat Subcommittee.
The Scientific Advisory Group (JAGSAG), however, questioned the wisdom of a captive breeding program and reintroduction program when asked to review the Sierra Institute’s recommendations.  The scientists’ felt jaguars should not be reintroduced into the Southwestern United States based on a host of reasons, including:
* Reintroduction would be expensive and inferior to studying the existing populations in Sonora, Mexico.
* Homing behavior suggested translocation of jaguars would cause the animal to return to their original home ranges. Siting a report on lions, where 9 out of 14 translocated animals died returning to their home range (Ruth et al. 1998), the scientists felt this rate of loss would be unacceptable for jaguars.
* The jaguar situation should be stabilized in Latin America first.
* In addition, capturing and moving animals would only further deplete the existing jaguar population.

Regarding a captive breeding program the scientists made the following comments:

* Such a program would be expensive in time, space and money.
* Captive breeding tends to erode genetics and learned behavior traits.
* Captive bred animals raised in contact with humans are more likely to engage in human and livestock encounters than wild-caught animals (Beldon and McCown, 1996). If such traits were passed from mother jaguar to young, it would not produce a climate sensitive to jaguar conservation.
* The released captive born jaguars would not likely live long enough to produce data on habitat use, and/or the data might not reflect the actual needs of wild jaguars.
Keep in mind as you read the following articles that Michael wrote most of the “science” that is now quoted by the media regarding jaguars habitat in the U.S.  He conveniently forgets the JAGSAG’s review of the Sierra Institute’s report also sites another report (Turner 1997) that suggested jaguars were driven from the Southwestern portion of their former range with the arrival of the lion, not the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services.  The JAGSAG also speculated that lions might have “better adapted to the northern environment” because they “had an advantage in the neotropical forests of Central and South America because of its body size and limb length” indicating that “these same attributes might have become a hindrance when competing with the lions in North America.”
Michael’s claims that jaguars have been extensively documented in New Mexico are also greatly exaggerated.  According to the Jaguar Reports and Records from New Mexico, January 15, 1998, only 21 jaguars have been reported in New Mexico.  These “sightings” took place over a 500 year period from 1540 to 1996 and were not ranked because most did not have any physical evidence to substantiate a credible “sighting” report.
According to Adele L. Girmendonk’s report, Arizona Game and Fish Department, April 1994, “Ocelot, Jaguar and Jaguarondi Sighting Reports: Arizona and Sonora, Mexico”, “There were 82 jaguar reports collected from 1848 to March 1994 in Arizona and one from Sonora.  Only 26 reports were evaluated as credible accounts, of which 17 were confirmed (this includes the three jaguars killed in southern Arizona that were possibly captured in Sonora then released in Arizona).”
As you can see, the Center for Biological Diversity’s “science” is highly inflated and exaggerated.  In addition, the Center fails to consider Alan Rabinowitz, world renown jaguar researcher’s statement: “The fact that southwestern United States is the northern limit of the modern jaguar’s range is not by chance.  The more open, dry habitats of the southwest are marginal for the jaguar in terms of water, cover and prey density”.  Obviously the media does not question the Center’s claims that jaguar habitat exists in the U.S, that will be up to the Jaguar Conservation Team members. 
Contrary to what the Center claims, U.S. Fish and Wildlife did state in their determination that they intended to continue their support of jaguar conservation throughout the jaguars’ range in South and Central America, as well as Mexico.  They also intend to work with the Jaguar Conservation Team in their efforts to protect any jaguars that might wander into the U.S. from Mexico.  This hardly constitutes an “abandonment” of jaguar conservation efforts, as the Center likes to accuse the Bush administration of doing.
The Center for Biological Diversity’s claims should give us all pause as we ponder the intent of their lawsuit.  Is it really based on sound science and what do they intend to achieve with these persistent lawsuits? 
Remember, the Jaguar Conservation Team will be meeting in Lordsburg at the Baxter Community Center on March 13th at 10:00 a.m.  Please BE THERE!!
Judy
The World is Run by Those Who Show Up!


—– Original Message —–
Subject: Bush Administration Refuses to Protect the Last American Jaguars, Driving Conservation Group to Court
Commondreams.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 29, 2008
1:15 PM
CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity
Michael Robinson, (575) 534-0360
 
Bush Administration Refuses to Protect the Last American Jaguars, Driving Conservation Group to Court
 
SILVER CITY, NEW MEXICO – February 29 – The Center for Biological Diversity issued a 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today over the agency’s decision not to recover an endangered species native to the United States, the jaguar, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The notice is required to allow the federal agency one last chance to comply with the law.“Jaguars evolved in North America, and their recovery in our country is part of recovering our damaged ecosystems,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “They are beautiful animals that help keep the balance of nature, and preventing their extinction involves helping them reclaim the homelands from which our government exterminated them.”

On January 7, 2008, in response to an active Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit seeking a recovery plan and critical habitat for the jaguar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director H. Dale Hall signed a “determination” that developing a recovery plan for the jaguar — as required by the Endangered Species Act — would not promote the conservation of the species. This decision effectively mooted a recovery-plan claim in an ongoing, two-part suit by the Center based on the fact that the government has unreasonably delayed recovery planning and protection of critical habitat. The “unreasonable delay” claim will shortly be replaced by a new lawsuit that specifically takes issue with the Bush administration’s decision not just to delay a recovery plan but to abandon its responsibility to recover the majestic, shy cat.

The government’s January decision awkwardly and inappropriately attempts to fit a narrow loophole in regulations under the Endangered Species Act that permit the agency not to develop a recovery plan for species whose “historic and current ranges occur entirely under the jurisdiction of other countries” (emphasis added).

Jaguars’ historic range in the United States has been extensively documented in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Jaguar sightings and physical remains have also been reported in Colorado, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, and the Carolinas. In addition, American Indian artifacts depicting jaguars have been found in Alabama and Missouri. The jaguar’s current range comprises a small portion of southern Arizona and New Mexico.

In June 2007, more than 500 members of the American Society of Mammalogists met in Albuquerque and unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a recovery plan for the jaguar. The resolution concluded that “Habitats for the jaguar in the United States, including Arizona and New Mexico, are vital to the long-term resilience and survival of the species, especially in response to ongoing climate change.”

The Bush administration decision also claims that “actions taken within the United States are likely to benefit a small number of individual jaguars peripheral to the species, with little potential to affect recovery of the species as a whole” and that conservation plans outside the United States are adequate to recover the species.

“If this same logic had applied historically, there never would have been a recovery plan bringing gray wolves back to Yellowstone or the Gila wilderness,” said Robinson.

The rationale is also contradicted by the decision’s own admission that conservation plans outside the United States “have thus far fallen short in stemming the decline of the jaguar.” Directly undermining its own assertion that a recovery plan cannot facilitate conservation of an international species is the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service issued an international recovery plan for the whooping crane in March 2007.

Robinson added: “If the United States can work across borders to develop an international recovery plan for the whooping crane, why can’t it do so for the jaguar? Could it be because the Bush administration is dead set on walling off the U.S.-Mexico border.”

Circumventing controversy over the ongoing construction, without environmental review, of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border — including an area where a jaguar has been confirmed living in the United States for over 10 years now — may also be behind the decision not to recover the species. Jaguar recolonization of the United States from Mexico will be short-circuited by the wall.

Background

Through most of the twentieth century, the federal government poisoned, trapped, and pursued with hunting hounds jaguars in the United States, implementing a policy that all should be killed. The Fish and Wildlife Service killed the last female jaguar confirmed in the United States in 1963, in the Apache National Forest of Arizona. After the jaguar was listed as an endangered species outside the country under authority of the 1969 precursor to the current Endangered Species Act, due to unregulated hunting of thousands of jaguars every year, the Fish and Wildlife Service began issuing “hardship permits” to safari companies to allow their American clients to import jaguar pelts into the United States.

On July 25, 1979, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a Federal Register rule stating that through an “oversight” the jaguar was not listed as an endangered species in the United States when the list of foreign endangered species authorized under the precursor Act was used as a template in creation of the list authorized in the current Act. The agency pledged to “take action as quickly as possible” to list the jaguar domestically, but failed to follow through until the Center for Biological Diversity sued the agency in 1996 to compel action. As a result, the jaguar became an officially endangered species in the United States in July 1997. But the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to develop a recovery plan or designate critical habitat for the jaguar.

In June 1999, the Service authorized its sister agency, the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, to “take” (ie. kill or injure) a jaguar as long as the taking occurred inadvertently in the course of trying to kill other species of wildlife.


New York Brit – Blog
Views from Bay Ridge Brooklyn
The US government has just vetoed a plan to save the species, Panthera onca, one of the world’s most endangered, and beautiful, large cats – and the Bush regime is totally to blame.

‘The US is building a wall along the border to keep out immigrants. But that would stop jaguars crossing the border and entering the US. We wanted to set up refuges over here and create breeding populations that might save the species, but the government has said “no way”. It doesn’t want anything interfering with that wall,’ said Kieran Suckling, of the US Centre for Biological Diversity.

Jaguars were once common across the southern United States – as well as in Central and South America – but were wiped out in the US in the sixties. The last animal was shot in 1963.

The Bush regime makes me sick.

SPERO NEWS

USA-Mexico border wall means end for jaguars

Experts in mammal biology say that a way being erected between Mexico and the US to deter illegal immigration will have a negative effect on Panthera onca – jaguar – that roams the southern US and northern Mexico.

In announcing that they are giving up efforts to help the jaguar population recover, U.S. authorities have handed a death sentence to the big cat that was once plentiful along the border with Mexico.

TORONTO, Jan 28 (Tierramérica).- Jaguars have no place in the United States, although a handful still roam the Southwest. Environmentalists suspect the real reason U.S. officials will let the jaguar become extinct is the “security” wall being built along the Mexican border.

Ecologists have long warned that the border wall — actually a series of walls — will have big impacts on wildlife and the region’s fragile and unique ecology.

“There is no question that jaguars (Panthera onca) in the U.S. and northern Mexico would be significantly affected by the wall,” says Joe Cook, expert in mammal biology at the University of New Mexico.

“As best we can tell, the few remaining U.S. jaguars are part of a larger population based in Northern Mexico,” Cook told Tierramérica.

The wall would stop the movement of jaguars north and south, greatly diminishing the genetic diversity of the animals trapped on either side. That loss of diversity could increase their susceptibility to disease and vulnerability to other environmental changes, he said.

“The only hope to preserve large carnivores in the wild is to have large areas of continuous, unfragmented habitat.”

Jaguars have roamed the southern United States, from Louisiana to California, for thousands of years. Extensive predator control efforts in the late 1800s and much of the last century decimated their numbers until very few remained.

Now a highly endangered species, U.S. endangered species laws require that the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) develop a plan to help the jaguars’ recover.

That has never happened and environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have filed lawsuits to have one created.

However, last week the USFWS announced it is abandoning all jaguar recovery efforts, stating that the United States represents only a small part of the animal’s range.

Not only is that a poor justification scientifically, it also sets a precedent for smaller, poorer nations to argue that since they are only a small part of the jaguars range, or the range of any other animal, they should not have to protect endangered species, says Cook.

“The (George W.) Bush administration has been horrific with respect to the conservation of America’s natural resources,” he adds.

“The New World’s largest cat is going extinct throughout North and South America, but rather than develop a plan to save it, the Bush administration is building a wall to forever keep it out of the U.S,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

If there was a jaguar recovery plan it might slow or even force the relocation of large projects, like new mines, roads or building an enormously long wall across the border.

This “was a short-sighted effort to keep Mexican nationals out of the U.S. with a militaristic wall that extends to Mexico’s animals as well,” Suckling told Tierramérica.

The 3,141-kilometer Mexican-U.S. border crosses a biologically diverse region of desert, mangrove forests, plains, mountains, river valleys, wetlands, cities and towns. The border region is home for many rare and endangered species.

And now a series of walls and barriers, along with roads, lights, power facilities, are being built along large portions of it without any environmental assessment, according to Laura López-Hoffman, an ecologist at the University of Arizona.

López-Hoffman, also linked to the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM), is part of a group of scientists on both sides of the border who are trying to conduct a scientific assessment of the ecological impacts of the wall. But the wall is going up faster than they can scramble to collect data.

“The best we can do in the next year is create hypothetical models of the potential impacts. Collecting data on the actual responses of species will take another 10 years and it will be too late,” she said.

There is no doubt the wall will have profound ecological effects, most obviously preventing the movement of many species, such as the jaguars.

Areas will be destroyed during the construction of the wall and new roads. Transboundary species like birds and bats will be affected by any lighting along the wall.

Mexico is considering filing a complaint against the United States in the International Court of Justice for the environmental damage caused by the wall. By building the wall, the U.S. is violating international treaties, according to Gerardo Ceballos, of UNAM’s Institute of Ecology.

Even before the wall project, the Border Service has done a lot of damage, including the burning of wide areas to improve visibility, fencing off wildlife trails, and filling in valleys, canyons and estuaries, she said.

In Mexico, ecologists also see the wall as a barrier to collaboration on cross-border environmental issues, says López-Hoffman.

She stresses that it will be more difficult for U.S. and Mexican scientists to work together on water issues and the impacts of climate change, which are expected to hit the region particularly hard.Reported for Tierra America by Stephen Leahy.

Tierramérica is a specialized information service on environment and development, produced by the international news agency, IPS (Inter Press Service) and sponsored by the UN.

ENDANGERED SPECIES UPDATE

 
Endangered Species Updates

January 14, 2008

 

Change in Date for First JAGCT Meeting in 2008

 

To:                  Interested Parties
From:              Terry B. Johnson, Chair
The Jaguar Conservation Team (JAGCT) public meeting scheduled for January 24 in Lordsburg NM has been canceled. The JAGCT will next meet on March 13 (Thursday) in Lordsburg NM at the Lordsburg Civic Center, 313 East 4th Street; phone (575) 542-9615. More details on the meeting will be disseminated 30 days in advance of this meeting.
The change in date for this meeting was necessary due to staffing issues and lack of availability of the Civic Center on dates between January 24 and March 13. On the former count, Bill Van Pelt (AGFD), who has been the primary staff support for the JAGCT since its inception, has just changed jobs to focus entirely on prairie dog conservation across 11 cooperating states. Although Bill will remain an AGFD employee, he is assigned entirely to (and paid by) the Western Association of State Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) for the prairie dog conservation work that he, Duane, and I started many years ago. Although the change means great things for WAFWA and prairie dogs, and I congratulate Bill for seizing the opportunity, the hole he leaves behind in jaguar and wolf work is deep and dark. For the jaguar, this means that Tim Snow (AGFD), Jim Stuart (NMDGF), and I must pick up the considerable slack left behind by Bill. For me, that will be a real challenge, because I am still recovering from medical problems, and it is taking more time than anticipated to pick up from where I left the jaguar and Mexican wolf in August 2007. Physically I came back a while ago, but mentally I just came back last week. Regardless, I anticipate completing re-entry for the jaguar, and catching up with previous work on the long-awaited Conservation Strategy and other pending tasks, in plenty of time to make the March 13 JAGCT meeting highly productive for attendees.
Expected primary agenda items for the March 13 JAGCT meeting will include (but not be limited to) the following:
·         Update on current Jaguar Conservation MOU, JAGCT signatory cooperating agencies, and acceptance of any new cooperators
·         Review of cooperating agency staff commitments to JAGCT
·         Discussion of the draft final AGFD-NMDGF Jaguar Conservation Strategy, including integration of companion jaguar conservation efforts in Mexico
·         Discussion of pending or completed petitions, legal challenges, etc. pertaining to jaguars (e.g. critical habitat, recovery planning, etc.)
·         Reconstitution of all JAGCT Committees and appointment of Chairs and Co-Chairs
·         Updates on JAGCT sponsored monitoring
·         Discussion of Homeland Security issues along the US-MX Border that are of interest to jaguar conservation efforts
·         Other business
JAGCT meetings are open to the public. State, federal, tribal agency cooperators in the conservation project are represented at each meeting.
Additional Information
Information about JAGCT public meetings and other issues pertaining to jaguar conservation is disseminated electronically through a self-subscription newsletter, Endangered Species Updates. The newsletter self-subscription form is available at http://azgfd.gov/signup.
Information pertaining to jaguar conservation is also available at the Arizona Game and Fish Department website (http://azgfd.gov/w_c/es/jaguar_management.shtml).
The JAGCT email address is jaguar@azgfd.gov. Messages received will be read, but individual replies will not be sent.
:tj

 
The Arizona Game and Fish Department prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. If anyone believes that they have been discriminated against in any of the AGFD’s programs or activities, including employment practices, they may file a complaint with the Deputy Director, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086-5000, (602) 942-3000, or with the Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Dr. Ste. 130, Arlington, VA 22203. Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation or this document in an alternative format by contacting the Deputy Director as listed above.

FOREST FIRES FIRE STORMS NEW MEXICO 2008

EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONTRIBUTE TO MEGA FOREST FIRES IN NEW MEXICO

“Sandia District Ranger Cid Morgan recently warned: “Don’t be surprised if we have a large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains.” Given low moisture next year and the great number of dead trees lying at the floor of our overgrown forests, Morgan says “you’re talking explosive conditions, and if we get a fire in there (the Sandias) we will not be able to put it out.”

http://www.mvtelegraph.com/mountain/opinion/267612mtnoped12-06-07.htm

NM BIOMASS BLOG: FOREST FIRE HALL OF SHAME

http://nmbiomass.com/forest-fire-hall-of-shame/View videos of forest fires in New Mexico.

Link to NM Biomass blog. Excellent blog containing information on biomass projects in New Mexico and links to environmentalists opposed to progress in managing our forests. Biomass programs essentially refute claims by environmentalists that natural fire cycles and unmanaged forests, or closed to humans forests, are the best way to manage.

http://nmbiomass.com/

Environmental Hysteria: Video of environmental protest

Hear and see the scare tactics, bongo drums and why one of the original organizers of Green Peace left the environmental movement. Ever notice that the majority of these environmental protesters are white and appear to be upper middle class? Are they feeling left out of the victim industry and have to create their own tormentor? huh? Everyone needs a boogie man.Watch Penn & Teller spoof the environmentalists into signing a petition banning water.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-511326237384104728&q=ENVIRONMENTAL+PROTEST&total=557&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Video: College students sign petition to end women’s suffrage.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7667371032528019821