This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty and
mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, we look at efforts to limit the environmental consequences of war. One
international treaty was prompted by US efforts to cause flooding in North Vietnam.
Connecticut family farmers are becoming an endangered species. They're devising ways
to avoid extinction. Listeners commented everything from cattle grazing to why the
Environment Show is a threat to democracy. And on the Earth calendar we go ice fishing
in northern Minnesota, just thinking about it makes you shiver. These stories and more coming
up on the Environment Show.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. War can have serious environmental
consequences. In this first of a series we look at efforts to limit environmental war
damage through international treaties. Later we'll talk to US military leaders about how
environmental considerations affect the conduct of US military operations. Environmental
damage has been part of warfare from the beginning. The Romans sold to the ground around
the crutchage to prevent the city from recovering. In World War II the Germans bombed the
dikes in Holland to flood the countryside as they retreated. In Southeast Asia the US
induced floods in North Vietnam and defullated jungle areas with Agent Orange. During the
Gulf War Saddam Hussein torched the Kuwaiti oil fields polluting the skies and was responsible
for massive oil spills in the Gulf. During this century treaties have been promulgated
to limit environmental consequences of war. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War
Matters for the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army explains.
There are treaty obligations that you avoid unnecessary destruction and that's not anything
new that's been around since the turn of the century. At the same time there's also
the recognition that obviously war is going to cause damage to the environment. So it's
not that treaty obligations will prevent damage to the environment but it's supposed to prevent
or at least prohibit any type of destruction that's unnecessary and in some cases damage
to the environment will be necessary. One of the first was adopted at the turn of the
century. There's a 1907 Hays Convention regulating the conduct of war on land that authorizes
only destruction that is necessary to attainment of a military objective. That actually dates
back to 1899 but the 1907 treaty replaced the 1899 obligation. There is an obligation in
the 1977 additional protocol one to which the United States is not a party that prohibits
attacks on the environment as such. Now that does not mean that damage to the environment
as a result of legitimate combat operations is prohibited. There is also a treaty known
as the environmental modification treaty of 1977 and it is misunderstood by many people.
In fact what it prohibits is the use of the environment as a method of warfare.
And wasn't there a time during the Vietnamese conflict when we did some cloud seating and
other things in North Vietnam to bring about trench arrangements?
Yes there was. In fact I think that's probably one of the reasons that brought about the
In-Mod convention. In fact there was some certain irony to that. First it did not necessarily
impede the North Vietnamese transportation supplies to the south but also as you may recall
it also caused severe rain and North Vietnam that caused our prisoners of war to be moved
out of the Santa present of war camp because of the potential flooding and this happened
just six weeks before. In fact our rescue forces went in there to try to rescue them. So
it turned against us to some degree. The 1977 documents focus on widespread long
lasting or severe damage but despite the protocol some ambiguity remains. I asked whether
the deflation campaigns in Vietnam which were intended to remove jungle canopy from
Vietnam's supply trails and roadside ambush positions but also left the residue of
Agent Orange behind would be prohibited. I don't know that I can give you a clear answer.
I think the school solution is still out as to whether or not the damage that was done
long-term actually existed. Certainly the area has grown up again. You're again and perhaps
the best person to ask about this is Admiral Zumwalt since he made the decisions and of
course as you know his son was serving there at the time. That's the type of thing
the military commander has to wait. Was that effective? I do think it saved American lives.
Did it damage the environment? Yes it did. Was it damage long-term and severe? That's
going to be more of a question of fact and a question of science to answer. Was it under
the existing law illegal? No. Is it would it be illegal under the law today? I'm not
sure. I don't think that was the intent of the drafters of the 1977 additional protocol
one. What they were looking at more was something along the lines of what Sodom is saying
did and does its thorn. Very intentional destruction of the oil wells and their burning
and what have you. Legal scholars say that a number of things are happening now which
may provide a broader framework to deal with the environmental consequences of war.
Jay Austin senior staff attorney at the Environmental Law Institute says one example is the commission
that would set up to force Iraq to pay civil damages for environmental losses. The commission
was created by UN Security Resolution 687 which is one of the resolutions ending the war
and that resolution presumed Iraq's liability for old damages resulting from its invasion
and occupation of Kuwait and environmental damages were identified in the resolution
as a subset of the damages for which claims could be filed. Understandably most of the
claims have been filed by Kuwait but also adjacent nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan some
of the other Gulf nations. There have been reports of environmental damages far away as
the Himalayas and India from some of the air impacts from the burning oil wells. Austin
says discussions about establishing a new international criminal court that took place
at Rome last summer also had an environmental dimension. Well the treaty creating the court
again specifically carves out environmental damage or in the words of the treaty excessive
environmental damage as one type of war crimes and in a long list of war crimes and it's
actually consistent with the body of international law that first started to be developed in the
late 1960s and early 1970s response to the Vietnam War.
He says that under these provisions a military commander who adhesiously flouted environmental
norms could be prosecuted as a war criminal. Finally former Soviet chief of state Gorbachev
is traveling around the world advocating the establishment of an international fund
to compensate victims of war-induced environmental destruction. He calls it green cross and it
would operate something like a no-fall insurance policy. Nobody believes that a combination
of civil, criminal and insurance remedies will stop environmental destruction by rogue states.
But domestic and international environmental law is having a profound effect on the way the
U.S. conducts its own military operations. In the next part of our series we'll hear from our
armed services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Connecticut farmers are struggling to survive in one of the most densely populated states in the nation.
Although much of the states agricultural output depends on commercial farms that grow mushrooms
and harvest oysters there's also a fair number of old fashioned farmers raising dairy cows selling
livestock, eggs, maple syrup and fruit. But just like farmers in other states they're threatened
by development and low profits. Now a small consortium of progressive Connecticut farmers have gotten
together to guarantee a future for their industry. From Connecticut Public Radio John Ben Koskey reports.
The people you find on farms are people that just have a love for farming and are dedicated
to people to the industry. Arnold Neimanin is the dairy unit manager at the University of Connecticut in stores.
He says many students in animal sciences would like to farm but no they wouldn't make enough money to pay off their school loans.
One of the juniors said that he'd very much like to go farming but couldn't afford to do this so he was going to go into research
and hopefully by the time he was 35 he wouldn't have accumulated enough money so he could possibly go.
Barms are becoming scarcer and scarcer and costing more to get into the business.
And once you get into the business it can be even harder to make a profit. The cost of machinery is high, profits can fluctuate wildly
and the land to grow crops is being sold to developers each year. Several of Connecticut's small to mid-sized farmers have found
the only way to get ahead is to work together. Their group is called very alive and its mission is to inform the public
about Connecticut agriculture and to promote investment in the industry.
As a way to take their case directly to state legislators the group gave a feast and farm tour.
An opportunity to let lawmakers and local officials see a farm in action, talk about issues and eat Connecticut grown food.
We have to get funding though because we're losing land so rapidly and you don't usually don't know if you see a sign goes up.
So a sign goes up on a piece of land and that's too late. It's too late. It's gone. I mean you're six months to a year behind the apple.
Ned Ellis runs Maple Leaf Farm in Hebron. He hosted the get together. He got a chance to talk to state representative Pam Sawyer about topics ranging from open space to taxes.
We have a what is there 100 there's a hundred thousand dollar exemption on equipment I think and is a hundred thousand enough.
If you buy many pieces if you buy a tractor for instance it eats that pretty fast. That's a 10 year old tractor was back in 1990 was 65 thousand and probably now it's 95 thousand.
So that's one piece of equipment. A chopper is 30 thousand but we haven't bought a new chopper for quite a while.
So you got three old ones. If you had a year that you had to buy two pieces of equipment it might cause you problem.
Yeah, then you're going to have to face something right. Okay, so maybe at this stage we should be talking about moving the hundred thousand up because of the cost of equipment.
Yeah, okay. Connecticut's government has already helped support area farmers with a massive plan that will help each town set aside open space for future generations.
In the past 13 years alone, Connecticut has lost almost 21 percent of its farmland.
Another step has been the Northeast dairy compact and agreement between states that ensures a higher base price for a gallon of milk produced in New England.
Dorothy Jockey says farms like hers in East Canaan are staying alive because of the agreement.
Since few are getting rich from selling their milk they depend on neighbors for equipment and labor.
The machinery to do all phases of farming is very expensive so we've been sharing and we help neighbors and they do things for us so it makes a lot of friendlier group.
Representative Pam Sawyer says that very lives message of cooperation has hit home.
She sees the survival of the state's remaining farmers as a high priority during the next legislative session.
We are looking at food production here and when you look at the cost of having to move food and food product that you really have to look at what you still have locally to be able to I think preserve a local economy.
Overall the farmers here see a revival in interest in their profession which may help keep it alive into the future.
Since farming now involves as much knowledge of commodities markets, soil chemistry and public relations as it does proper milking techniques local colleges and universities are grooming the farmers of the future.
At the university we just had a hundred and six freshmen come into animal science which is a very large class.
It's one of the largest since the late 60s early 70s.
Arnold Neiman, and of the University of Connecticut says all of the issues that very alive addresses taxes, compacts education, at land preservation are important to the future of farming.
But most important is the realization that without farmers there won't be enough food to sustain Connecticut in the future.
For the Environment Show I'm John Dankoski in Hartford.
We welcome new additions to the list of more than 200 stations carrying the Environment Show.
Their Massachusetts broadcasters WFPB AM WBPR FM and WFPB FM news sister stations of WUMB near Boston which is broadcast the show for some time.
The Environment Show is a national production. It's made possible by the W. Walton Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Collector Car Hobby, www.hemmings.com
The Environment Show would like to hear from you, give us a call at 1-888-49-Green. That's 1-888-49-Green.
Email is green at wamc.org. That's green at wamc.org.
...
Several weeks ago, we broadcast an environment show quiz. We played this sound.
We asked you to identify it, and in 25 words or less, comment on its environmental significance.
Listener Christopher Smith correctly reported that it was a subway train and said,
quote, to those who are riding the subway, thanks for leaving your car at home or better yet for not even owning one.
End quote.
Chris Smith wins the prize. A towel made a pure organic cotton complete with the environmental logo.
Other comment that might have been made is the relevance of light rail to the future of cities.
Imagine a big city without traffic jams and smog.
Light rail and streets off limits to the private automobile could take us there.
But I must say, commuters on the New York City subway system in the summer experience times when that environment show towel would be welcome.
While the car's air condition, there is nothing more oppressive than a subway platform on a muggy summer day when outside temperature is over 95 and it's hotter below ground.
With metal discipline, you might convince yourself that you're in a steam bath at the spot.
But in reality, you feel like the stuffing in esteemed Chinese dim sum pudding.
It's time now to hear what some of you are saying. Here's the environment shows Stephen Westcott.
Roland, a resident of Eastern Massachusetts, heard our discussion on the issue of cattle grazing on federal lands.
He says our guests only spoke at each other which did not provide the listener with enough information.
The fact that grazing animal can improve some lands was not admitted to by the environmentalists.
And the damage that cattle had done was not even admitted to by the rancher.
It seemed like they were merely being spokesmen for their cause when we really need to hear from our people working to come up with solutions to these problems.
Ways that cattle can remain on the land, people can work and yet the land won't be damaged.
Bill Blatt sent an email saying he heard a recent discussion on urban sprawl.
He says quote, good as far as it went, but if you're really going to deal with sprawl and resource use, you've got to talk about our tax structure, particularly the real property tax.
And quote, Fred Carval also contacted us by electronic mail to say that we should use segments of the show to educate young people.
Fred says quote, more often than not, we find out about potential problems when environmental problems become critical.
A more educated public with in-depth knowledge of the environment through continuous education will react responsibly through their lives when their actions or decisions impact the environment.
Listener Robert Byjack heard a conversation with members of the environment show advisory board.
The topic was attitudes that need to be changed to bring about a sustainable planet.
Robert disagreed with most everything he heard and says the conversation was filled with what he calls veiled socialist rhetoric.
Fred Carval, you were worded but to sentient person you can see what the thrust of the program is.
This is just to turn people's thinking around and to think away from democracy and think towards nebulous globalism and communal living.
This is not what America is or will be and here's one person who will fight you folks right down the line.
Joan from Syracuse New York also heard the discussion about attitudes that need to be changed to bring about a sustainable planet.
She says more emphasis needs to be placed on education and adds that the issue of trash specifically packaging is one that needs to be addressed.
Instead of spending money on how to market this new product they could be taking that money and putting it into secondary recycling markets and then supporting it by their products, by packaging their products in such a way as to cut down, reduce and then use the secondary recycling markets.
Finally we recently discussed environmental issues the Clinton administration should address in the next two years.
The guests discuss the importance of addressing climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Peter Bergen contacted us by email to say reducing reliance on fossil fuels isn't so simple and says our guests offered no solutions.
He says quote there's an awful lot of enriched special nuclear material left over from the Cold War that is still lying around the USA and former Soviet Union.
We should literally beat those old swords into plough shares and solve two problems at once, air pollution and nuclear proliferation.
We always want to hear your thoughts, suggestions and story ideas. Call our comment line by dialing 1-888-49-Green.
That's 1-888-49-Green. For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westka.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar. As we speak, folks are ice fishing in Lake Winnebogoshish known as Lake Winnie in Minnesota.
Ice fishing involves sitting next to a hole in the ice waiting for a fish to grab the baited hook lowered into the water.
The 58,000 acre lake is located in the heart of the Chippewa National Forest. Bob Klein is owner of the NoDak Lodge, one of the 15 resorts along the lake and he says now is the time that wall-eye are biting.
Most of them would be in the 13-16-17-inch bracket which would be a 16-inch or would be about a pound and a half which is your prime eating size anyway.
We do get them up to 6-7-8 pounds. But you do have a battle trying to get one of them through the hole.
Also, we have had some pretty nice ones caught this year but most of the bigger ones are thrown back.
Klein adds plenty of perch, northern pike and muskallonger also found in Lake Winnie. He says the conditions for ice fishing are excellent right now.
The ice is 20 inches thick, making it safe enough to drive all terrain vehicles, cars, and trucks with ploughs on the ice. More than 100 miles of plowed roads are created on the lake, which makes it easy for people to find just the right fishing spot.
When they find this spot, many folks use large gas-powered augers that drill an 8-10-inch hole in the ice. Again, Bob Klein.
Some people have little portable houses, Canvas collapsible houses that they set up. You basically go out on the lake and you want to be on some kind of structure where the drop offs are and whatnot.
You drill a hole through the ice and you have your jig rods or lots of gays, fishing outside will even use their regular fishing rods.
You drop it down to the bottom with little Swedish pimples or little daredevils and you jig off the bottom.
In addition, Fishermen and women often bring small heaters into the portable houses to keep them warm on those cold, wintery days in northern Minnesota.
Ice fishing itself has not changed much over the years, but Bob Klein says he has seen changes in the number of people enjoying this sport over the 45 years his family is on the lodge.
The younger people are not really taking up the sport as much as they used to. They are going more to angling.
You are not just sitting there looking down a hole, you are bouncing around from holding a hole in different places, fishing and drilling a hole in angling.
There has been a definite change in the way that they fish. There used to be very, very few people that went out and angled, but that is before we had to power augers and everything else.
You had to go out and chisel a hole with a hand chisel and you start chiseling through two, three foot of ice. That is a lot to work.
Bob adds that electronic depth finders are enabling fishers to determine the depth of the water compared to doing it manually.
The no-dack lodge can bet about 100 people in his open all year round. Bob says folks come from far away states just to try ice fishing on Lake Winnie.
So when your pipes freeze up at home and the car won't start and the cold is making you grumpy, just head to northern Minnesota.
Home will seem like a tropical paradise. You are listening to the Environment Show and I am Peter Burley.
The
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
Still ahead.
More than half of the first group of endangered Mexican wolves that were reintroduced in
Arizona were shot.
Now the Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing to release another group.
Can they survive human predation?
We talked green about the Endangered Species Act.
Does it need to be strengthened or weakened?
It depends on who you talk to.
Taking a break from winter, author William Tapley helps us recall fishing in the summer
when swallow, snag, mosquitoes, heron, spear, sunfish, and the big bass is not to be found.
Stay with us.
Federal officials are looking for those responsible for shooting five endangered Mexican gray
wolves which had been released in the Blue Range area of Arizona in 1998.
Now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing to release nine more.
Sean Dudley has the story.
Over the 1870s, wolves roamed free in the territories of Arizona and New Mexico.
Within 100 years, they were nearly extinct.
The last confirmed wild Mexican gray wolf in the United States was Kildner Alpine, Texas
in 1970.
Roger Schlick-Eisen is the president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife based in Washington,
DC.
He says the Mexican wolves alive today are descended from five wolves trapped during the 1970s.
The Mexican wolf was listed as endangered and protected under the Endangered Species
Act in 1976.
In 1977, 78, 79, 80, in that time period, the Fish and Wildlife Service employed professional
trapper to go to find the last remaining Mexican wolves.
In all that period, he only found five.
They were all in Mexico and of the five, only one was a female.
So they took the five and put them into a captive breeding facility, I believe, outside
of Tucson.
And from that, they rebuilt the population of approximately 200 Mexican wolves.
Schlick-Eisen says the fate of the Mexican wolves fell upon one female of the species.
The Mexican wolf came about as close to extinction as the species can get them.
Obviously, when it's down to one female, fortunately the four males that they captured were from
different parts of the country and therefore offered enough genetic variation that they
were able to rebuild the stable population even though they only had one female.
Few people have seen a Mexican wolf which is smaller than its northern relative.
Wendy Brown, Project Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wolf Restoration
Project in Albuquerque, New Mexico, describes the animal.
Well, the Mexican wolf is a gray wolf.
It's a subspecies of the gray wolf.
So it's essentially it's the same species as what people think of as the timber wolf
or the Arctic wolf, but it is the southwestern representative of that species.
And it's a distinct subspecies, as a matter of fact, it's most genetically distinct of
all the gray wolf subspecies and probably the rarest in the world.
It's about the size of a good size German shepherd, females, way between 60 and 80 pounds.
They tend to be fairly similar in coloration.
In the north you might see wolves that were solid black or solid white and various shades
of gray.
Mexican gray wolves tend to be this very beautiful rich mixture of browns and blacks and
kind of a roofish color with some fairly distinctive facial markings.
In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was ordered to reintroduce Mexican wolves into
the wild.
In early 1998, 11 wolves were released into the Apache Sickrives Forest in Arizona.
Wendy Brown says the wolves didn't fare as well as expected.
Five of our wolves have been shot and six disappeared which and is probably dead, may well
have been shot as well.
The Fish and Wildlife Service was able to recapture two remaining male wolves which were paired
with mates and eventually re-released.
wolves showed public outrage over the killing of the endangered wolves.
But Jeff Mingus, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association says
that in ranching communities near the release areas, local sentiment runs against the wolf
project.
These wolves have been raised for generations and captivity and fed by people and they associate
people with food.
And so that's where they're hanging out up and down the roads and wherever there's
people.
And so to this point, they've had to keep supplemental feeding them.
They haven't been able to kill enough animals to sustain themselves.
And to this point, it looks like the project is a failure to us.
The Cattle Growers Association maintains there isn't enough wild prey to support a projected
wolf population of 100 individuals.
They say wolves will eventually be forced to prey upon cattle.
And although defenders of wildlife have set up a fund to pay ranchers who can prove their
livestock has been killed by wolves, Jeff Mingus says it's not that simple.
The problem with that is if you've got to pack a wolf running through and say it's
a calving season and there's a little baby calf there and a wolf come through it and
kill the calf.
They'll eat hide hair, bones, everything.
And there won't even be any sign of it, nothing but a calf standing there with an utter
full of milk and a ballad for a calf.
And it's pretty difficult to prove that a wolf actually killed something like that.
So you're not going to be able to confirm very many of the kills.
Although some have grown suspicious of local ranchers who have voiced opposition to the
project, Mingus says he doubts any ranchers responsible for killing the endangered wolves.
I don't think any rancher is going to take the risk to kill a wolf.
I think it's like a hundred thousand dollar fine and a five year prison penalty.
But even worse than that, if a rancher that ranches on public land and you know over 80%
of the land in Arizona's public, if he's convicted of a felony, he'll lose his
grazing privileges.
Roger Schlickheisen says opposition to the project is fueled by superstitions surrounding the
wolf.
He says that wolf populations in other parts of the country kill few livestock and he claims
there have been no documented cases of a wolf killing or seriously injuring a human.
Human beings were named to be God and decide which species live and die on this planet.
It's increasingly urbanized existence.
It's important to us to know that wild nature still exists someplace out there.
And the wolf probably more than any other single creature unless it's the grizzly bear helps
define wildness in North America.
Defenders of wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Game Service are offering a $50,000 reward
for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for killing Mexican
gray wolves.
At the time of this report, nine more Mexican wolves were being moved into rural Arizona
and preparation for their release into the wild.
For the Environment Show, I'm Sean Dudley.
We're talking green and I'm Peter Burley.
Today we're discussing the Endangered Species Act which has now been on a books for 25
years and while it had a quiet beginning over the last few years, it has stirred up a lot
of controversy.
Environmentalists wanted strengthened and I think it's fair to say that development interests
wanted either weakened or modified substantially and so support for the Endangered Species
Act has been a litmus test for Congress people and senators which has been applied universally
by environmental rating groups like the League of Conservation Voters in the Sierra Club.
This year reauthorization of the ESA is on the congressional agenda once again, although
in the last couple of years, Congress has not gotten around to it.
My guests represent both sides of the spectrum on this issue.
Brock Evans is exactly the director of the Endangered Species Coalition and that's a coalition
of environmental groups who want to preserve and strengthen the act.
Formerly Brock was vice president of the National Audubon Society and Jack Mingus,
he is communication director of the Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition.
That organization represents the interests of development interests and ranchers and
mining companies and others who argue that the act infringes on individual rights and
needs to be rewritten.
So Brock, let's start with you and again for our listeners who may not be familiar with
this, how does the Endangered Species Act work very briefly?
Well, basically it works.
Let me just say first that when Congress passed this in 1973 Peter, it was unique and visionary
in its time.
So first time any legislative body in the world ever made a statement which said that any
living species within our territorial boundaries, if we can prevent it going extinct, we will
do so.
It's a noble expression and it's existed as it beacons to other countries in the world
too.
The way it works briefly in Jack Mingus want to add to this also is that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Federal Agency in the Department of Interior has given overall authority
to oversee the management of the act except for marine species and that's the National
Marine and Fisheries Service which has authority there.
They look at the, they survey the national landscape of plants and animals and invertebrates
species.
And they receive recommendations of petitions to list species as endangered.
That's a crucial part of the process where various scientific bodies within the agencies
and elsewhere look at this.
If they determine that a species deserves a listing called threatened or endangered,
those are technical terms and it finally gets a survive and gets on the listing process,
then the agencies are obliged on federal land to take certain acts as no longer to jeopardize
those species and bring them harm.
The agencies are supposed to develop plans to recover the species on federal lands at least.
And but it also applies to any person, meaning corporations or private owners and private
lands as well.
I mean they cannot take actions which will also harm the species and harm is determined
to mean not to shoot them or kill them but also harm their habitat because the visionary
of part of the Congressional Act in 73 is they realize that habitat, the species cannot
survive without a place to eat and sleep and food and have food and reproduce and everything
else.
And so that's the crucial part and I can see why many development interests don't like it.
Okay, well that kind of lays it out.
Jack, what's wrong with it?
In and of itself, nothing is really wrong with the Endangered Species Act.
The ideas behind the Endangered Species Act are solid and they're ones that we wholeheartedly
support.
What it comes down to, what it comes down to simply, from our group's point of view, is
that we can simply be done better.
The way the Act is currently set up is that there is no incentive for these private landowners
and private individuals to want to work to protect species that are on their property.
The discovery of an Endangered Species on your land brings along a whole series of restrictions
upon how you can use your land, which in one hand from an environmental point of view
makes sense.
You don't want to have anything else happen to the property or happen to the habitat
of an Endangered Species and we understand that.
From another point of view, that is land that someone or some entity has purchased and
had intentions to use.
And our organization all along has said that's fine.
If you want to protect the Endangered Species that are on that property, we wholeheartedly
support that.
You cannot make the individual landowners carry on their back the burden for a national
goal of protecting endangered species.
Do you see this somewhat differently, Brock?
Well, yes and no.
I think that Jack's people make a point which we actually agree with and we've introduced
legislation which we hope accommodates that somewhat.
The Needle Species Act needs to be made more responsive, especially to landowners or
may have financial hardships because of all that.
But what we don't want to do is promote more exterminations and so doing and that's
one of the issues today I know we'll get into a little bit later.
So we do favor more financial incentives for people but at the same time there's a lot
of people in our group.
And by the way, there are many religious groups or members of our organization and scientific
groups as well as environmental.
We feel that just as you're not allowed to kill fake game animals out of season, you
shouldn't be allowed, you shouldn't be paid to exterminate a species.
To not exterminate a species.
That's a problem.
Jack, is your argument of financial that if any protection is out there, people are
going to get paid for it and as long as they are, then protection should go on?
I think that what we need to keep in mind here is that at any time any sort of restrictions
are placed on private property for any sort of use of it, people who own that property
need to be involved in the process of setting up what those restrictions are.
Well, let me ask you something about that.
Suppose somebody owns a city lot.
It's subject to zoning.
The owner normally isn't involved when that zoning law has passed or it may have been
years ago, should he get paid if he can only put up a 20 story building instead of a 40
story building?
It's an interesting argument but it's one that doesn't holy apply here.
The person bought that land in your example there for the use of developing it.
Basically, they knew that some sort of restrictions were going to be placed upon it upon the way
they could use it.
What happens with the Endangered Species Act is that when often you buy this property,
or whether you're going to be using it for farming or building or mining or ranching
or whatever the purpose is, at the time you purchase this property or it comes into your
possession, there are no restrictions placed upon it in terms of Endangered Species or
Wildlife issues.
Normally, these sorts of things are a lot of later.
Well, they're clearly with respect to wildlife just the fact that you own it doesn't mean
you can hunt out a season.
That's good news forever.
No, absolutely.
But the restriction placed on having wildlife on it, if you're planning on farming this
land here, you're probably not going to be using that for going out and hunting elk or
whatever it is that you're looking to put there.
You're going to be using it for, I mean, when you bought that land, you knew that you
couldn't go out and hunt elk on your farmland here and you knew that going in.
What happens with farmland, I mean, with the Endangered Species Act pardon me, is that you
bought farmland, you were planning on using it for farming and you probably are using it
for farming for five, ten years, a generation.
And then, at that point, the Endangered Species restrictions fall upon you or your family.
And suddenly, you are unable to continue doing what you have been doing legally in the
past for X number of years.
Okay, let's take another slice at this.
Recently, Secretary Babet has come under tremendous criticism because he said, we'll work out a plan
if there's an Endangered Species on a piece of ground and we'll tell the landowner that
once the plan is in effect, we won't go back and change it.
And that, I know, has caused great consternation among some members of the environmental community.
Brock, how do you feel about the efforts that Babet has been making in effective people
some guarantees?
We think it's a good idea gone wrong and been misapplied.
The good idea is in engaging landowners the way Jack suggested, which we agree with.
And everybody participating in drafting a plan to protect the species, which we agree
with.
The problem is they make agreements which allow killing, you know, destruction of habitat
of the species.
And their agreements for 25 to 50 years are longer sometimes.
And there's no monitoring, there's no guarantee that this will happen.
The trouble is that the scientific information is always evolving in this field.
We find out new information.
You can't change it.
Go back in and make the species better protected afterwards.
And Jack, how do your members feel about this parts that Babet has taken?
Well, obviously, I mean, these sorts of what we term regulatory certainty are things that
our folks have been looking for.
And what has happened in the past is that there is nothing in the law that requires the
federal government basically to live up to its part of the deal.
Basically meaning you can make an agreement with the federal government.
This is all background right now.
But I think up to them, when you're not including Secretary Babet's no surprises policy, what
can happen is the federal government comes in and makes a deal with you and then you're
living up to your end of the deal.
And if you do two, three, four years down the road, the government comes in and goes,
you know, no, we're going to change it now.
And so you have to stop doing what you have been doing and do all these other additional
things.
Well, but if the purpose of the deal is to save the species and the species isn't being
saved because the plan didn't work, doesn't the government have an obligation to save
the species?
Now the landowners have no incentive to keep the deal.
They make a deal and then they walk away.
If I was a big timber company, I'd be lining up by the hundreds and they are.
They want to get a good deal and get a free pass for the next 50 years.
But the thing is here, they're not able to do it and then walk away from it.
They have very specific restrictions that they agree to when signing this HCP, this Habitat
Conservation Plan.
And this is not something that is cooked up in the back rooms with all the cigars moped
floating in the air with evil people throwing their moustaches.
I mean, this is something that is set up with scientists.
They represent both the landowners and the federal government.
This is cooked up in back rooms and the public has very little chance to look at it.
But the problem is if it was enforced and was monitored by scientists and peer review,
that would be one thing but it's not right now.
Probably we might be able to work out a better way of doing these things and we have a new
bill that does that.
Let me ask you both something.
The act has been on the books for 25 years.
There are hundreds of species either listed or getting ready to be listed because I know
there's a big backlog and yet species are disappearing as we speak.
Is the act had any impact?
I think it's had a tremendous impact.
We've been able to put the money into saving species like California condor or Paragon
Falcon or even alligators and pelicans and other things that were endangered in those
days.
We've been very successful.
Usually we're not getting species even put on the list until they're almost in an emergency
room kind of condition.
Jack, what do you think?
Do you think it's work?
And part of the reason we're not putting species on this list until it's in an emergency
room situation is that there are no incentives and a reason for landowners to want to step
forward and do things to help.
Has the ESA had impact?
Absolutely.
I mean, you can't look at it and say there have been no successes.
But what our organization has always said is that we have never said we want to get rid
of the endangered species act.
And in fact, what we've been saying is that you can protect species and safeguard the
rights of USS at the same time.
And part of the way you do that is either regulatory or certainly we talked of, but make
the science better as well as, and this is most important, get people involved in the
process.
Right now, there is nothing that requires people who are utilizing federal land, whether
it's for grazing or mining or what have you, to be able to have any impact when federal
agencies talk to each other and decide how they want to restrict land use to protect endangered
species.
You've only got about a minute left, given the current disarray of the Congress, is this
going to come up this year?
And if so, how's it likely to come out?
Just 30 seconds from each of you.
Brock, what do you think?
Well, I think given the disarray of this Congress and the polarization of the forces, I'd
be surprised if anything major approved past the revision or weakening of the law that
Jack's group supported last year was defeated, did not, and it was not acted upon.
We don't think that's going to be brought up.
I'd be surprised, but we're ready to go and ready to talk to anybody to try to make
the act better and not to lose the protect species.
Jack, do you think there's going to be any changes this year?
It will be difficult.
You've got a small window of six to eight months before the presidential campaign really
kicks in when Republicans and Democrats will officially cease talking to one another.
But I think 1180, the bill that Mr. Evans referred to, is a solid piece of legislation
and it's one that actually we have spoken with folks that we can build on and might have
some movement on this Congress.
OK, well, I assume that there will be great disagreement about that.
Our time is up.
We appreciate both of you.
This was far more civil than the discourse that sometimes I've heard on the issue.
We've been discussing the Endangered Species Act, which has been on the books for 25
years.
My guest has been Brock Evans, executive director of the Endangered Species Coalition,
which is comprised of environmental organizations and Jack Mingus, who is spokesperson for the
Endangered Species Reform Coalition, which represents industry ranchers and the development
community.
We'd like to hear your views on this subject.
Give us a call.
Our number is 1-888-49-Green.
We've been talking green and I'm Peter Burley.
Share your thoughts with us or hear us over the Internet.
Our address is www.enn.com-envsh-o-w.
www.enn.com-envsh-o-w.
We all have special places that touch our soul.
For some it's deep in the wilderness, for some it's a city street.
For author William Tapley, it's an abandoned reservoir in eastern Massachusetts where
nothing glamorous lives.
In this portrait of place, Tapley reads from his book, A Fly Fishing Life.
The old rez was an abandoned reserve water reservoir for the eastern Massachusetts suburb where
I grew up.
The neighborhood boys had repeatedly vandalized the old brick gatehouse at the outlet so
that water leaked out as fast as it entered.
It was shallow and weedy and it smelled of wet mud and decaying vegetation and dead fish.
It wasn't objectively much of a fishing hole.
It covered only a few surface acres and nothing glamorous lived there.
Just stunted sunfish and hornpout and yellow perch, along with an occasional sucker or eel.
None of the other boys in my neighborhood fished there.
It was too nearby.
It lacked mystery.
There was nothing worth catching at the old rez.
But it nestled in a tree-lined bowl a three-minute walk over the hill behind my house and it
held many fascinations for a boy.
Full frogs and crawfish live there and snapping turtles the size of wash-tubs.
Neon dragonflies and damselflies like to perch on a rod tip.
Herons sometimes high-stepped among the cat-tails and most years a pair of mallards raised a family
at the old rez.
On a summer evening, swallows dipped and darted over the water and when there were bugs on the
surface, fish swirled at them leaving rings that to my imagination looked more substantial
than any other made by cracker-sized sunfish.
I had no trouble convincing myself that a four-pound large moth or two lived there, or maybe
a lump of round trout.
I read the outdoor magazines.
I knew that great fish came from unlikely places.
I knew that a fisherman's grandest accomplishment was to catch a trophy from a place where no
one believed any trophy lived.
Naturally, I haunted the old rez.
Unlike my friends, I traveled to far away in mysterious fishing places where eminently
worthwhile fish swam.
My father was an outdoor writer and he sometimes took me with him on what he called his research
trips.
I trolled gray ghosts for landlock salmon on sebego and moussehead, cast deer-haired bugs
for swammo, so went a pasaki and shamplain, and tried to catch rainbows and browns and
dryflies from the limoil and the baton kill.
Still, no matter where dad took me and no matter what prized fish I caught, I always looked
forward to returning to my own private fishing hole over the hill behind my house.
I threaded a gob of worms onto a hook and lobbed my bait into the murky waters of the
old rez.
Then I propped my rod in a forked stick, scooched on the bank and daydreamed, while I
waited for the inevitable twitch and jerk out there at the end of my line.
I believe that the next twitch and jerk could be caused by one of those four pound large
mouths, and the fact that it never happened didn't shake my faith.
When I got tired of fishing, I waited in the shallows and tried to catch crawfish and
painted turtles and frogs with my hands.
I watched swallows snag mosquitoes and herons spears on fish.
I identified the muskrat and coon tracks and the mud banks.
On hot afternoon I shucked off my clothes and skinny dipped in the old rez, then sprawled
in the grass and lay naked under the sun.
So I spent the endless days of a boy's summer wandering and exploring and lasing around
on the muddy banks of the old rez.
I learned how to enjoy my own company while staring at the place where my line dipped into
the water, and although I couldn't have explained it, I learned about freedom.
That was William Tapley, reading from his book, A Fly Fishing Life.
It's published by the Lions Press.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burlant.
Send a copy of this show to Saddam Hussein so he doesn't violate environmental treaties
next time he invades Kuwait.
After a tape by calling 1-800-323-9262, it's show number 474.
The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Sharktalk is executive producer, Stephen Westcutter's producer, and Ray Graf is audio
engineer.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W.A.W.
and Jones Foundation, the William Bingham Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J.M.
Kaplan Fund, and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the Collector at CarHoppy.
www.hemings.com.
Be good to the earth and join us next week for the Environment Show.
