Animal Cruelties

This is just some of the havoc blinkered "rewilding" advocates have unleashed on the rural West, through wolf reintroductions and other initiatives aimed at rebuilding populations of large predators in modern landscapes that simply can't sustain them. These efforts are ushering-in a new round of human-animal conflict that isn't good for people or for "protected" animals. 

Here you have a sheep rancher who's been trying to keep the wolves at bay, literally, by working within the system, who can't count on the system's help when federal wolf packs begin decimating his herd. Adding insult to injury, you also have a typically-fanatical wolf advocate, in blame-the-victim fashion, callously arguing that the rancher (who has been denied access to wolf tracking data kept by the state) ought to have known better than to put his animals in harm's way. Finally, lastly, you have government predator controllers, with a clear justification for taking action against the rampaging pack, who are cowed into submission, and call off the hunt, as soon as the howling of the lunatic fringe is heard. 

Thus you have, in microcosm, a story repeated too often since Washington began forcing wolves down the West's throat, with the heartfelt support of east coast editorial writers, non-Western politicians and animal worshipers of various stripes -- none of which have to deal directly with the consequences when these feel-good science fair projects go awry.             

We need less romanticism and more realism in how these efforts are pursued, since it's impossible to recreate conditions in the "New West" that perfectly mimic those in the "Old West," except perhaps on a relatively modest scale in very remote locales. Pushing things too far is itself a form of animal cruelty, since it's the "protected" species that arguably suffer most when these rewilding experiments run amok.

Animal Cruelty

Those who've been trying to "re-wild" today's far more developed, densely-populated "new West" with large predators, based on the fantasy that we can magically return to the "old West" of 1855, should be indicted on charges of mass animal cruelty -- since it's the animals that pay the price for this nutty science fair project run amok.

Shotgun Conservation?

The Orwellian term of the day is "shotgun conservation," which describes a crazy federal plan to save endangered spotted owls by butchering barred owls, a competing species, which we now know are the real reason for the spotted owl's decline, not the loss of "old growth" forests.

Natural selection favors the barred owl. Yet natural selection apparently isn't permitted by the Endangered Species Act, which requires that every species be saved, even if the cold, hard laws of nature say otherwise.

Talk about playing God.

The timber industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated, thousands of high-paying jobs were destroyed and dozens of timber towns were brought to their knees based on the claim that the loss of "old growth" forests was to blame for the spotted owl's decline. But it belatedly became apparent that a rival species, doing what it does naturally, is invading the spotted owl's habitat and wiping it out. And the only response the feds can muster is a bizarre scheme to protect one species by killing-off the other.

The spotted owl saga is certainly among the most sordid in the annals of the ESA. But does anyone sue the federal government for regulatory malpractice and fraud? Is anyone called to account for the clear-cutting of jobs and opportunity in the former timber towns of Oregon and Washington State? The sad answer is "no" and "no."

It's hard to afford a good lawyer when you're living on food stamps.

Why Fear the Ferret?

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Rich County residents have grown gun-shy of a proposal to start an experimental colony of endangered black-footed ferrets on a private, church-owned ranch there. And well they should be.

As Colorado learned the hard way, when former Gov. Bill Owens sucked us into a similar "experiment" with reintroduced Canada lynx, federal assurances that a wave of regulations won't follow in the wake of such experiments just can't be trusted. Folks in Utah are being told the same lies:

"Biologists tried to supply (skeptics with) certainty. Releasing the animals as an experimental, nonessential population, as the government has done with other ferret colonies, gives flexibility not allowed with endangered species enjoying full federal protection. Program managers said they wouldn’t impose restrictions on grazing or other uses even if ferrets migrate onto federal Bureau of Land Management land."

Such assurances are meaningless, as they proved meaningless in Colorado, because federal biologists and bureaucrats don't really control the process. They don't decide where federal regulations apply and were they don't. Listing and de-listing decisions generally are made by federal judges, responding to saturation litigation brought by professional environmental zealots, who have been shopping around for a judge who will place these "experimental" colonies under full federal protection. These efforts haven't succeeded, yet, but all it takes is one judge with a fondness for ferrets to nullify such agreements and lay-out a welcome mat for the feds.

Colorado welcomed reintroduced lynx based on similar assurances. That we were double-crossed should serve as a warning to all who are tempted by similar inducements to do something stupid. Until the Endangered Species Act is repealed or significantly reformed, and a bit more reason and sound science is introduced into federal efforts to preserve truly endangered species, only fools would invite a colony of black-footed ferrets into their backyards.

(Just click on the key words "Canada lynx" below for more on the Colorado case.)

Necessary Measures

A lot of howling will be heard and some fur may fly over a budget deal rider that removed federally-reintroduced wolves from the endangered species list. But in this case the ends really did justify the means.

This science fair project gone mad shows that the Endangered Species Act is hopelessly broken -- that it's just a playtoy in the hands of litigious nature-worshipers. Western states can't continue to operate under a wolf-related regulatory regime that changes almost month to month, based on the latest court ruling or judicial whim. Wolf numbers have grown far beyond the original goals, yet a de-listing was impossible to get. And impacted states are perfectly able of manage the packs in a responsible and sustainable way, without federal meddling. But the law is impossible to reform or repeal, so extraordinary measures were in this case warranted.

Using a legislative rider isn't an ideal way to set things right, admittedly. But an unworkable law and unreasonable people pushed us to this point.

Can't You Just Hear the Howling Now?

One lesser-known provision of the shutdown-averting budget agreement will remove reintroduced federal wolves from the endangered species list, ending a long-running battle that not only highlighted the absurdity of one of the nation's most powerful environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act, but showed how a lone agenda-driven federal judge can hand down dictates that tie an entire region in regulatory knots. I may not condone the means, but I loudly applaud the ends, since we can't have one activist judge and a gaggle of radical greens standing in the way of common sense and sound science forever.

It's a shame this couldn't be done legislatively, but a much-needed repeal or overhaul of the ESA by Congress just isn't in the cards, given the lobbying clout of Environmentalism Inc. The West shouldn't have to live in a perpetual state of regulatory conflict and uncertainty, with listing decisions seemingly changing on a monthly basis, just because Washington can't muster the courage to overrule arrogant judges, address the law's glaring flaws or bring an end to this impasse.

I can almost hear the howling this will generate in certain circles. But at this point, it's music to my ears.

Regulatory Triumph or Bureaucratic Blunder?

"Tiny Flower Saved from Extinction," is how The New York Times headlined its story about the Maguire daisy, which was removed this week from the endangered species list after a near-miraculous recovery assisted by good old Uncle Sam. Or that's what readers were led to believe. “The delisting of the Maguire daisy shows that the Endangered Species Act is an effective tool not only to save species from the brink of extinction but also to recover them to healthy populations,” assistant Secretary of Interior Tom Strickland was quoted as saying. The desert flower joins a growing list of rare plants and animals pulled back from the brink of oblivion thanks to federal intervention, reported the Times, "including such species as the bald eagle, the Virginia northern flying squirrel, the American peregrine falcon, the red kangaroo and the North Pacific population of the gray whale."

But that's just spin. "Saving" the daisy is not the regulatory triumph Times readers were led to believe: It's actually a case of bureaucratic bumbling and regulatory malpractice that took 25 years to correct.

The daisy didn't need "saving" because it was never in serious danger, which you would only learn by reading the far more nuanced, far more accurate, far more honest account published in The Salt Lake Tribune.

"It turns out the southern Utah desert’s rare Maguire daisy wasn’t nearly as rare as believed.

First listed as an endangered species in 1985 and downgraded to threatened in 1996, the brushy little white flower that peeks out from under rocks on sandstone mesas and in canyons is now "recovered" and will disappear entirely from the list of federally protected species.

Once thought to have only seven specimens in the San Rafael Swell’s Calf Canyon, the daisy now numbers at least 163,000 plants, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It’s not just that the plants thrived under protection, said Bekee Hotze, the agency’s chief of terrestrial endangered species for Utah. Rather, the scrutiny that came with the daisy’s listing led an interagency botany team to search for more, and they found plenty growing south through the swell and in Capitol Reef National Park.

"This species probably got listed too quickly," said Tony Frates, conservation coordinator for the Utah Native Plant Society. It likely wouldn’t happen today, he added, because the government is more thorough in its research before listings."

The daisy is one of many species that gain federal protection erroneously or prematurely, only to have researchers later discover that the science was flawed and the threat was exaggerated. About a third of all species removed from the list fall into this category. They gain federal protection under false pretenses, forced onto the list, usually, by lawsuit-happy green groups pursuing an anti-development agenda. The daisy served as a pawn in efforts to block drilling and mining in Utah's San Rafael Swell, and the ploy probably worked, as it usually does.

Proponents of the "precautionary principle" see nothing wrong with such listings: "better safe than sorry" and "whatever it takes" are their mantras. But that presumes that such erroneous or premature listings are cost-free events, with few consequences for anyone other than the plant or animal being "protected." This ignores the mounting "opportunity costs" of having federal bureaucrats working to protect something that doesn't need protection, instead of spending their time protecting species in real need of attention. And the critical habitat designations that accompany such listings carry significant costs for those on whom the regulatory hammer falls, whether it be the energy company denied a drilling permit, the recreationists denies access to a road or trail, the private land owner who must hire a professional consultant, and commission a study, before she can construct a tool shed in the "critical habitat" overlaying her property.

Better "science" will sooner or later expose some of these scams -- usually later. But by then a lot of unnecessary costs have been incurred, and a lot of regulatory damage has been done. The listing has locked-up thousands or tens of thousands of acres of "critical habitat," sometimes for decades, even though the species for whom it's set aside is not in critical condition. That's how the endangered species game is played. And it is a game -- albeit one with huge implications for those unfortunate enough to get crushed by the regulatory steamroller that a listing unleashes.

A Google search of news coverage shows that virtually all of it paints this as an Endangered Species Act "success story," although it's just the opposite. The Maguire daisy actually shows how flawed listing "science" can be, how slowly the bureaucracy catches bad listings and how vulnerable the law is to misuse and abuse.

Fur May Fly Over Federal Bait and Switch

Imperial Washington has some states on the verge of rebellion. They’re acting out in various ways. Some are taking ObamaCare to court. Others are challenging Washington on firearms and emissions controls. One state, Arizona, is bucking Uncle Sam on immigration enforcement.

But what, one wonders, will be the breaking point? When will all the neo-federalist saber-rattling -- all the talk of the 10th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, nullification – cross the line and become in-your-face defiance? What state, what governor, will take this resistance movement the next step, and force the seemingly-inevitable showdown, by just saying "no" to Washington?

I think the breaking point may come in a relatively unexpected place, on a relatively obscure issue -- wolf reintroduction.

The history of federal re-wilding efforts involving gray wolves is too convoluted to detail here. But the program's statistical success, instead of quelling the controversy, is actually bringing the conflict to a fresh boil, as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana fight for a federal de-listing decision they think science and the original program benchmarks support. One federal judge in Missoula thinks otherwise, and recently reversed wolf de-listing at the behest of green litigants. Frustrated states, feeling betrayed by what they view as a bait-and-switch, seem on the verge of open rebellion. There is talk of states refusing to enforce federal wolf protections, in the face of an escalating number of conflicts between man and beast.

The fight over wolves has from the beginning been a states' rights dispute, but it's becoming more obviously so every day.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat who gained and maintained popularity in the Cowboy State by standing up to Washington on a range of issues, precipitated the most recent conflict, by declining to strictly follow federal dictates on how states should manage the booming number of reintroduced wolves. It was that lack of uniformity, across the 3 states most impacted by the re-wilding effort, that served as the pretext for a recent re-listing of the animals by a federal judge in Montana. That reversal of a widely-applauded de-listing decision angered many and reignited the conflict.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter's announcement that his state will no longer pay compensation for livestock kills by wolves, his bitter accusations of promises broken by the federal government and his evoking of Idaho's "sovereign right to protect our wildlife" from wolf predation, seem to move us a step closer to a showdown -- one that's fueled by the powerlessness Westerners feel living in Washington's long shadow.

Some are hoping to get relief by working the issue in Washington, but that's a fool's errand, if history is any guide. Environmentalism Inc. has a lot of lobbying clout inside the beltway. It has turned back any and all attempts to reform, temper or tweak the Endangered Species Act. Non-Westerners in Congress don't understand or don't care about the law's impacts out here. Getting Congress to intervene on the side of common sense seems like mission impossible. State legislators also are talking strategy, but what they can do about any of this is questionable.

Legal avenues to relief remain open, but fickle federal judges and conflicting and contradictory rulings make coherent policymaking nearly impossible. Today the wolves are listed, tomorrow they're not. Two days later, some robed dictator in a federal courthouse, interpreting an inflexible and unworkable law, is pushing policy in another direction. Public lands policy-making through judicial edict helped create this jumbled mess: no reasonable person looks there for the answer.

All this, along with the frustration that comes from feeling betrayed, and the fact that wolf recovery benchmarks keep shifting, has people in wolf-impacted states in a very rebellious mood, with some at the grassroots pushing for a non-compliance or open defiance. The old joke about adopting the "Triple S" approach to wolf management -- shoot, shovel and shut-up -- is now told in less jocular tones. A sagebrush rebellion is being reborn. Wolf management is becoming a states' rights issue, setting the stage for a test of wills.

How Washington would police the far-flung federal wolfpack without state assistance is unknown. It probably lacks the resources and manpower to do so. Would President Obama sue states to force compliance, or dispatch the national guard to babysit federal wolves if states refuse to comply with a court order? That could precipitate quite a showdown -- perhaps even bigger than what's happening in Arizona -- given the anti-Washington mood that prevails.

No one relishes the thought of such a confrontation, but unless something soon gives -- either the states or the feds -- that seems to be the path we're walking. On this issue, wolf-impacted states feel as if they've given all they can, and more. For every inch they've given, a mile has been taken. And if the fur must fly, it might as well fly over this issue.

The Trojan Cat

Diabetics beware: reading this editorial in today's Denver Post could have you reaching for the insulin.

Not sure what it is about endangered species that leads to the suspension of all skepticism among journalists. Hand them a pretty picture of a "majestic" Canada lynx running free in Colorado and they go weak in the knees. Then all we hear from these supposedly hard-bitten cynics is goo-goos and ga-gas. Not once in this 500-word gusher do the larger implications of lynx reintroduction get a mention, though the cats already are having significant adverse impacts on how public lands are managed in Colorado.

The reintroduction is a success story, of sorts, if you ignore the fact that Canada lynx are, technically-speaking, an invasive species (much like the gray wolves released in the Northern Rockies are invasive), along with the fact that Colorado marked the southernmost boundary of their historic habitat, meaning that they never exactly flourished here. But like the "successful" reintroduction of the wolf, it can complicate life for the rest of us -- something that the Post doesn't mention.

Before Colorado volunteered to be part of this experiment -- based on a promise that we wouldn't have the regulatory hammer lowered by the feds if the experiment worked -- anyone claiming that a ski resort couldn't be expanded, or a forest trail improved, because of "lynx habitat" would have been laughed out of the room. No lynx, no habitat, no problem, in short. Federal land managers would have to dream-up another excuse to say "no" to something.

But that's no longer the case in Colorado. With a colony of the cats now firmly established, "lynx habitat" now becomes a credible catch-all excuse to block this project or that one. It's a regulatory Trojan horse, which Colorado invited in, rather gullibly. And like the defenders of Troy, we'll now pay a heavy price for that gullibility.

Now, What About Our Mouse?

As I predicted many blogs ago, federal judge Donald Molloy -- the go-to guy for eco-extremists looking for a friendly court -- on Friday ordered that reintroduced gray wolves be returned to the endangered species list, ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not delist the animals in two states (Idaho and Montana) while keeping them listed in another (Wyoming).

It's a major disappointment for states were the animals had been delisted, in recognition that the numbers have far exceeded recovery goals (and far exceed what can be sustained in the more heavily-populated "new West"). A few of these states, having assumed management responsibility, last year instituted controlled hunts, in order to keep populations (which have been growing 20 percent a year) in check. But wildlife advocates aren't willing to acknowledge success. They don't trust states to manage the packs. And they hate using hunts as control mechanisms. All they needed in order to monkey-wrench the process, and get their way, is the help of a robed dictator with green-leanings and a lifetime appointment, who sets policy from a federal courthouse in Missoula. Molloy has long been their boy. And he delivered the goods again on Friday.

The ruling may have a silver lining for Colorado, however, since we are operating under a similar "split decision" involving the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. It remains a listed species in this state, but has been removed from federal protections in Wyoming, following a controversy involving its legitimacy as a subspecies. That means Colorado continues to live with the regulatory consequences of the listing, while Wyoming is liberated territory, even though there's no genetic difference between mice in Colorado and mice in Wyoming.

“The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a ‘species’ as endangered …” Molloy wrote in his ruling. “Accordingly, the rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one.” And that would seem to demand a second look at the Preble's ruling.

It's possible that any second look at the case would land Wyoming mice back on the list, given the agency's determination to justify, rather than rectify, its mistakes. But it's also possible -- if disinterested and sound science is applied -- that a delisting would occur in both states. I continue to have doubts about the mouse's legitimacy as a subspecies. Some experts believe that they're much numerous than listing advocates say they are.

Challenging the Preble's mouse "split decision," based on this ruling, would at least require another review of the questionable science underpinning the listing. And if it's heard by a judge with more objectivity and common sense than Donald Molloy, we just might stand a chance of success.

Driven Off The Deep End

Deep offshore oil drilling is far more dangerous than on-shore drilling, as has now become obvious. It's easier to contain a spill on land than to cap a blowout that takes place a mile below the ocean surface. But that's where oil companies are forced to go, given the barriers to domestic drilling that exist almost everywhere else.

Even Wyoming, which is more receptive to energy development than most states, has seen a significant recent slowdown in activity -- a slowdown not just due to the swooning economy, but due to the obstructionist tactics of federal bureaucrats and zero-drilling zealots.

Why are energy companies drilling so far offshore?

Because this is what they typically face when drilling on shore:


Backlog of protested Wyo leases persists at BLM

CHEYENNE -- Environmental protests, uncertainty over endangered species and a change in presidential administrations have bogged down oil and gas leasing in Wyoming.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has issued just 51 of nearly 1,200 oil and gas leases sold at its 11 lease auctions since June 2008.

The backlog prompted Gov. Dave Freudenthal to "implore" Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a fellow Democrat, to act in a January letter. Yet the backlog is likely to grow when the BLM holds its next lease auction today.

Of the 85 leases the BLM plans to offer at the regular sale in Cheyenne, environmental groups are protesting 62. If previous auctions are any indication, that means at least 62 more leases in limbo -- none of the 51 leases recently issued was protested.

Environmental groups have protested 1,297 of 1,351, or 96 percent, of leases offered from the June 2008 sale through the upcoming sale, BLM documents show.

"No wonder companies are taking their money and investing in other states that have private land, where they don't have to deal with this bureaucracy and politics," said Bruce Hinchey, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.

Oil and gas leasing in Wyoming provides a significant share of the nation's energy. The state in 2008 ranked second among states for natural gas production, providing more than 10 percent of the U.S. total, and ranked seventh for oil production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Environmentalists defend the protests as necessary to protect Wyoming's wildlife and cherished vistas. They expressed doubt that the protests are slowing down drilling.
"The oil industry has enough leases in its pocket now to drill for decades. So the idea that somehow a scarcity of oil and gas leases is holding up energy production is laughable," said Erik Molvar, executive director of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.

Not only are companies unable to drill on leases they've bought, the state and federal governments haven't had access to the $50 million companies have paid.
Half of the money would go to the state and half to the federal government. Both are having budget trouble, yet the money has been piling up in an escrow account pending a BLM decision on whether to issue the leases.

"I implore your immediate attention to these unissued leases," Freudenthal wrote Salazar on Jan. 8. "Some would say that the oil and gas industry is getting what it deserves. But this is much too serious an issue for such pettiness."

A reply letter from Assistant Interior Secretary Wilma Lewis said the leasing process is "broken" and the department is working on a way to "restore needed balance."

Salazar spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff did not respond to a request for comment.

Julie Weaver, the BLM's head of oil and gas leasing in Wyoming, said she expects the backlog to end soon, especially now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in March that it would not list sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species. Most of Wyoming, including its best oil and gas fields, is sage grouse habitat.

Even so, Fish and Wildlife determined that protection for sage grouse is warranted, just precluded by higher priorities. That didn't exactly open the gate for leases.
"We had to go back and re-evaluate everything to make sure that we are complying with the Fish and Wildlife decision to warrant that animal," Weaver said.
The BLM auctions offer oil and gas leases every other month in Cheyenne. Environmental groups began stepping up protests against the leases a couple years ago.

Groups have protested not just leases in sage grouse habitat but leases they said could affect a wide range of wildlife -- prairie dogs, raptors, big game migration corridors and fish. Some protests have focused on climate change.

"We must address a protest before we can issue a lease," Weaver said. "And we have protests on every sale, different parcels in every sale, that we're trying to resolve."

She also said the change in presidential administrations has required the BLM state office in Cheyenne to adjust to new policies.

On Thursday, environmental groups stepped up pressure on the BLM by suing over the BLM's plan for oil and gas development in southern Wyoming. The area includes Adobe Town, a "wilderness quality" badlands where the groups say the BLM has approved five drilling permits.

The groups, represented by the Natural Resources Defense Council, include the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, which by itself or with others has protested more than 90 percent of leases offered over the past two years. Other plaintiffs include the Wyoming Outdoor Council, which has protested leases offered at every sale over the past two years.
Wyoming Outdoor Council attorney Bruce Pendery said his group used to be one of the few that would protest oil and gas leases in Wyoming. Now, he said, a range of groups have been protesting leases.

"To me, what that speaks to is that there was this massive effort to increase oil and gas leasing during the Bush administration," Pendery said. "Because of that massive effort to increase leasing, there was an equally massive response."

Other groups that have been protesting leases include the National Audubon Society, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, Center for Native Ecosystems and Wyoming Wildlife Federation. Sometimes the groups object to just a handful of leases.
Other times, it's every lease offered at a sale, as the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance has done eight times in the past two years.

"Our goal here is to get results on the ground for wildlife and for special landscapes," Molvar said. "Not to prevent the oil and gas industry from gaining access to oil and gas leases."

Moving Target

Ever wonder why there are so few endangered species success stories? Could it be because federal agencies and green groups keep moving the goal posts on what constitutes species recovery?

The federal wolf reintroduction program offers a good case in point.

Tax Credits and Cooperative Conservation

I agree in principle with the goal of moving federal environmental policy away from coercive conservation (which has been the prevailing model since the early 1970s) and toward "cooperative conservation," a concept that was touted by the Bush administration but gained little traction (mainly because nothing touted by the Bush administration could possibly win favor with left-leaning greens). And a part of that paradigm shift will almost certainly involve using economic incentives, rather than the blunt force of government mandates, to encourage environmental stewardship.

Simply paying people to do the right thing -- to create or maintain habitat for the Salt Pond Slime Slug, for instance -- is one concept that some, like Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, are pushing. But as someone who also believes in the conservation of endangered tax dollars, I worry that the tax credit system Crapo is proposing, if not tightly controlled, will lead to widespread gaming of the system and a massive waste of money.

Crapo's attempt to incrementally reform the Endangered Species Act is laudable (given the political futility of trying to overhaul it all at once). But the tax credit component can hardly be called "targeted," and the potential for scams will be huge, if they'll cost an estimated $2 billion over ten years. Billions already are squandered annually, paying farmers to idle their fields in the name of improving wildlife habitat or protecting so-called wetlands. Whether any of these programs serve as anything more than a federal sop has never been shown (or seriously studied, as far as I know). It mostly amounts to slapping the "green" label on another government giveaway. Expecting Crapo's program to operate with more accountability, and integrity, is probably folly.

That's the sort of cynicism that's bound to greet even a decent and interesting idea, given the federal government's almost perfect track record for turning good ideas into a scandalous glop.

Fed-Fighting Governor Served Wyoming Well

I've written before of my admiration for Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat with a strong independent streak who did the Cowboy State proud by bucking Washington when it was in the state's best interests. I'm disappointed, therefore, to learn that he won't be seeking a third term. A non-conformist to the end, Freudenthal shrugged off any talk of a "legacy" at the announcement. "We don't do that legacy stuff," he said. "This legacy stuff is incredibly dangerous."

He does leave a legacy, though, which was probably best summed-up by State Sen. Eli Bebout, a former political rival who narrowly lost to Freudenthal in the 2002 governors race. "I think he really tried to represent Wyoming against the intrusiveness of the federal government, and he did that," Bebout said. That led to clashes with Washington over energy policy, reintroduced wolves, the sage grouse (which was granted some new federal protections this week, but not "threatened or "endangered" status, thank goodness) and, most famously, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.

The mouse is listed as a protected federal species in Colorado, but not in Wyoming, not coincidently, thanks to Freudenthal's persistent efforts to fight the listing and expose the fraudulent science behind it. Maybe this absurd split decision never would have occurred if Colorado had a governor who was more protective of the state's interests, vis-a-vis the federal government.

And unlike Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, who has waged regulatory war on the traditional energy sector, while touting "new energy economy" fantasies, Freudenthal managed to strike a sensible balance between environmental protection and economic development in Wyoming, leaving the state on a sound financial footing. "When we had huge energy development, he did the balancing act," said Sen. Kathryn Sessions, a Democrat from Cheyenne. "He tried to preserve those things that we hold most dear in this state -- our water, our air, our mountains, our open space," she told the Casper Star-Tribune, while serving as a "balancer between all of that and industry and money and all the stuff on the other side."

Freudenthal leaves quite a legacy, even if he characteristically would never brag on it. I hope for the Cowboy State that it finds a worthy successor.

Why Fear the Black-Footed Ferret?

I’ve written before about what a mistake I think it is for Fort Carson to volunteer as a testing ground for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. I have nothing against ferrets, per se. They seem cuddly and adorable – unless you’re a prairie dog. I just believe American military bases have enough trouble with so-called “encroachment issues” – restrictions on training activities resulting from excessive environmental rules or complaints from NIMBYs – that they shouldn’t invite more of it. That’s exactly what Fort Carson is doing in this case.

Establishing a ferret colony at Fort Carson is just the sort of heart-warming story that earns the base brownie points with animal advocates and environmentalists. It’s good PR. They may rain fire and death on America's enemies, but hey, they're nice to animals. But I fear it will come back to bite the base on the ass if the animals living in this and other experimental colonies win listing as endangered species.

With a listing comes more regulation. With more federal regulation comes restrictions on training. Restrictions on training make bases less useful. Less useful bases end up on closure lists. Closed bases aren’t good for the local economy.

Follow my logic? Folks at Fort Carson obviously don’t.

But maybe this story in the Sept. 8 Billings Gazette will help them see the long-term implications of that they're doing. Here's an excerpt:

Three groups ask feds to protect reintroduced ferrets

CHEYENNE - Three environmental groups say they are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets as endangered.

The federal government already protects black-footed ferrets as an endangered species. But it's a Catch-22: The protection doesn't apply to 17 reintroduced ferret populations in eight states, which are the only black-footed ferrets known to exist in the wild.

Instead of being endangered, they are considered "nonessential experimental" populations.

The groups WildEarth Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and Center for Native Ecosystems want three black-footed ferret populations - in western Arizona's Aubrey Valley, southwestern South Dakota's Conata Basin and southeast Wyoming's Shirley Basin - designated as endangered. The groups announced Tuesday that they had submitted an endangered species petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service . . .

. . . . Black-footed ferrets were believed to be extinct in the wild until a population turned up in Wyoming in 1981. The 18 animals remaining in that population soon were rounded up for a captive-breeding program.

Fish and Wildlife began releasing captive-bred ferrets in Wyoming's Shirley Basin in 1991. Subsequent populations have been established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Kansas, South Dakota and Utah.

But only the Arizona, South Dakota and Wyoming populations in the endangered species petition are considered viable, said Erik Molvar, with the Laramie-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance.”

Fort Carson’s ferret colony isn’t one of the “nonessential experimental” populations the groups want listed, so the base is in no great danger at the moment. But if this lawsuit succeeds, and if Fort Carson ferrets flourish, it won’t be too long before environmental groups are suing to have this colony listed too. That’s not necessarily the end of the world. A number of military facilities continue to function with endangered species on base. But the work-arounds can be costly and the encumbrances can be significant. It’s not something any base would want, much less invite.

It’s a little dated, but here’s a piece I did on the encroachment problem at American military bases back in 2001: link. I think it’s safe to assume things have gotten worse since then. Endangered Species Act rules have become a nightmarish fact of live at many facilities. But this is the first time I’ve seen a base actually courting such problems, thanks to such a stunning lack of foresight.

As the case of the Canada lynx shows, there’s a game of bait-and-switch being played when it comes to experimental populations of endangered species. The federal government promises that the normal regulations and regulations won’t apply at the time of reintroduction. But once the animals are established, and the listing petitions and lawsuits start flying, such agreements aren’t worth bupkis. Colorado agreed to host an experimental population of Canada Lynx back in the Bill Owens era, based on assurances that a tidal wave of new rules wouldn’t follow. But today you have “lynx habitat” being used by federal agencies as a reason to limit ski resort expansions and stop forest thinning projects. The old promises mean nothing. Colorado is being punished for showing the lynx a little compassion.

If Fort Carson commanders are smart, if folks in the Pentagon are smart, they’ll start looking for reasons to quietly back away from this animal rescue mission, which is unrelated and potentially detrimental to the facility’s main purpose. There are better places to put ferret colonies. And there are better uses for military bases.

Something Fishy This Way Comes

Call it "the Malkin Effect."

The American Contrarian got more traffic than normal recently -- much more -- thanks to the mention on Michelle Malkin's blog of a post I did about that scourge called The Endangered Species Act (thanks, Michelle). I enjoyed the lively exchanges that resulted.

What brings me back to the topic today is this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the drought California is suffering not just for a lack of rain, but because of water restrictions mandated by the ESA. The delta smelt case was mentioned by a number of those who responded to my post on the misuses and abuses of the ESA. The Journal does an excellent job of telling the story, for those still unfamiliar with it.

California's Man-Made Drought
The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.


California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America's premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.


The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.


For this, Californians can thank the usual environmental suspects, er, lawyers. Last year's government ruling was the result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other outfits objecting to increased water pumping in the smelt vicinity. In June, things got even dustier when the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that local salmon and steelhead also needed to be defended from the valley's water pumps. Those additional restrictions will begin to effect pumping operations next year.


The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the delta with water, or "otherwise, they would be on." He did, however, have the ability to request intervention from the Department of Interior. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 after the snail darter fiasco, a panel of seven cabinet officials known as a "God Squad" is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition with more than 12,000 signers, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy.


The issue now turns to the Obama Administration and the courts, though the farmers have so far found scant hope for relief from the White House. In June, the Administration denied the governor's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. Doing so would force the Administration to acknowledge awkward questions about the role its own environmental policies have played in scorching the Earth.


As the crisis has deepened, the political stakes have risen as well. In late August, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack came to the devastated valley to meet with farmers and community leaders. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "There are 30 lawsuits on the biological opinions and two separate opinions, one for the smelt and one for the salmon," Ms. Feinstein said, "The rules need to be reconsidered."


The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of three farmers in the valley, calling the federal regulations "immoral and unconstitutional." Because the delta smelt is only found in California, the Foundation says, it does not fall under the regulatory powers provided by the Constitution's Commerce Clause. On a statutory basis, the Fish and Wildlife Service also neglected to appropriately consider the economic devastation the pumping restrictions would bring.


Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn't have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be "admitting failure" in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.

There were many interesting and informative (and a few very funny) responses to my "Animal Crackers" post, but one stands out. It came from Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a great conservation biologist and true friend to endangered species who has paid a heavy price for asking hard questions about how the ESA functions, about the quality of science underpinning it, about whether the federal government is allocating limited conservation resources appropriately. For daring to ask these questions, Ramey became a target of the Eco-Inquisition -- the unholy alliance of professional alarmists, advocacy scientists and power-hungry bureaucrats that attempts to discredit, intimidate and silence anyone who challenges eco-orthodoxy on climate change, endangered species, etc. But in Ramey the green goon squad picked on the wrong guy, since he has the credentials, courage and strength of character to stand his ground.

Rob became a hero of mine for exposing the Preble's meadow jumping mouse hoax -- work that made him the target of the Eco-Inquisition. But that's a topic for another day.

Here's what he had to say:


Dr. Rob Roy Ramey said...

The ESA listing "surge" has begun. Next, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be requesting more funding for their endangered species program.


What we will not see, is any objective prioritization of conservation effort (money) on endangered "species" at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In other words: "Just send money and skip the accountability part." This absence of prioritization on endangered "species" is exactly what shortchanges conservation of bona-fide species that are highly unique and highly endangered. The United States allocates the majority of its endangered species budget to nondistinct but presumably threatened or endangered populations of common species (listed as Subspecies, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS), or Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU)).


It is clear, however, that this conservation approach comes at the expense of many “full” species that are highly unique and that are far more endangered. Fully one-fifth of ESA-listed “species” are really subspecies or DPSs/ESUs, and these tend to be the most controversial and costly to "protect". The current proposal illustrates a similar lack of ESA prioritization: allocating listing effort to speciose taxa (many species in a genus) rather than highly unique taxa (one or few species in a genus), contrary to the 1982 amendments to the ESA. The proposal includes six species of milkvetch (genus Astragalus). Twenty-one species and subspecies of milkvetch are already listed in the west as threatened or endangered. There are a total of 614 species and subspecies of milkvetch listed on Natureserve.


Mr. Salazar, please take note."


Keep up the good fight, Rob.

And thank you for weighing in.

Rocky Castoff a Welcome Addition at The Post

When the Rocky Mountain News went under several weeks back, only a handful of its talented staff could be taken in by an erstwhile rival, The Denver Post. I was glad to learn that former Rocky Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll was one of them.

Not only would an important voice in Denver media not be silenced, I thought, but this would bring more balance to the Post's opinion page, which still leans too far left for my tastes, despite the hiring a few years back of the very talented David Harsanyi. It's just unfortunate Carroll will only be a columnist, and not sit on the editorial board, because that's where the Post -- which isn't The New York Times, to be sure -- could use his common-sense conservatism (I apologize if he prefers the libertarian label).

Carroll's editorial pages were better than the Post's, in my humble opinion, and not just because they leaned more to my side of the ideological spectrum, or because they featured the work of the great Pete Blake. Vince's personal columns were for me a must-read: They could always be counted on to make clear, substantive, well-argued and well-aimed observations about the Colorado scene. And his interests mirror my own, making it feel at times like he was reading my mind (and beating me to the punch on picking up on something).

He hasn't missed a step since moving to The Post, as today's column shows.

The first half of Carroll's piece highlights one of many oddities about Obamanomics -- that the president and his top aides seem to think any and every American job is worth "saving," except jobs in the one sector of the American economy that actually generates real value and real jobs, and is indispensable to our economic strength -- the energy sector. There the president seems to be making war on American jobs.

“Two weeks ago, President Barack Obama grandly told the nation that during "every moment of economic upheaval" in the past, the government "created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."

But what about old businesses, you might wonder. Isn't their health of equal importance?
Apparently not. Take the energy industry, which the president identified as one of the three keys to our economic future. The recovery plan actually "begins with energy," he declared.

In fact, his administration's job destruction plan begins with energy. At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill.

New jobs in green energy could easily be engulfed by jobs lost in domestic oil and gas production.”

Carroll then takes up a topic near and dear to my heart: the madness of the Endangered Species Act. And here he echoes things I've written about Colorado’s regrettable experiment with the Canada lynx:

“Will a 3-foot-long cat become for this state the guest who takes over the family room — forever?

"A new lynx conservation plan could be a factor in whether Breckenridge Ski Resort will be allowed to expand onto Peak 6," the Summit Daily News reports. The lynx is a "threatened" species, you see, so any use of its habitat is a minefield.

At the moment, the Forest Service is merely studying the area around Peak 6 before it decides how to rule. That would be routine, except for one thing: The lynx in question are newcomers. They're guests we invited here between 1999 and 2006, importing them from Alaska and Canada in an attempt to restore the creatures to the southernmost reach of their original range.

Biologists doubt that lynx were ever plentiful in Colorado, as sightings were rare even in the state's early days. But since the release of the lynx a decade ago, they seem to have flourished.

Some of us predicted what is happening now. Putting lynx in the wild is fine, we warned, but the state should proceed only if the federal government pledges that the species will not be used to restrict land uses. Listing the lynx as "experimental" would have done the trick, but the state didn't even seek that status until after the cats were here. Naturally, the feds said no.

The lesson is clear for the next "re-introduction" of a species (wolves? wolverines?). Before we transport them here, first ensure that their rights won't trump ours.”

The lesson seems clear -- but is apparently lost on those who recently launched a lynx-like recolonization effort at Fort Carson with the black-footed ferret, which I’ve commented on here and here. If the Carson colony flourishes, it's only a matter of time before the presence of the animals is used by gang green to argue for training restrictions at the facility. Where will Fort Carson and Colorado Springs be then?

The Cat's Paw

Not so long ago, if the manager of a federal forest in Colorado tried to halt expansion of a ski resort, or to put the kibosh on a timber thinning project, by arguing that these actions might damage lynx habitat, he or she would have been laughed out of the room. That's because there were no lynx in Colorado, not so long ago.

But the state made a terrible mistake seven if eight years back, by agreeing to play host to an experimental colony of lynx, as part of a reintroduction effort. It seemed a reasonable compromise at the time: We'll do something to see if lynx can be restored to the Southern Rockies (which is the edge of their historic range), if the feds won't use that against us later, by pounding us with the regulatory sledge hammer called the Endangered Species Act.

The experiment held out promise not just for the cats -- who have done reasonably well after a rough start -- but for the possibility of a more reasonable application of this notoriously rigid law. But it was probably destined to blow up in our face, since there can be no compromise with environmental extremists, and with some federal regulators, once they have the bludgeon of the ESA at their disposal.

So now we in Colorado, as a reward for our good deed, are being punished, by seeing lynx habitat used as a reason to block this or that use of public lands, in violation of the agreement we thought we had with the feds. Not only is lynx habitat being raised as a possible objection to ski resort expansion, but it's being used to obstruct forest restoration projects designed to remove diseased stands and reduce the wildfire threat.

Instead of celebrating the day these wonderful animals were returned to the state, and demonstrating that a little flexibility and reasonableness from Washington can encourage cooperation instead of conflict, many Coloradans are kicking themselves for being such schmucks. Instead of a blessing, the cats are becoming a curse.

But so it goes with the Endangered Species Act.

Ferreting out Trouble

On the one hand, one has to wish the black-footed ferrets well that are being released into the wild on Fort Carson, in an innovative collaboration between the base, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They're such cute little buggers. No one wants to see them go extinct.

But the success of the reintroduction program could become a nightmare for property owners, ranchers, local governments and the state of Colorado as a whole, if these ferret populations flourish and migrate beyond the base, given the regulatory controls and property rights violations that follow endangered species wherever they go. If the test colony survives on Fort Carson, the plan is to replicate the experiment elsewhere. "If successful, the release could be a blueprint for other locations on the Front Range and eastern plains," reports The Gazette. And once those populations are established, they'll need to be protected by a "critical habitat" designation and a host of land control regulations that come with it.

Such is the nature of the Endangered Species Act. And this will have profound implications for everyone living, and working the land, along the Front Range.

Colorado got sucked into a similar situation in the case of the Canada lynx. The state agreed years ago to host a reintroduction effort, which is ongoing, with the condition that the feds wouldn't bring the full weight of the ESA down on our heads if it worked. But once the cats, which had been erased from the state, were back, the rules of the game changed. The fact that Canada lynx are back in the state now becomes a factor in almost every U.S. Forest Service decision. Those wanting to block expansion of the ski area at Wolf Creek, for instance, or to dictate a host of other public lands decisions, can and will use the lynx as a pawn in that effort. Check out this story in today's Vail Daily. And one can predict a similar scenario unfolding in the case of the ferrets.

How might a growing population impact training at Fort Carson? What will it do to ranching on the eastern plains? How will it impact local land use rules along the fast-growing Front Range? All these issues need to be thought out and debated in advance, but they aren't. I follow these issues closely and this is the first I've heard of the black-footed ferret recolonization plan. It seems to have been hatched quietly, by a handful of government insiders. But the potential wider implications haven't been debated, and can't be well understood, by Coloradans as a whole.
Perhaps Fort Carson officials and folks at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have penned a memorandum of understanding -- at least I would hope they have -- ensuring that training can continue as usual, even if the base is crawling with ferrets. But what assurances do the rest of us have that doing the right thing now won't come back to haunt us in the future? None whatsoever.

And even if someone gave us such assurances, what faith could we have that they would be fulfilled, given that any such agreement could be taken to court and overturned by a judge, at the behest of the unreasonable people who use the ESA as a tool to curtail development, block water and energy projects, bludgeon property owners, etc.? Such guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

So while we should wish this experimental little colony of black-footed ferrets well, we should also monitor this effort closely, and with concern, given that no good deed goes unpunished under the ESA.

What Goes Around Comes Around for San Francisco

That environmentalism, in its most extreme and virulent forms, is a mental illness, or at the very least a syndrome of some sort, worthy of mention in psychology text books, can no longer be denied, in my view. Political correctness, and the fear of a backlash, seem to be the only things preventing professionals in the field from making a formal diagnosis.

I'm not a professional. But I know insanity when I see it. And I see it in the following press release from the Center for Biological Diversity, one of many groups whose professional staff and financial supporters suffer from this as-yet unnamed affliction. It must be the first mania in history that can be turned into a career.

One delicious irony in the situation, however, is that the target of the Center's latest suit is Wacko Central, San Francisco, where this probably won't even be recognized as lunacy. But one still harbors the hope, probably vain, that radicals can be reformed if directly confronted with their imbalanced behaviors. As with any 12-step program, the first step toward recovery begins with the recognition that you have a problem.

The press release speaks for itself:

City of San Francisco Warned of Lawsuit over Killing Endangered Species at Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica

Conservation Groups Urge Restoration of Coastal Wetlands at Park to Protect San Francisco Garter Snake, California Red-Legged Frog

SAN FRANCISCO— The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the City and County of San Francisco for illegally killing and harming two endangered species at Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. Activities at the golf course have been killing federally protected California red-legged frogs, and recent studies show that ongoing course operations may be threatening endangered San Francisco garter snakes.

“The time is right to restore Sharp Park to its natural condition,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. “ San Francisco has a golden opportunity to save taxpayers’ money, preserve our endangered species, and improve recreational access to our coast.”

The Center is calling on San Francisco to cease harming endangered species, restore Sharp Park to its natural state as a coastal wetland, and provide more diverse recreational opportunities for the public at the site. The Center opposes a flawed plan released recently by San Francisco's Recreation and Park Department that calls for privatizing the mismanaged and financially failing golf course and illegally reconstructing flooded portions of the course at the expense of endangered species.

The operation and mismanagement of the golf course is undermining habitat-restoration work within the nearby Golden Gate National Recreation Area for the garter snake and the frog at adjacent Mori Point. In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notified the Recreation and Park Department that golf course operations were illegally “taking” threatened California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) by draining and pumping the frog’s aquatic habitats, which strands and desiccates frog eggs and kills tadpoles. New evidence has surfaced that extremely rare San Francisco garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) have been killed by groundskeepers mowing grass in areas that the snake uses for basking.

Sharp Park Golf Course is owned by the City and County of San Francisco but is located to the south of the city on the coast, in Pacifica. Its ongoing environmental problems are largely due to poor design and unfortunate placement. To create the course in the early 1930s, the Recreation and Park Department dredged and filled areas around a lagoon known as Laguna Salada for 14 months. Not surprisingly, Sharp Park has had problems with flooding and drainage ever since. The course’s ceremonial opening day was delayed twice due to wet playing conditions, major coastal floods have on two occasions destroyed several holes, and normal winter rains flood the course nearly every year.

“Sharp Park is built over lagoon wetlands and will always lack proper natural drainage and require extravagant effort to maintain,” said Peter Baye, a coastal ecologist who prepared lagoon-wetland restoration plans for California State Parks and the National Recreation Area.

“Maintaining a drowning golf course as sea levels rise is a futile investment. Restoring flood outlets and expanding marsh areas would improve endangered species habitat and increase flood-control options for adjacent landowners.”

San Francisco is reviewing all of its municipally owned golf courses to map out their future use. The Center for Biological Diversity has proposed restoring Sharp Park to a natural state and providing access to hiking trails, picnicking spots, camping facilities and educational opportunities – all of which are sorely needed in San Mateo County.

The Recreation and Park Department, on the other hand, in August released a fatally flawed consultant’s report that advocates privatizing San Francisco’s public golf courses and reconstructing Sharp Park as an "elite" golf course with all 18 holes west of Highway 1. The plan’s recommendations would destroy and fragment much of the snake and frog habitat on the site. It would make flood problems significantly worse, create legal liability to San Francisco for flood damage to adjacent properties, and involve time-consuming permit processes for development that will never be allowed by state and federal regulatory agencies.

“This habitat destruction plan is a non-starter, and if pursued further by the Recreation and Park Department will result in a costly lawsuit for San Francisco,” Miller said. “It is untenable on economic, flood management, and ecological grounds and imposes huge financial and legal risks to the City and County of San Francisco and its taxpayers.”

"Sharp Park is a critical link in the chain of endangered species habitats on the central coast,” said Peter Brastow, director of Nature in the City, a local conservation group. “A restored Sharp Park ecosystem would seamlessly integrate into the surrounding National Park landscape and could be showcased as a natural area where children and adults can connect with wild nature in their own backyard."

The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay and Loma Prieta chapters, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters, Nature In The City, and Golden Gate Audubon Society all have called on San Francisco to consider restoration of coastal wetlands and endangered species habitat at Sharp Park.

The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department’s Golf Course Task Force will meet at 6 p.m. next Monday, September 29th, at San Francisco City Hall, Room 278, to discuss the consultant’s report and the future of the Sharp Park Golf Course.