This Press Release from, Center for Biological Dioversity dated September 2, 2011 makes it absolutely clear where CBD’s priorities are…

Border Patrol Plan to Triple Base Size on Arizona-Mexico Border Puts Endangered Wildlife, Fragile Lands at Risk

TUCSON, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity today criticized a new environmental analysis by the Department of Homeland Security that fails to adequately assess the effects of its border-security and enforcement activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including tripling the size of its base in the desert. In comments submitted to the Department, the group called on Homeland Security to produce a thorough, realistic analysis of the impacts of its activities on the fragile and diverse landscapes of the border region, home to a range of threatened and endangered species.

“In its slipshod analysis of the impacts of tripling the size of its forward operating base near Organ Pipe National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Homeland Security seems to condone ongoing damage to these precious public lands and their wildlife,” said the Center’s Cyndi Tuell. “For imperiled species like Sonoran pronghorns, this lip-service study is a death knell.”

Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta lie adjacent to each other along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and have been significantly hurt by off-road vehicle use in recent years — much of the damage has been the result of Border Patrol vehicles riding roughshod over wilderness areas.

“For an agency devoted to securing the border, the Border Patrol does an awful lot of off-road driving 15 to 20 miles north of the border, through extremely sensitive habitat for a range of species,” said Tuell. “Sonoran pronghorn are especially vulnerable to this kind of disruption, which can stop them from raising their fawns or getting enough to eat.”

Surveys and satellite data show that nearly 8,000 miles — and some estimate up to 20,000 miles — of illegal, “wildcat” roads now exist on the Cabeza Prieta, some of which were created by illegal cross-border vehicle activity, but an increasing percentage of which have resulted from misguided enforcement strategies.

“A memo of understanding between Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior was signed to create protocols for border-security activities on our precious public lands,” said Tuell. “In many places it works well, but on Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta, Homeland Security routinely ignores it.”

“The Department of Homeland Security should focus its enforcement efforts closer to the border to prevent damage to America’s public lands before it encroaches so far into the United States,” said Tuell. “And it needs to work more closely with land managers on the ground in these areas to reduce the damage caused by their activities.”

COMMENTARY: The border will never be secure against illegal entry and drug smuggling as long as portions of the border are widen open.

The reason these areas are wide open is because of federal land managers who put protecting lizards ahead of national security, and radical environmental groups like CBD who fight everything in the name of protecting endangered species.

I think it is time the federal government looks into where CBD gets its donations.

If I were in charge of the Mexican drug cartel I’d be giving money to outfits like CBD which fight securing the border. Groups like CBD consciously or unconsciously are aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartels.

The people of America have got to stop this nonsense of debating border security versus proptecting the environment along the border. The drug smugglers and illegal aliens do not care about our environment and are destroying it. This must be stopped.

Environmental laws must be subordinated to national security in the area adjacent to our land borders so the Border Patrol can secure the border at the border.

Did you know it is a misdeamnor to illegally enter the country, but a felony to run over an endangered species lizard?

And those who want immigration law reform…it ought to be clear that is not going to happen until the border is secured.

Do not buy Janet Napoltiano’s claim the border is secured. We can show you exactly where it is not secure…the zone where illegal aliens killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry west of Nogales. There is a wilderness area and national forest land along this stretch of the border that has virtually no Border Patrol access due toi environmental priorities.

Until the Border Patrol can gain access to the border, finish the fence, put in more roads, and saturate the border zone with agents, the border is not secure…and thus no immigration law reform.

Immigration reform advocates…your cause is being destroyed by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity.

More….

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

 

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

The western United States has long been dependent on damming and diverting water from rivers to irrigate farms and provide drinking water to cities.

Tucson, Phoenix, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other cities depend on an intricate network of water management systems.

Some of the most productive irrigation areas on earth such as the Central Valley and Imperial Valley of California depend on diverted water.

Tied to these storage and diversion projects and uses are a network of state water rights.

Though the water may originate on National Forest lands, Bureau of Land Management lands, and other federally managed lands, the rights to that water belongs to the farms and ranches and cities.

Millions of people and billions of dollars of our economy depend on being able to use these water rights for the purposes they were originally obtained for.

But the structure of water rights and the reliance on those rights by cities and farms and everyone else in the West is being challenged via the Endangered Species Act.

The water and the watersheds that the water originates from are being declared endangered species habitat and restrictions are being forced on the access and use to the water in the name of protecting endangered species.

In Arizona, for example, the right of Phoenix, the Salt River Project and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to divert Colorado River and Salt River water to Phoenix and Tucson is being threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service because those diversion allegedly endanger everything from gila topminnow, chiricahua leopard frogs, willow flycatchers, etc.

The environmental mantra starts with the claim that 80 or 90% of Arizona riparian habitats have been lost due to water diversions.

Under the Endangered Species Act the federal government has a powerful tool to usurp state water rights in the name of protecting habitat for endangered species.

One prime example is the fight in central California over the Delta Smelt…a minnow like fish whose existence was alleged to be threatened by diversion of the water of the Sacramento River to farms in the Central Valley.

Water deliveries to the farms has been reduced to protect the smelt.

This is a back door way for the federal government to take away water rights granted by the states that have been in beneficial use for…in many cases…over 100 years.

The basis for taking away state-granted water rights is Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act…which basically provides that any modification of a habitat of an endangered species is a crime.

Thus diverting water a fish could live in is a criminal act.

This even though the water users…cities and farms…have had property rights to the water for many years.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Endangered Species Act and its implementation via US Fish and Wildlife (driven by hundreds of lawsuits from environmental litigation factories such as the Center for Biological Diversity) are the “incidental take permits” or ITPs that USF&W can issue allowing people to continue to divert their water provided they pay what amounts to extortion to USF&W.

Environmental litigation factories have joined the extortion game, offering to drop their lawsuits if they are paid money or some other ransom is delivered to them.

Here is one prime example relating to the Central Arizona Project:

There is a “biological opinion” on the CAP concludes that exotic fish might escape from the CAP canal system, swim upstream, and displace native fish species.

From the “biological opinion”

The waters conveyed by the CAP can connect both directly, via existing canals and reservoirs, or indirectly, via return flows, to the rivers of the Gila River basin. This connection opens potential conduits for the transfer of non-native species of fish to the lower Gila River basin tributaries and to the middle and upper Gila River basin above Ashurst-Hayden Dam. The Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt and Verde Rivers, as tributaries of the Gila, could also enable any fish species introduced into their waters from the CAP to reach the Gila River and eventually move upstream to the base of Ashurst-Hayden. Ashurst-Hayden Dam is not an effective fish barrier for several reasons, both structural and operational, and any fish species that reach the base of the dam would have the opportunity to move beyond it to the middle Gila and San Pedro Rivers. The presence of the CAP connection creates a perennial waterway from the Colorado River to the major streams of the Gila River Basin, potentially connecting rivers and canal systems that otherwise would be more isolated by dams and intermittent stream reaches

In the early 1990s The Phoenix Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation entered into formal Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) over the issue of transportation and delivery of Central Arizona Project water to the Gila River Basin(Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, middle and upper Gila Rivers, and associated tributaries) in Arizona and New Mexico. Federal agencies must consult with FWS whenever it is determined that a project that is being built or funded by the agency may affect a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In its Biological Opinion (April 20, 1994), FWS found that these deliveries would jeopardize the continued existence of the Spikedace (Meda fulgida), Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)and would adversely modify the critical habitat of the spikedace, loach minnow, and razorback sucker.

In order to remove jeopardy to these species the FWS proposed a reasonable and prudent alternative containing five primary elements:

1. Construction and operation of upstream barriers to fish movement from the CAP aqueduct into native fish habitats

1. Monitoring of nonnative fish

1. Transfer of funding to FWS for the recovery and protection of listed and candidate Gila basin fishes as mitigation for adverse project effects which cannot feasibly be alleviated below the jeopardy threshold

1. Transfer of funding to FWS for management against nonnaitve fish and research to support that management

1. Implementation of an information and education program regarding nonnative aquatic fishes.

In a 2001 reconsultation with FWS, these reasonable and prudent alternatives were voluntarily made conservation measures (part of the CAP project) by Reclamation. More recently a 2008 resconsultation with FWS expanded the list of conservation measures to include the following:

1. Reclamation will construct physical drop structures that act as barriers to upstream fish movement at 12 locations (see Fish BarrierPage for specifics). Reclamation or their designee will maintain the barriers throughout the life of the project.

1. Reclamation or their designee will maintain and operate the existing electrical barriers on the Florence-Casa Grande Canal near China Wash and Salt River Project on the Arizona and South Canals throughout the life of the project.

1. Reclamation will implement a baseline study and long-term monitoring of the presence and distribution of non-native fish in the following areas:
2. CAP aqueducts
3. SRP canals
4. Florence-Casa Grande Canal
5. Gila River between Coolidge Dam and Ashurst-Hayden Diversion Dam
6. Salt River between Stewart Mountain Dam and Granite Reef Dam
7. San Pedro River downstream of the US / Mexico border
8. Cienega Creek Preserve

1. Reclamation will transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years in addition to 9 years of funding that has already been provided to FWS for conservation actions(recovery and protection) for the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, or other Gila Basin listed or candidate fish species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by FWS and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation shall transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years (in addition to 9 y

9 years of funding that has already been provided to FWS for conservation actions (recovery and protection) for the spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, or other Gila Basin listed or candidate fish species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by FWS and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation shall transfer $275,000 annually for 21 years (in addition to 9 years of funding that has already been provided) to FWS for research on, and control of non-native aquatic species. Expenditure of these funds shall be jointly agreed upon by the Service and Reclamation in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

1. Reclamation will develop and implement an information and education program directed to conservation of native fishes and their habitat. Emphasis is be placed on problems caused by bait-bucket transfer, dumping of pet aquarium fish, and other forms of transport by the public.

1. Reclamation will provide $100,000 to FWS toward development of a Chiricauha leopard frog rearing facility, or other conservation actions.

Since the CAP fish escaping and displacing native endangered fish is a “taking” under the Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service could in the extreme deny the CAP the right to deliver Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson.

Obviously understanding that completely shutting down the water supply to 5 million people might piss enough of them off to get the Endangered Specie Act repealed, US Fish and Wildlife made a deal with the CAP.

Pay US Fish and Wildlife ransom money every year so US Fish and Wildlife can run around the watersheds of the Gila and Salt and Santa Cruz rovers poisoning exotic fish and replacing them with endangered native fish.

$550,000 a year foir 21 years is being transferred from the CAP to US Fish and Wildlife for USF&W’s fish restoration program. And CAP is happy (one guesses) to pay the ransom from ratepayer (that means Phoenix and Tucson water users) money so the water flow is not shut off.

Pretty much the same situation exists between the Salt River Project and US Fish and Wildlife. The SRP owns the water rights on its watershed for delivery to farms and cities in the Salt River Valley. Even though the project was built in the early 1900’s long before there was en Endangered Species Act, now that water is being diverted, the ESA kicks in.

When, as a part of the CAP implementation, it was decided to rebuild Roosevelt Dam to increase the amount of Salt River water stored there, US Fish and Wildlife was right there waving Section 9 of the ESA in one hand, and demanding ransom from the SRP with their other hand. More money is transferred from SRP water ratepayers to US Fish and Wildlife.

Even something as mundane as building and operating sports fishing lakes in Arizona…such as Roosevelt Lake east of Phoenix, and Pena Blanca and Patagonia lakes in southern Arizona, trigger ESA violation and another opportunity for extortion.

Planting exotic fish in lakes like trout and bass threaten endangered species fish in those river systems…again the exotic fish swim up or down stream and displace the native fish.

In exchange for being able to continue stocking the lakes…and even having the lakes at all…means an incidental take permit is needed and to get that ITP the state Game and Fish Department has to pay.

The first thing that needs doing is for Congress to find out how much money US Fish and Wildlife actually controls via “inter-agency agreements” with other governmental agencies under ransom deals via the Endangered Species Act.

The second thing needed is Congress needs to make it clear that the Endangered Species Act cannot be used to reduce or interfere with pre-existing water rights under state law.

There are no water rights in the West if the Endangered Species Act is able to usurp state water law.

The endangered species tax

Enviro-Marxists seek to protect the environment by destroying capitalism

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

It is Time to Reform the Endangered Species Act

Reformation of the Endangered Species Act
_____________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

Press Release from US Fish and Wildlife Service Ausugt 12, 2011:

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Revise Critical Habitat For Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to revise critical habitat for an endangered migratory bird, the southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed revision identifies 2,090 stream miles within the 100-year floodplain of waters in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as critical habitat. Of the total proposal, approximately 779 stream miles are currently being considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. The Service is seeking input on the proposal, including exclusions, through October 14, 2011.

“Our proposal identifies riparian habitat needed to attain the established southwestern willow flycatcher recovery goals — the flycatcher habitat and populations that will remove the threat of flycatcher extinction,” said Steve Spangle, the Service’s Arizona field supervisor. “Now we’re seeking input to refine our strategy. Did we identity the features and areas essential to conservation of the species? What are the anticipated impacts of designating various areas?”

In 2005, the Service designated 737 river miles of flycatcher critical habitat (after initially proposing 1,556 river miles). The critical habitat is being revised following a settlement agreement stemming from legal challenges to the 2005 designation. The 2005 critical habitat designation remains in effect during the current rulemaking process, anticipated to be completed in one year.

The proposed critical habitat uses the conservation strategies from the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan and flycatcher movement data to identify river segments within each of 29 management units that would meet the flycatcher distribution and abundance (1,950 territories) recovery goals. Because flycatcher habitat and Southwest rivers are dynamic, a broad distribution of flycatcher populations throughout the bird’s range is important to retain population stability and gene flow, and to prevent simultaneous catastrophic loss of populations and local extirpation.

However, the Service recognizes that a substantial amount of the proposed areas are already being managed to accommodate or advance flycatcher recovery through Habitat Conservation Plans, tribal management, and other partnerships. Areas such as these, and areas where resulting economic and other relevant impacts may occur, can be excluded from the final critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

The Service is also preparing a draft economic analysis and environmental assessment of the proposed critical habitat that will be released for public review and comment at a later date.

Critical habitat is a term in the Endangered Species Act that identifies geographic areas essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, establish a refuge or preserve, and has no impact on decisions that private landowners make on their land that do not require Federal funding or permits.

Federal agencies that undertake, fund or permit activities that may affect critical habitat are required to consult with the Service to ensure such actions do not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.

The 5¾-inch flycatcher breeds and rears its chicks in late spring and through the summer in dense vegetation along streams, rivers, wetlands, and reservoirs in the arid Southwest. The most recent 2007 flycatcher rangewide assessment described 288 separate flycatcher breeding sites (areas that contain a collection of territories) and estimated 1,299 flycatcher territories. A territory is a discrete area defended by a resident single flycatcher or pair of flycatchers during a breeding season. The flycatcher migrates to Mexico, Central, and possibly northern South America for the non-breeding season.

A copy of the proposed rule, maps and other information about the southwestern willow flycatcher is available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or >http://www.regulations.gov“, or by contacting the Service’s Arizona Ecological Service Office at (602) 242-0210.

Comments on the proposal and relevant scientific and commercial information will be accepted within 60 days, on or before October 14, 2011, and can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov, or can be mailed or hand delivered to Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2-ES-2011-0053; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. Written requests for a public hearing will be accepted within 45 days, on or before September 29, 2011, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or Division of Policy and Directives Management mailing address.

The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife, and plants. This landmark conservation law has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation and promoted the recovery of many others. The Service is working to actively engage conservation partners and the public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. To learn more about the Endangered Species Program, visit http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service.

For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov Connect with our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/usfws, follow our tweets at www.twitter.com/usfwshq, watch our YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/usfws>

and download photos from our Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/

More photos:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/JRorabaugh/05-30-2000/BirdsB/Southwestern%20willow%20flycatcher%20on%20nest.jpg

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/Rorabaugh/Willow%20flycatcher%20Glendale%20AZ3%20D4.jpg

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/WIFL_AndreSilva_TNF.jpg

CLICK HERE TO SEE PROPOSED NEW RULE AND MAP OF IMPACTED AREAS

Included in the proposed habitat conservation area near Tucson are the Santa Cruz River from the Nogales Wastewater Treatment Plant to Chavez Siding Road, a portion of the Cienega Creek, and all of the San Pedro River. There have never been willow flycatchers in the Santa Cruz River south of Tucso.

Center for Biological Diversity press release August 12, 2011:

2,000+ Stream Miles of Critical Habitat Proposed for Protection of Endangered Desert Bird

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher to Gain Ground in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah

TUCSON, Ariz.— In response to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today proposed 2,090 stream miles as protected critical habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. If finalized, today’s proposal would substantially increase protection for the rare bird over a previous designation of 730 stream miles finalized by the Bush administration in 2005 and challenged by the Center.

“With today’s proposal, the southwestern willow flycatcher has a shot at survival,” said Noah Greenwald, the Center’s endangered species director. “Like so many species dependent on the rivers and streams of the Southwest, the southwestern willow flycatcher is on the brink of extinction and urgently needs more habitat protection.”

The proposed designation includes numerous important and well-known rivers, including the San Gabriel, Ventura, San Diego, Virgin, Colorado, Little Colorado, Gila, Rio Grande, and San Pedro.

“Protection of southwestern rivers for the flycatcher will benefit hundreds of other species and millions of people, too, who depend on these rivers for water and recreation,” said Greenwald. “There are so many benefits, economic and otherwise, of protecting endangered species that are often underappreciated.” 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is still considering excluding 779 stream miles it says are “already being managed to accommodate or advance flycatcher recovery through Habitat Conservation Plans, tribal management, and other partnerships.”

“Although we support the efforts of local governments or other entities to conserve habitat for the flycatcher, we believe all 2,090 stream miles should be designated as critical habitat,” said Greenwald. “In many cases, ongoing conservation efforts for flycatchers don’t take into account recovery of the rare songbird, or they’re voluntary and therefore uncertain.”

The flycatcher was listed as an endangered species in 1995 in response to a petition from the Center. According to a 2007 survey, there are roughly 1,299 territories spread across the species range with substantial populations on the upper Gila River and middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, Roosevelt Lake and the lower San Pedro in Arizona and numerous scattered locations in California.

Background on the Flycatcher
The flycatcher is a small, neotropical migrant bird that breeds in streamside forests of Southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas and extreme northwestern Mexico. Within this range, the flycatcher has lost more than 90 percent of its habitat to dams, water withdrawal, livestock grazing, urban sprawl and other factors.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 320,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

COMMENTARY: When one looks at the proposed habitat conservation plan areas for the Willow Flyctacher, the chriricahua leapord frog and a number of other endangered species one finds that virtually all of the streams, rivers and watercourses in Arizona are covered.

The goal is pretty clear beyond just protecting the endangered species…radical limitations in access to water via state granted water rights, elimination of grazing on federally-managed lands, and other goals radical evironmental groups seek in the name of protecting endangered species but have everything to do with removing humans and their access to their water rights in the habitat conservation plan watersheds.

A very important debate has emerged over whether environmental laws need to be suspended in the borderlands so the Border Patrol can secure the border at the border.

There are serious limitations on the Border Patrol’s ability to secure the border at the border on federally-managed lands.

HR 1505 addresses that problem by suspending environmental laws 100 miles from both land and ocean borders of the US on federally owned lands.

HR 1505 only applies to federal lands:

(b) Authorized Activities- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government (including land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture) for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).

So the entire state of Florida is not being exempted from environmental laws as was claimed.

The basis for the 100 mile zone is this is the same zone the Border Patrol is authorized to operate in to try and catch illegal aliens and drug smugglers.

Some call this 100 mile zone the “Constitution Free Zone“…and they are right.

In refining the environmental exemption legislation, the exemption zone should be more like 30 or 50 miles from the land borders on federal lands. In Arizona that exemption should include the area south of Interstate 10 because there are federal land corridors open all the way from the border to the Interstate.

The environmental objection to waiving environmental laws does not recognize any need to put national security ahead of environmental protection right down to the actual border. Protecting wildlife comes first to environmentalists. People are second.

Obviously environmentalists want wilderness areas right up to the line…even if this means those wilderness areas can be exploited by drug smugglers and illegal aliens. A new chunk of wilderness area is being proposed by New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman. (S 1024).

Frank DuBois at The Westerner posted what people think of this wilderness proposal here. Not too much in fact. Another wilderness area on the border is a stpid and dangerous idea given what has been going on in our very own Pajarita Wilderness Area.

You just have to take a look at the Pajarita Wilderness Area west of Nogales to see how well the preferencing of environmental protection against securing the border has worked to protect the integrity of that wilderness area. It is a burnt mess covered with immigrant trails and peppered with empty shell casings from automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

The border bandits that shot Border Patrol agent Brian Terry used the Pajarita to enter and flee the US.

An overwhelming majority of Americans are not going to tolerate protecting a wilderness area on the border when that leaves the land open to drug smuggling and illegal entry.

The amount of environmental damage being caused by drug smugglers (who start fires) and illegal aliens who trash the countryside….is far greater than any damage the Border Patrol could do.

Right now protecting the environment takes precedence over protecting national security. That is absolutely clear reading environmental opposition to HR 1505.

Now…assuming a middle ground exists (except with radical environmentalists) that would limit the exemption to 30 or 50 miles from the land borders…..

A very legitimate issue is raised by oppponents to HR 1505 about the ability of the Border Patrol to operate in a sensisitve and engineeringly correct manner.

Examples are cited of the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security doing stupid and careless things and not using basic common sense.

I can cite worse examples of this than environmental groups can just from my experience in Nogales.

The Border Patrol would weld plates over city storm drains so our streets would flood.

The Border Patrol actually constructed a wall in the “covered tunnel”‘ …. the main drain between Nogales, Sonora snd Noghales, Arizona…. obstructing the flow of storm water and flooding part of downtown Nogales, Sonora.

So I would not support giving the Border Patrol and DHS carte blanche to do whatever they wanted in an “exemption” deal.

I would require  the any plans of the Border Patrol for fences and walls and roads would have to be reviewed by some other agency…such as the US Army Corps of Engineers….to make sure what the Border Patrol wanted to do was done well and without destructive consequences like flooding a neighboring city.

But that review should not result in saying no road at all because the land is a wilderness area….it should focus on how to build the road with the least consequences.

That review can take into account environmental mitigation…but not open the door for US Fish and Wildlife to extort $50 million from DHS in exchange for allowing the Border Patrol to work on federally managed lands.

However, we are unable to have a meaningful discussion about how to secure our border and protect public safety because environmentalists are dug in saying no waiver no how and demanding that protecting the environment always trump national security.

If environmentalists see using the national security card as a way to trump their cherished environmental laws and set a precedent for ultimately rebalancing environmental protection with economic development…they are probably right.

Take a look at all the endangered species fights around the country….worms are being put ahead of economic development. You can’t drill for oil or build a solar array or a wind farm in this country without some litigious environmental group attacking, claiming species protection comes first and always.

Once people realize environmentalists  always put lizards and worms ahead of people and our economy and public safety, maybe a lot of people will step back and start looking closely at what the real agenda of our radical environmental groups is.

They obviously do not want you to do that.

________________________________

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment

This news story from WUSA

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. (WUSA) — Eleven-year-old aspiring veterinarian, Skylar Capo, sprang into action the second she learned that a baby woodpecker in her Dad’s backyard was about to be eaten by the family cat.

Woodpecker-Saving Daughter Costs Mom $500, Possible Jail Time

 

“I’ve just always loved animals,” said Skylar Capo. “I couldn’t stand to watch it be eaten.”

Skylar couldn’t find the woodpecker’s mother, so she brought it to her own mother, Alison Capo, who agreed to take it home.

“She was just going to take care of it for a day or two, make sure it was safe and uninjured, and then she was going to let it go,” said Capo.

More…

What happened next was a US Fish and Wildlife agent spotted the kid with the woodpecker.

According to the news item “The problem was that the woodpecker is a protected species under the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Therefore, it is illegal to take or transport a baby woodpecker. ”

The US Fish and Wildlife agent cited the mom for a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Act with a $535 fine and possible jail time.

That was even though the kid let the woodpecker fly away.

The US Fish and Wildlife Agency is totally out of control, using the Endangered Species Act and other federal wildlife laws, to terrorize Americans and destroy our econopmy.

Congress needs to find out how much money US Fish and Wildlife has extorted from other federal agencies using the Endangered Species Act as its weapon.

And ask how many kids the agency has busted because all they wanted to do was save a baby bird.

America has a wildlife gestapo in its midst.

UPDATE: Now US F&W is blaming issuing the citation on a clerical error. Obviously some folks need to be fired.

The Endangered Species Act commits us to saving not only every species…but every sub-species and every distinct population segment of a species or a sub-species.

Sounds like a popular idea in concept.

But does anyone realize how much this is costing our economy?

We have in effect an Endangered Species tax in this country.

The Endangered Species Tax is expressed in two ways.

The first way is virtually every federal project that involves disturbing the environment has to go through an Endangered Species Act review.

US Fish and Wildlife gets a chance to extort money from other federal agencies in exchange for approving other federal project activity.

Take for example the $50 million US Fish and Wildlife got from Department of Homeland Security to study bats because the Border Patrol drives around federal lands and they might run over a protected lizard.

Or take the millions of dollars being transfered from the Central Arizona Project to restoire native fish in Arizona becvause in theory exotic fish from the CAP canals could swim up the Ssanta Cruz River and eat native fish.

Whatever Congress appropriates to to US Fish and Wildlife, that agency controls vastly more money through “inter-agency agreements” with other federal agencies where Fish and Wildlife extorted money from thos other agencies in exchange for allowing their projects to go forward.

Congress needs to dig into all the inter-agency agreements between US Fish and Wildlife and other federal agencies and find out just how munch money Fish and Wildlife really controls. I’ll bet that will surprise a lot of people.

And then Congress needs to stop US Fish and Wildlife from hijacking other federal agency funds.

The second Endangered Species Tax is the cost added to every project in the country that is added to get federal approval for that project.

These costs turn up in habitat protection plans and other mitigation measures that projects are subjected to by the federal government and environmental groups who sue to block these projects.

Want to build a solar energy project? You will probably have to fork over money to protect the desert tortoise.

Want to build a natural gas pipeline? You will have to fork over money to protect mice. El Paso Natural Gas got hit for $22 million to get approval to build a gas pipeline through Nevada.

Want to drill for oil or natural gas in West Texas? You will add millions to your cost to protect sage lizards.

I’ll bet that we have at least a 10 percent cost added to virtually every project in the country that disturbs land in some way because we have prioritized protecting darned never everything that grows or walks or crawls in this country.

Somwhere along the way people need to have a say as to how much money we’re going to divert from our economy to protect what.

If there is no genetic difference between the wolves that live in Montana or Michigan or eastern Arizona…why are we spending money to have wolves in eastern Arizona?

If there are lots of jaguars in Mexico and all the way to Brazil….why are we going to spend millions to have jaguars in southern Arizona?

If there are 27 sub-species of squirrels….why are we spending money to protect one sub-species on one mountain top in Arizona?

There are a lot of good questions that need to be asked about how the Endangered Species Act really works and how much money it is costing to protect plants and critters that may not even really be endangered at all.

The Endangered Species Act really is not about protecting plants and animals any more.

It has been twisted into a tool to block virtually any project that disturbs the land.

Radical environmental groups that really want to destroy the American economy have turned the ESA into their weapon of choice to strangle America.

And taxpayers are paying for killing the country.

We have been bamboozled into a costly guilt trip via the Endangered Species Act and our priorities are seriously skewed when on one hand we really want to secure our border and we have people fighting finishing the border fence because that will interfere with jaguar migration.

Let’s find out how much we are spending via federal inter-agency agreements and cost additions to projects in the country and see if we are really getting our money’s worth.

And of course radical environmentalists will argue money is no object in protecting endangered species.

That is your money and the more of it siphoned away to protect sage lizards in West Texas, the less you will have for Social Security and Medicare.
_________________________

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

______________________________
It is Time to Reform the Endangered Species Act

Reformation of the Endangered Species Act
_____________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment

The Arizona Daily Star finally got around to doing a story about the fight between environmental laws and border security on July 24, 2011:

Bill exempts Border Patrol from enviro laws in wide area

The U.S. Border Patrol would have free rein on all lands within 100 miles of the border under a proposal from Republican lawmakers who say they want to untie the hands of agents working to secure the border.

More…

July 12, 2011: Star missing in action again

COMMENTARY: Interesting that the Star completely ignored the testimony of Cochise County rancher Gary Thrasher and the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers and really spends a lot of column inches telling readers how bad the bill is that puts national security in the borderlands ahead of environmental priorities.

One can legitimately disagree how far from the border the exemption ought to reach…I personally don’t support 100 miles…but what the Star misses is that environmentalists will not tolerate any exemption even right at the line.

When it is a misdemeanor to illegally enter the country (the first time) and a felony under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act if a Border Patrol agent runs over a protected lizard, something is really wrong with this country’s priorities.

Radical environmentalists who fight securing the border are aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartels in keeping smuggling corridors open. And they are keeping our borders open to illegal entry and death in the desert for migrants.

Here are some of the stories posted here about the border security versus environment argument:

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment 

Environmental group poll shows Americans support greater investment in ports of entry – not border walls

From Arizona Republic July 20, 2011:

Arizona now can build border fence

New law OKs construction through private donations, landowner consent

by Alia Beard Rau – Jul. 20, 2011 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Supporters of increased border enforcement now can help Arizona build its own fence along the Mexico border.

A new law went into effect today that allows the state to build the fence, as long as it can raise enough private donations and persuade public and private landowners to let it be done on their property. A new website for the effort, www.buildtheborderfence .com, was set to go online at midnight.

No other state has tried such a tactic.

Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, who sponsored the legislation, hopes to raise at least $50 million from donors across the nation.

“Donate to the country’s security,” Smith said. “This is an American problem, not an Arizona problem.”

State lawmakers who supported the law have said they want a consistent fence along the entire border that is solid, has multiple layers and is tall enough to keep out pedestrians. Smith said the effort also could include more high-tech security efforts.

The state’s southern border is about 370 miles long. About a third of that, mostly in the western part of the state between Yuma and Nogales, has the type of fence lawmakers want. The rest either has no fencing or has fencing designed to keep out vehicles. In that part of the state, the fence is only a few feet tall and is made of barbed wire or wooden posts. Smith said most illegal immigrants cross into the eastern part of Arizona over that more porous border.

According to a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, it has cost the federal government about $3 million a mile to build the type of fence that would keep pedestrians out.

Smith said Arizona’s final cost would depend on what kind of a fence is constructed and whether the state can get private companies to donate some of the construction supplies. State lawmakers have said they could save money by using inmate labor to build the fence.

The effort doesn’t have official non-profit status for tax purposes, but Smith said the website has a letter from the state consular general stating that there is precedent in Arizona that donations to a state or political subdivision are tax deductible.

“We aren’t taking an official position on that, but consult your tax professional,” Smith said. “Take that letter to your accountant.”

The Legislature’s Joint Border Security Advisory Committee, on which Smith serves, will determine what type of fence will be built and then manage construction.

Getting permission from landowners will determine where the fence can be built.

Much of the Arizona border is on federal land or Indian reservations, with small portions belonging to private landowners. Smith said the easiest solution would be for the federal government to give permission to build the fence within its 60-foot easement along the border.

“Let’s hope the federal government will allow us to do it,” Smith said. “But if they say no, we have a contingency.”

Smith said he already has begun talking to private landowners and has support from several to build on their property, even if it means the fence has to go miles north of the border.

“We’ve identified three highly trafficked areas that are notorious that we have pretty good access to,” he said. “And as we continue to raise awareness and funds, I hope the federal government says, ‘Go ahead and build whatever you want to build.’”

The Sierra Club opposes the law. It says Arizona already has more border walls than any other state and that the walls have caused flooding in some areas and have blocked wildlife in other areas.

“Arizona has been slammed by federally imposed, ineffective walls that cost taxpayers millions per mile,” said Dan Millis, program coordinator for the Sierra Club borderlands campaign, in a media release. “Donations toward more border walls will not provide much bang for the buck.”

The Arizona Daily Star’s version of this story also picks up on environmental objections to more border fencing:

Fundraising website for border fence starts quest

 
….Critics call Smith’s plan a misguided stunt that will only inflict more damage on the border environment that has already been harmed by the unprecedented buildup of barriers, roads and agents in the last decade.

“Their intent is to score some cheap political points by acting tough on immigration,” said Dan Millis, program coordinator for the Sierra Club Borderlands Campaign. “These lawmakers are misled if they think this a project they are going to be able to complete.”

More….

COMMENTARY: As noted in both stories there is a significant portion of the border that either has just the railroad rail obstructions for vehicles or just four strand barbed wire. These areas are mostly on federally managed lands.

These are the areas where drugs and illegal aliens continue to flow into Arizona.

The ruggedness of the terrain does not stop illegal aliens from entering or drug smugglers from entering the US.

The border will not be secured until these areas are fenced and have road access for the Border Patrol.

Environmentals fight completing the fence and the necessary roads because they place protecting wildlife ahead of public safety.

The problem with the state “do it yourself” fence plan is they cannot build the fence on federally managed lands.

Thus the most serious gaps in the border will remain open until Congress finally stops the environmental obstruction of completing the fence and building the necessary roads on federally managed lands along the border to secure the border at the border.

And I sure don’t see outfits like the Sierra Club or other environmental gruops tate fight against finishing the border fence offering any solutions to the illegal alien and drug smuggling problems we face.

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border security versus the environment 

 Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler