There is nothing like a good anti-federal-government advertising campaign to rally support for, well, almost anything. In this time of Internal Revenue Service scandals and accusations that the Environmental Protection Agency has charged so-called “conservative” groups for Freedom of Information Act requests that they handed over to environmental groups for free, the time was ripe for a smart advertising professional to tap in to the zeitgeist and try, yet again, to sell a highly skeptical American public on the Pebble Project—a huge gold and copper mine proposed by two foreign mining corporations to be built on public lands in the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
On June 4, Northern Dynasty Minerals, Limited, a Vancouver, Canada-based corporation that owns 50 percent of the Pebble Project, ran an ad in the Washington Post and on various political websites that demands an end to what it calls EPA’s “black box bias” against the mine. The ad also claims that the EPA is manipulating public opinion and denying science in response to the results of the EPA’s 14 month-long comprehensive Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA). The EPA's assessment shows that the Pebble Project does indeed threaten the greatest salmon fishery on earth (a $500 million industry annually) and the estimated 14,000 jobs that depend upon it, and will industrialize one of America’s wildest and most pristine expanses of public land, which would forever changing the culture and economy of the 7,500 people, mostly Native Americans, who now call it home.
An algae bloom caused by nitrate pollution on Iowa's Big Creek Lake, located northwest of Des Moines, in summer of 2012.
The next time you find yourself jugfishing along the Mississippi River, or lying in your hammock on your old house boat in southern Louisiana where the freshwater hits the salt, pump up the old Coleman lantern and throw open your tattered old copy of D’Aulaires’ Greek Myths, and read the story of Cassandra. You do remember, don’t you? The beautiful prophet whose ears were licked clean by snakes, so that she could hear the future? No matter how accurate her predictions (including the destruction of Troy by way of the super-warriors hidden inside the gift of the Trojan horse) nobody ever listened to her. Ever.
In an example of what has become rare political compromise in Washington, the nation’s leading farm lobbyists cut a deal with sportsmen’s conservation groups.
The farmers for the first time agreed to support linking crop insurance subsidies to compliance with conservation programs, while conservation groups involved agreed to oppose amendments that would limit farmers’ access to insurance programs, and will support lightening some regulations of conservation programs.
As we gnash our teeth and rail at the mismanagement of our world, we need to take a few long moments to unclench our jaws and celebrate our successes. One in particular, which is going unmentioned in the debates over new gun laws and especially in the national discussion of hunting, is the Pittman-Robertson Act and the cash that is flowing from it like a high tide of honey into our federal and state wildlife coffers.
I am still shocked when I go into the Scheels in Great Falls and find the shelves empty of ammunition, and the gun cabinet with nothing in it but brackets, but it is a comfort to know that we have a booming economy in guns and ammo, and that, because of the Pittman-Robertson Act, we have a record-shattering amount of money available to support wildlife, habitat, and the shooting and archery sports. The rush on guns and ammo produced $522,552,011 in Pittman-Robertson money in fiscal year 2013 alone. At a time of record federal deficits, slashed budgets and ideologically inspired attacks on conservation, the Act has never seemed so important, or so visionary.
Many scientists consider a statement by Galileo to be a guiding principle in their professions: Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?
During the age of dam building, fish ladders were considered nothing less than penicillin in the world of fishery management. That’s because when the harm dams caused to migrating fish populations became evident, fish ladders were announced as the solution. Who can forget all those neat news features with film of fish charging up the ladders to the still waters above the dam?
But this group of researchers obviously didn’t consider the science settled. And when they looked into fish ladders on Northeast rivers, they discovered some surprising and sobering facts—one of which was that less than 3 percent of one key species was making it upriver to their spawning grounds.
Sportsmen and other conservationists found another reason to value the Environmental Protection Agency and the rule of law Tuesday, when a federal appeals court unanimously upheld the agency’s right to regulate the permitting process for mountaintop mining operations – one of the most destructive mining activities ever for fish and wildlife.
The case involved the EPA’s decision to revoke a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for The Spruce 1 Mine, the largest in West Virginia history, which would have buried some six miles of streams with tailings from the mountaintop. The EPA said the permit violated the Clean Water Act, but a lower court ruled the agency didn’t have the right to revoke a permit granted by the corps.
When you spend most days scanning the wire (ok, the Internet; I’m old-school) ferreting out the latest events on the important conservation issues of the day, you come across some remarkable stories. Most make you cry. Some make you laugh.
And then there are those that make you laugh while you cry.
Which brings me to these two headlines from last weekend that created a serious panic among those of us in Cajun country:
It’s official: America’s streams and rivers are in serious trouble.
This isn’t from a green group; it’s from the Environmental Protection Agency, which this week released its first comprehensive survey looking at the health of thousands of streams across the nation. The 2008-2009 National Rivers and Stream Assessment found that more than half of those systems – 55-percent – are “in poor conditions for aquatic life.”
That, of course, includes fish.
“The health of our nation’s rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters depends on the vast network of streams where they begin, and this new science shows that America’s streams and rivers are under significant pressure,” said Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. “We must continue to invest in protecting and restoring our nation’s streams and rivers as they are vital sources of our drinking water, provide many recreational opportunities, and play a critical role in the economy.”
Sportsmen conservation groups concerned about 20 million acres of the nation’s most important wetlands—and thousands of miles of threatened trout streams—have a message for President Obama: It’s time to walk the talk.
This involves the longest running run-around conservationists may ever have gotten. It involves two presidents and at least four congresses.
The story began in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress never intended for the Clean Water Act to protect isolated and temporary wetlands. The ruling stunned fish and wildlife advocates because those types of wetlands are among the most critical for a wide range of wildlife especially waterfowl, as well as protecting streamsides that are essential to healthy trout populations.
The fix was obvious: Congress need only pass a law saying that it specifically wanted those wetlands included in the CWA.
The future of Gulf of Mexico fisheries got a grim forecast this week when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported the stunning finding that its latest data indicated southeast Louisiana would be inundated with more than four feet of sea level rise by the end of the century – the highest level “on the planet.” The average elevation of that landscape is about three feet.
That area encompasses the great estuary of the Mississippi River, which is responsible for much of the fisheries production in the Gulf. If its marshes are flooded, production will plummet. Of course, the threat to many cities is also dire.