Liberty Matters News Service
March 12, 2003
Sand Huggers v. Tree Huggers
A most
unbelievable controversy is brewing over whether to destroy thousands of
trees planted by the U.S. Army in the 1880’s, in the Presidio of San
Francisco in what is now a 1,480-acre national park.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering removal of
3,800 trees in the historic Presidio to re-establish sand dunes for the
benefit of a tiny, insignificant wild flower.
The project to restore sand dunes for the “San Francisco
lessingia” began in 1997, when the city contributed $1 million to
clear 19 trees on 13 acres in Lobos Creek Valley.
The lessingia population then exploded from a mere 600
individuals to over a million plants, it was reported.
The decision now is whether San Franciscans would rather have
trees or blowing sand. A
San Francisco Chronicle writer branded the sand dune backers as
‘sand-hugging zealots’ who would reduce their beloved city to a
sand-blown, barren landscape. The
Monterey cypress and eucalyptus trees now form a magnificent urban park
on the historic military post, but even that doesn’t suit the ardent
environmentalists, who hate the eucalyptus as a “troublesome invasive
species.” Mr. Leland Yee,
a California state assemblyman, took umbrage at their attitude: “Plants and trees without the proper papers to show their
pre-Mayflower lineage are called invasive exotics and are wrenched from
the soil to die. How many
of us are invasive exotics who have taken root in San Francisco soil,
have thrived and flourished,” he wrote in an op-ed piece.
This is environmentalism at its best.
Ancient
Dunes v. Exotic Trees
Real People v. Tree Huggers
Arizona residents showed up en mass
at a House Subcommittee Forests and Forest Health field hearing in
Flagstaff last week to show their support for the Republican federal
forest proposals and to rise up against environmental groups that are
trying to thwart efforts to salvage timber burned in last summer’s
467,000-acre Rodeo-Chediski fire. They
are particularly angered that the Forest Conservation Council is
appealing the Forest Service’s plan to salvage the burn near homes,
roads and utility lines. Agriculture
Under Secretary Mark Rey told the committee members that if the salvage
efforts are held up, the timber will be useless.
Forest health scientists, federal administrators and even the
co-founder of Green-Peace, Patrick Moore all agreed - thinning won’t
cut it and landscape –scale logging must begin immediately.
Moore testified there are two primary causes for the dismal
condition of the nation’s forests:
“that Eastern federal politicians control lands in the West,
and ‘many powerful environmental groups are telling us that the way to
save forests is to let them burn to the ground.’”
“Who is the extremist in this instance when you ignore forest
health and the safety of the population,” questioned Rep. Scott
McInnis (R-CO).
Congressional
Hearing Draws Protests, Pleas in Flagstaff
Scott
County Say
s No
Residents of Scott County, Virginia,
met last week to let the Clinch Coalition and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA.),
know they don’t want High Knob designated a national recreation area. The crowd responded approvingly to remarks by Randy Rigg who
told them that the designation would be detrimental to landowners, the
timber industry, hunters and recreation in the forest. Rigg reported that contrary to propaganda disseminated by the
Clinch Coalition, there was not overwhelming public demand for such a
designation and that an advisory committee was stacked with
environmentalists who shunned public comment on the plan.
The Scott County folks also heard from Sam Bennett, a Knoxville
forester and member of Treekeepers.org, who told them the High Knob plan
fits into the mold of The Wildlands Project, a scheme to tie wilderness
corridors together and turn 50 per cent of America into wilderness.
County supervisor Sarge Reed told the crowd not to be fooled by
claims the government would not interfere in their lives once the
designation was secured: “a
national recreation area is the first step.
It may take awhile…but the federal government gets this and
that and doesn’t stop.” Dick
Austin, a Clinch Coalition member explained his group is only opposed
“to commercial logging ruining the forest and are opposed to
commercial timbering on public lands.”
Scott
County Crowd Doesn't Want Recreation Designation
The Tortoise
and the Cow
What do the rabbit and the cow have
in common? The tortoise
beats them at every game. California
ranchers have been ordered to remove their cattle from 248,000 acres of
critical habitat for the desert tortoise in the Mojave Desert.
The cattle must be off the land through June 15th so the
tortoises can move about freely.
Last year, the ban encompassed 500,000 acres, but studies by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated the cattle were not likely to
harm the little brutes in the north and east desert regions.
Daniel Patterson of the Center for Biological Diversity, said:
“Livestock are very damaging to the Mojave Desert.
Tortoises cannot and should not have to compete with animals that
have mobility and appetites of cattle.”
A recent report shows that despite spending $92 million over the
past ten years on tortoise protection, the government still doesn’t
know if the restrictions are beneficial.
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV), calls the government study
“pathetic.” “We’ve
been working on this for a generation, 20 years, and have yet to show
any difference in protecting the desert tortoise other than spending a
bucket load of money on it.”
Ranchers
Ordered to Move Cattle
Report
Blasts Tortoise Protection Efforts