Radical Center for Bio Diversity Stikes Again

[HawgZWylde]

Brown administration's angling to ban lead fishing weights

It's getting harder to find a good fishing hole and more costly to toss in a line. An annual fishing license starts at $46. (Los Angeles Times)
Californians who enjoy fishing, heads up: Gov. Jerry Brown has his eye on your tackle box.
He's especially interested in your lead sinkers, starting with the tiny split shot.
Those little buggers can get lost in the water and be ingested by careless waterfowl that then become debilitated or die from lead poisoning.
So the governor has authorized his toxicity experts to look into possibly banning lead fishing gear in California.
In truth, of course, Brown isn't exactly a peeping Tom stalking the fishing equipment in your garage. He merely has signed off on a three-year study at his Department of Toxic Substances Control to thoroughly examine the environmental impact of lead tackle and consider outlawing it.
We don't understand why fishing products are considered one of the highest priorities. They're among the greatest concerns for Californians' safety? - David Dickerson, president of the California Sport Fishing League
Yes, really. And I ask the same question that perhaps you do: Doesn't the state of California have higher priorities to focus on?
Like, why would state officials contemplate banning lead fishing weights to protect birds but not even dream of banishing tobacco to save humans? Never mind.
This is mostly important to birds, presumably, and people who fish. And recreational anglers are a gradually declining number in California. Back in 1974, when Brown was first elected governor, nearly 2.2 million fishing licenses were sold. Last year, about 1.8 million were, a drop of 18%. Meanwhile, the population has risen 81%.
No, I'm not blaming Brown. It's just getting harder and harder to find a good fishing hole and more costly to toss in a line. An annual fishing license starts at $46.
Now the state is thinking about dumping all the traditional weights — attached to lines so they can be cast into the water and sink to where the fish hang out — and making us buy much more expensive, non-lead gear. Perhaps made of steel, ceramic, glass, tin or tungsten.
Actually, nobody knows exactly what the state is thinking.
About all we know is that recently the toxic control department announced a three-year "work plan" as part of its Green Chemistry Initiative, to study the safety of "priority products." It budgeted $5 million for this year.
The products involve beauty and personal care, building materials and furnishings, office machinery, cleansers, clothing — and fishing gear.
"We don't understand why fishing products are considered one of the highest priorities," says David Dickerson, president of the California Sport Fishing League. "They're among the greatest concerns for Californians' safety?"
In real life, Dickerson is a lobbyist for fishing boat manufacturers.
Maureen Gorsen used to head the state toxic control department under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now she's an environmental and land-use lawyer. She asks, "What is the scientific reasoning for including fishing equipment" on the study list?
"It's like throwing darts on a board."
This is what the department says in its written plan:
"Recreational anglers fish in sensitive habitats like lakes, rivers, streams, bays and the ocean. More than 2 million Californians fish recreationally. Together, these anglers may lose hundreds of tons of fishing and angling equipment into the environment. The hazardous chemicals in the equipment they lose can expose and potentially harm birds and other wildlife….
"Lead poisoning associated with the ingestion of lead fishing weights has been well documented in a variety of bird and animal species around the world, including swans, waterfowl, gulls, turtles, cranes, herons, pelicans…."
OK, but no one at the department could cite a California study for me.
And anglers losing "hundreds of tons" of toxic fishing gear in the water? A lot of non-lead lures, plastic monofilament leaders, artificial flies and smelly worms, yes. But lead weights? They're normally the last to get lost and mostly return to the tackle box.
I've got sinkers inherited from my dad and a sufficient supply to last through my grandkids' lives.
Surely, no state official thinks enough law enforcement can be hired to confiscate all the lead sinkers in California — or enough wardens to cite anglers for using them.
"It would be self-regulating — like another gear restriction," says Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, asserting that anglers would police themselves.
The little weights — the split shot — are the biggest culprits for waterfowl, Miller says, because the birds confuse them with the tiny pebbles they regularly ingest to help grind up food in their gizzards.
Lead weights also cause a couple of problems for humans, Miller adds.
One is that countless anglers melt down lead and make their own weights. "That's extremely toxic," he says. "Really a bad idea."
Another hazard: The angler — often a kid — who puts split shot in his mouth and bites down to clamp it on his line. Not good for the teeth, let alone toxicity.
Some northeastern states have banned lead sinkers under an ounce.
OK, if the teeny weights are the problem, then the bigger 3-and-4 ounce sinkers should be home free, right? And particularly the 3-and-4 pounders used in deep water fishing.
Not necessarily, replies Meredith Williams, the department deputy director who's running the program. "We haven't done that level of research. Right now we're trying to open up the conversation."
You can bet it will open in bait shops and on fishing piers.
"It would be disastrous," says Mickey Daniels, who owns a charter fishing boat at Lake Tahoe. "It's going to raise the cost of fishing."
I'll pay it. But first somebody needs to show me that the extra cost is really worth it for the birds — that I'm not just being harassed again by government.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go toss some lead sinkers in the water.
Twitter: @LATimesSkelton

Well, who is Jonathan Gruber? Ya think?

[DEVOREFLYER]

Greater sage-grouse buffer zones may ruffle feathers in Western states

A review by the U.S. Geological Survey found that the Greater sage-grouse ideally needs a 3- to 5-mile buffer zone between its breeding area and humans. (Associated Press) more >
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 25, 2014
DENVER — The Greater sage-grouse and Westerners may be able to coexist, but it’s going to be an increasingly tight squeeze.
A review issued by the U.S. Geological Survey found that the Greater sage-grouse ideally needs a 3- to 5-mile buffer zone between its breeding area and human development, which could mean anything from a hydraulic fracturing tower to a 4-foot fence.
At a time when Western economic interests have clashed repeatedly with the Obama administration’s land-use decisions, the big buffer for the ground-dwelling, chicken-size bird has the potential to ruffle more than a few human feathers.
At the same time, the report said that land managers should have discretion to determine how large the buffer should be, depending on factors ranging from the availability of sagebrush, the effectiveness of local conservation efforts and other factors.
“This is a bird that requires a large, unfragmented landscape, and one of the great things about the West is that we still have a lot of that,” said Fish and Wildlife spokesman Theo Stein. “But we don’t have as much as we used to, and population numbers for the sage grouse have been declining for decades.”
The Greater sage-grouse, the dancing game bird at the center of a pitched debate over endangered species, makes its home across a vast and sparsely populated 11-state territory stretching from California to Wyoming. Even so, carving out a 3-mile radius around the species’ breeding grounds, or “leks,” could prove tricky.
The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are 200,000 to 500,000 Greater sage-grouse. Using the lowest estimate, that represents 100,000 breeding pairs. If each pair needs a 3-mile buffer to breed, equivalent to roughly 18,000 acres, that amounts to 1.8 billion acres — or almost as much land as the 1.99 billion acres of land within the continental United States.
Fortunately, not every breeding pair needs its own lek. Carol Schuler, USGS senior science adviser, said 15 to 20 breeding pairs typically share the same lek. Even so, that doesn’t leave a lot of room for telephone poles or windmills considering the bird’s habitat is estimated at 165 million acres.
Denver attorney Kent Holsinger, who specializes in land-use and species issues, said it was “somewhat encouraging that more and more researchers recognize a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn’t work for such a wide-ranging species as sage-grouse.”
But he took issue with the report’s reliance on data indicating that roads, fences, telephone poles and drilling located miles away can interfere with the grouse’s ability to mate.
“[T]he continued assumption that human activity directly causes population declines is seriously misplaced,” Mr. Holsinger said. “Moreover, the notion that such huge buffers are required is based upon outdated information. For example, the impacts of oil and gas development today (due to horizontal drilling, pipelines and new technology) are much smaller than the kind of intensive development of yesteryear that much of these studies are based upon.”
Heading off a listing
The USGS study, which compiles summaries of previous research on sage-grouse breeding and development, comes with Western states heavily engaged in habitat restoration efforts in order to stave off a potentially damaging federal endangered species listing, a listing that could have a far more dramatic impact on economic development.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required to decide whether to list the Greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered by September 2015. Lawmakers fear a listing would hobble economic activity by chilling oil and gas drilling, along with wind and solar development.
Two weeks ago, the agency listed as “threatened” the Gunnison sage-grouse of Colorado and Utah, prompting Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper to say he would challenge the decision in court. Meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity has sued to raise the listing to “endangered,” arguing that the lower category fails to protect the species adequately.
Despite the uproar over the Gunnison sage-grouse, a Greater sage-grouse listing would have a far greater impact. The Gunnison sage-grouse has an estimated 5,000 birds in two states, while the Greater sage-grouse would affect communities throughout the rural West.
The push for greater protections could upset ranchers and farmers in the region, who have already embarked on voluntary conservation efforts in a bid to head off more onerous regulations.
Many landowners have signed agreements to mark fences, restrict livestock from grouse breeding areas and even prune western juniper trees that provide a convenient perch for grouse predators, according to the CapitalPress.com, a weekly news site devoted to regional agricultural issues.
In addition to conservation efforts, several states have cut back on their hunting seasons for the Greater sage-grouse. While the bird may be on the brink of an endangered listing, Mr. Stein said hunting and species protection aren’t mutually exclusive.

[HawgZWylde]

So what I'm getting out of this is any land from California to Wyoming can be considered potential "endangered" Sage Grouse habitat. Pretty much most of the western U.S. So once declared endangered, all potential growth in said areas stops as well and everything already there now becomes heavily regulated. And if the Sage grouse isn't there, then the tortoise, fly, rat, mountain yellow legged frog, red legged frog, Steelhead, Salmon, Smelt, Pierson's milk vetch, owl, Condor or lizard is. Oh, and ya better not have land that has the potential for a puddle to form cause they're gonna regulate the hell out of that too...Where The "F" does it end?

[Sierra_Smitty]

So what I'm getting out of this is any land from California to Wyoming can be considered potential "endangered" Sage Grouse habitat. Pretty much most of the western U.S. So once declared endangered, all potential growth in said areas stops as well and everything already there now becomes heavily regulated. And if the Sage grouse isn't there, then the tortoise, fly, rat, mountain yellow legged frog, red legged frog, Steelhead, Salmon, Smelt, Pierson's milk vetch, owl, Condor or lizard is. Oh, and ya better not have land that has the potential for a puddle to form cause they're gonna regulate the hell out of that too...Where The "F" does it end?

Good assessment. And unfortunately to answer your last question....it doesn't F'n end. If you're living or recreating in a rural area, be prepared to lose access thanks to urban environmental extremists.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Good assessment. And unfortunately to answer your last question....it doesn't F'n end. If you're living or recreating in a rural area, be prepared to lose access thanks to urban environmental NAZI's.

Fixed it for ya.

[HawgZWylde]

Fixed it for ya.

This is true because once they have gained complete control of the land they turn around and let their crony's build billion $$$ vastly under-performing solar energy plants. Smells more like Fascism to me.

Indeed, Joe American civilian is under attack by land, sea and air;

"Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us...ions.html?_r=0


‘The most expensive regulation ever’

Obama rolls out a major EPA rule.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...#ixzz3KCZeiA43