What are peoples thoughts on....

[Mrs_arcFlash]

BioDiver,

I freely admit I don't know a lot about the Sierra Club or other such organizations except from word of 'mouth' and brief website overviews.  :-\

This post has therefore piqued my curiosity - I'm wondering if you could you be more specific with examples of how the Sierra Club "abuses the court system to get their agendas passed" (what types of agendas) and what rights are being infringed upon by conservation efforts? 

[arcFlash]

First I would like to thank all the posters for the professional behavior and not resorting to personal attacks and name calling. I was worried this was going to go into the mud.

I'll conseed that Sierra Club isn't promoting sportsman activities. But then I'm not into killing. We'll agree to disagree about the correctness of the Sierra Club. It's doing what I support. I'd like to see more Moose in MN but they still allow hunting while the herd is dieing from something like brain worm(?).

I'll vote to support NRA and your right to own guns but I'm not voting to hunt anything with fur. The fish die off after a sportsman fishing contest is nasty and hurts lakes. I know they are trying to fix it but today it's a problem for me. Deer are like rats and need thinning but Moose, elk, bear, why!  I go to the woods to find critters, if you kill them, you are taking my experience away.

"Sure, the Sierra Club has done a lot to protect land, but from who and for what?" For me, for climbing, hiking, mountaineering, So I can go camping and not wear orange, Limit access to foot traffic, No 4x4's digging everything up, Snowmobiles in Yellowstone create LA like air quality. How can I enjoy Yellowstone in winter with smog and noise chasing off everything on legs.

You support DU, I'll support Sierra. I can respect your right to disagree.

[BioDiver]

Here are a few current examples of court cases where the Sierra Club is listed as plaintiffs:

Last June, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity (all three known anti groups) sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service for de-listing off of the endangered list of grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone area. Their claim is that the USFWS violated the Endangered Species Act. This is an example of how this agenda, keeping all game animals protected from potential harvest regardless of population density, was wrongfully pursued in the court system against the very group whose job it is to monitor and manage game populations across the country and who implement and monitor the endangered species list and pushed for the endangered species act.

Back in January of 2001 the Sierra Club again sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for funding the state's Pittman Robertson funding. This fund, put together by a federal tax on sporting goods, funds programs that create habitat for game (and non-game) species to the sum of $35 million. The Sierra Club claims this fund "focus on game species to the detriment of non-game species and emphasize hunting to the detriment of non-hunters."

These two examples show perfectly how these groups use our court systems, instead of solid science, to get their point across. Unfortunately, they are quite successful in some cases since groups such as the USFWS, and state agencies like our very own DNR don't have the funds to fight these battles in court. These groups push very hard to keep hunters specifically, but anglers as well, out of the fields and streams.

These groups have stopped dove hunts in Michigan, bear hunts in New Jersey, Florida and California and do all they can to stop trapping all over the US. Whether you agree with hunting and trapping or fishing or not, it is the most effective tool game managers have to regulate game populations. It is the fundamental tool for keeping game and non-game populations healthy. The state and federal agencies rely on sportsmen to fund management efforts by means of taxes on equipment, licensing, and private donations. Sportsmen are the number one source of money to fund conservation projects across the country.

I not only enjoy and have grown up in the wilds of MN, I make my livelihood in the outdoors. It is all I do and all I know. I want to protect what we have as much as anybody, it is just the world we live in today where you need to be careful with who you support and I, for one, will fight with all of my being to keep groups such as the Sierra Club, PETA, ALF, ELF, NRDC and CBD from keeping me from working to protect, preserve, and improve game and non-game populations by means of careful management practices (and I fortunately get to make a living at it in the process).

[BioDiver]

It is true that MN moose populations are dropping at an alarming rate. It, however, has nothing to do with hunting. Hunting for moose in MN is very limited, no hunting in the NW MN area and very few tags and once in a lifetime hunt in the NE area. Moose can still be seen on a fairly regular basis in the NE. I was fortunate enough to have an encounter with a cow moose in the boundary water a few years ago.

Bear populations in MN are by no means in danger. Bear can be found just about anywhere in the state at this time and if you lived in an area such as I do you would agree that bear are indeed abundant.

Elk in MN are expanding their range, much to the despise of farmers in elk country. Hunting for MN elk is highly regulated and very few are actually harvested. There wasn't even a hunt in MN this past year.

I agree with you that there are some problems with certain fishing tournaments but even the ones now where there is a high post tournament mortality rate it is still better than the old way of doing things. In the past everything that was caught was kept. There was no live release tournaments. As you state, at this point it is not perfect but things are improving.

It is because of hunting that you can go out and find critters in the outdoors. As stated in my previous post, hunting is the fundamental management tool. You absolutely need to harvest some animals in order to make room (called biomass) for the young to thrive. Hunters fund virtually all game and non-game habitat programs and pay the wages (at least here in MN) of the biologists that manage our animal populations. When a person just decides to go out and hike in one of our state forests, no money goes back into the management of that land. Where a hunter who wants to utilize that land, must buy a license, pay tax on his equipment (not the same as the tax from hiking boots) all of which goes to the DNR.

There are also regulations that prohibit the use of certain vehicles on certain lands. There are many, many more public land areas that you can visit where there is no 4x4's (thank god, I hate those as well). And I don't know about you, but my experience with the animals in Yellowstone (buffalo and elk anyhow) is in the winter they could care less if you drive past them on a snowmobile. They do NOT want to move from their wintering grounds. Just for the record I have never snowmobiled in Yellowstone and have maybe snowmobiled a total of 10 miles on any trail here in MN. It's just not my thing.

My main point is that the importance of hunting and sportsmen in this country cannot be understated. Sportsmen (and women) are the number one source of funding for wildlife programs in the US; not these "so called" conservation groups.

[Clifonef]

Both your examples of judicial activism are debatable.  I haven't followed either issue, so I don't have your background.  But I question using the Fish & Wildlife Service as an example of doing what is right.  The current administration has gutted the EPA (want lead in your water, how about some arsenic?) and every other federal agency.  I view with a very large boulder of salt any claim by a federal agency that they advocate anything sustainable.  Agriculture and Forest Service are hacks for the chemical, timber and paper companies.  As for management of the megafauna, the governing assumption is that the free and the brave can settle wherever they want (Earth First! We'll log the other planets later!) and the critters will have to survive as best they can on the reduced range.  Then surprise! They're overpopulated and must be thinned by those with the long guns.  How convenient.

The Sierra Club opposes sprawl, both in the form of residences (including those secluded 2nd, 3rd and 4th residences in deep forest land being sold off by the paper companies) and in the form of those dreadful gas sucking, fume belching 4x4's, ATVs and snowmobiles and outboards that attend sprawl. 

By the way, can anyone explain to me why you need a 250 HP outboard to catch a two-pound fish on an inland lake?

[BioDiver]

I definitely don't want to start arguing politics, so lets just stick to the conservation issue. Yes, the USFWS is a government agency, but politics played no part in what the lawsuit was about. This lawsuit was strictly about a scientific decision made by those whose job it is to make such decisions. Current science shows that the grizzly bear in that part of the country no longer fit the scientific parameters to be considered endangered (on a side note, grizzly bear attacks this past year reached record levels in the Wyoming/Montana region). Anyhow, the USFWS made the decision to de-list the grizzly bear; just as they have done for bald eagles and gray wolves in MN.

The Sierra Club filed the suit in response to this scientific decision and they did so according to their own agenda, not by science. They know that this de-listing means that in the near future that bear population will have to be managed if the population continues to grow at the current rate. They, of course, know that means at some point a hunting season for a certain number of animals will be opened. They also know they can delay this and bypass "normal" procedure by filing a lawsuit rather than voicing their opinions or sharing their "science" at roundtable meetings or by lobbying.

If I don't like a new rule or regulation (lets say a fishing regulation) I don't file a lawsuit with the DNR. I voice my opinions and give my input at roundtable discussions the DNR has all the time all over the state. These meetings are very valuable and have a big influence on current and future regulations. It also gives the DNR a chance to show their work and explain to the public why they make the changes they do.

I know we can't agree on politics so why even bring that up? I am sharing my knowledge about this group and saying there are other groups out there that get their point across and get work done without these "sneaky" tactics. Examples are , , .

[BioDiver]

I guess what I am getting at is that these other groups do a lot for our natural resources by going "by the book." Why does the Sierra Club feel they need to go to such extreme levels in order to get their point across? Why don't these "by the book" groups associate themselves with the Sierra Club?

[arcFlash]

I'll agree that politics get ugly but it's also a good example of how things need balance. Our country founders knew that if any one party or person got too much control it's bad for most. Maybe Sierra goes to the mattress to quick, Maybe PETA doesn't know lab rats can't withstand MN winters.... Maybe it's not so much about what they do but what they can't do.

Like this post, maybe we have tempered each others zealousness just a bit and that's the point. You can't hunt anything anywhere and I can't ban it everywhere. You only get some of what you want and that leaves a little bit for everyone to find their area to be happy.

I don't agree with PETA but I don't want to see puppy kicking in the Olympics. I'm reasonably happy that someone is monitoring the situation.

Peace

[BioDiver]

Very well put arc. There are plenty of people monitoring and helping to keep that balance.

[JBPearson]

BioDiver, this is a little off topic (or I guess back on topic for mnscuba) but have you ever dove lakes just to observe the behavior of the fish?  I've heard you can really learn a lot about their relationship to structure and cover by hanging out down there and watching them.  I'm hoping to hit a couple "hot spots" up in Alexandria this summer and see what's actually down there.  I always like getting underwater but I've never really thought about how it could help make a day ON the water a little more enjoyable also.