Habitat = Opportunity = Economic Activity

Sunday Hunting Bans

January 9, 2012 By Tom Sadler

I have always thought bans on Sunday hunting were wrong and should be repealed, so when a local reporter contacted me for my views on the ban on Sunday hunting here in Va, I was only too happy to oblige. The reporter, Spencer Dennis, had found my name on the Facebook group Legalize Virginia Sunday Hunting For All. We had a long conversation and I was looking forward to reading his piece in the News Leader; Sunday hunting may be coming, like it or not.

Strasburg 2011 — Can't do this in Va. on Sunday

The excuses for banning hunting on Sundays don’t wash with me. It is discriminatory. Why should only one group of outdoor users be prevented from enjoying their sport on Sunday? You can hike, bike, climb, fish, canoe, ride, or birdwatch on public land on Sunday. But not hunt.

The ban also impacts conservation.

Anyone who reads this blog knows my conservation mantra; conservation creates recreational opportunity that drives economic activity. Having more people hunt, more people buying licenses, that’s what contributes to the conservation of game and wildlife in Virginia, is what I told Dennis. If we put up barriers to participation in hunting that can only have an adverse impact on license sale and excise tax contributions. When those revenues are down, conservation suffers, local businesses suffer and other outdoor users suffer.

Is Sunday hunting going to fix everything? Nope. There are too many factors bearing on participation, but allowing hunters another day afield is certainly one way to help.

Blogger River Mud does an excellent and comprehensive job of looking at the pro’s and con’s of Sunday hunting bans. Give these a read.

What’s the Sunday Hunting Ban Really About? (Part I).

Will Sunday Hunting Make it Unsafe to Go Outside?.

What’s the Sunday Hunting Ban Really About? (Part II – Supporters of the Ban).

If you live in Va. and want to contact your elected representative you can go to the National Shooting Sports Foundation web site and send an email.

Clear the Air, Save a Brook Trout

December 22, 2011 By Tom Sadler

“This is good news and real evidence for the value of our national investment in improving air quality,” said Rick Webb, a U.Va. environmental scientist and coordinator of the VTSSS. “At the same time, there is more to be done, and many Virginia brook trout streams may never fully recover.”

That quote comes from an article I wrote for Orvis News. Webb was referring to some encouraging news in Virginia showing that water quality has clearly improved since 2000 and how the Clean Air Act’s investment in air quality improvement was working. He noted sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants dropped by 64 percent between 1990 and 2009.

Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took another step toward cleaner air and if history repeats itself, as it is likely to do, then some of the “more is to be done,” that Webb refers to may actually get done.

The U.S. EPA issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. These court ordered standards will reduce emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide by relying on widely available pollution controls already in use at more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

“Since 1959, TU volunteers and staff have worked to protect and restore trout watersheds throughout the nation, and we’ve come to realize that fish-trout in particular-are barometers for both air and water quality,” said Steve Moyer, TU’s vice president of government affairs. “Along the Eastern Seaboard, we’ve had to react to pollutants in the air that eventually find their way into the water. For instance, eastern brook trout in some Appalachian mountain watersheds are particularly susceptible to pollution that alters the natural chemical balance in their native streams. In order to keep some populations from winking out altogether, we’ve had to resort to unusual tactics to keep these fish alive, including adding lime to some streams to restore the water’s chemical equilibrium.”

Of course not only brook trout will benefit. Dirty air means dirty water. Fish and organisms that depend on clean water suffer. Mercury builds up in fish to a point where it is no longer safe to eat them. Birds and mammals that eat fish and insects can all be exposed to high levels of mercury. They wind up behaving abnormally and have less breeding success.

When I worked for the Izaak Walton League, air pollution was a key focus area. The IWLA has been working for 10 years to try and get these standards in place.

“We applaud EPA for taking this step to protect public health and the environment,” says Nancy Lange, Director of the Izaak Walton League’s Energy Program. “This standard is long overdue, and the American people have been paying the price with their health. More than half our nation’s coal-fired power plants have already upgraded their facilities to scrub mercury out of their emissions. It’s time for the rest to follow suit.”

According to the EPA, power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants and are responsible for half of the mercury and over 75 percent of the acid gas emissions in the United States.

“By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health– and especially for the health of our children. With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance.”

Clean air and water should be something we can count on in this country. EPA has put in place a responsible, workable and politically courageous plan to improve the quality of our air and water. Administrator Lisa Jackson and her team deserve to be congratulated.

Water Wars: Upper Colorado River

December 11, 2011 By Tom Sadler

TU-CO-20100912-0352 — Photo courtesy Colorado TU

“Whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin'”

Across the west it is a familiar comment. And this week it rang true again.

My friend Sinjin Eberle dropped me a line letting me know that Colorado Trout Unlimited, through their Defend the Upper Colorado campaign, felt that a new federal report on the environmental impacts of a plan to expand the Windy Gap water diversion project in Colorado falls short of recommending what’s needed to protect the fragile Upper Colorado River.

I’d say this is a fight worth having.

The press release is below and be sure to check out DefendTheColorado.org to learn more about how you can help protect this iconic river system.

Trout Unlimited: Latest federal recommendations on Windy Gap water project don’t go far enough to protect the Upper Colorado River from collapse

DENVER – Dec. 5, 2011 – A new federal report on the environmental impacts of a plan to expand the Windy Gap water diversion project in Colorado falls short of recommending what’s needed to protect the fragile Upper Colorado River, according to Trout Unlimited.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement, released by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on Nov. 30, outlines the anticipated effects of the proposed project and recommends needed mitigation.

“This new document is an improvement over the previous version in that it acknowledges the Windy Gap project will worsen conditions in the Upper Colorado River and Grand Lake unless measures are taken,” said Drew Peternell, executive director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project. However, the mitigation proposed by the bureau falls far short of what is needed and critical problems continue to be ignored. We urge the Bureau to require additional protective measures to preserve this irreplaceable natural resource.”

“Trout Unlimited’s concerns with the Environmental Impact Statement are echoed by the Upper Colorado River Alliance, a nonprofit group that is also seeking to require more mitigation to protect the river,” said Boulder attorney Steven J. Bushong, a representative of the Alliance.

The report comes out as Trout Unlimited is launching a petition campaign to protect the Upper Colorado River and its tributary, the Fraser River, and the mountain communities, businesses, people and wildlife that depend on them. The petition campaign, based online at DefendTheColorado.org, is being spearheaded by Trout Unlimited to engage advocates for the iconic but threatened rivers. The website allows advocates to sign on to a petition that will be delivered to decision makers before the bureau makes a final decision on the Windy Gap project. That decision is expected in early January.

“The good news is that the Bureau of Reclamation’s Environmental Impact Statement says additional mitigation measures may be added before the agency makes a final decision. That highlights the importance of taking action to stand up for the river now,” Peternell said.

Already 60 percent of the Upper Colorado is diverted to supply Front Range water users. The Windy Gap proposal, along with a separate Moffat Tunnel water project, could divert as much as 80 percent of the Upper Colorado’s natural flows. According to Trout Unlimited, steps must be taken to protect the rivers including:

Managing the water supply to keep the rivers cool, clear and healthy.

Funding to deepen river channels and create streamside shade.

Monitoring of the rivers’ health and a commitment to take action if needed to protect them.

Bypassing the Windy Gap dam to reconnect Colorado River and restore river quality.

“The Final Environmental Impact Statement continues to ignore existing problems that will be made much worse by the Windy Gap project,” said Sinjin Eberle, president of Colorado Trout Unlimited. “A study released by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife earlier this year shows that entire populations of native fish and the insects they feed on have all but disappeared from the Colorado River below the Windy Gap Reservoir. The state study blames the reservoir and the lack of spring flows that clean sediments from the stream beds and warns that expansion of the Windy Gap project poses additional threats to the health of the river and the aquatic life in it.” See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Hearings/Rulemaking/93/Responsive/93rphsTUexG.pdf

The Windy Gap project also impacts the health of Grand Lake. “Grand Lake – once a pristine lake of dramatic clarity and scenic beauty – has become cloudy, weedy and silty because of diversion water pumped into the lake from Shadow Mountain reservoir,” said John Stahl of the Greater Grand Lake Shoreline Association. “Nothing in the FEIS mitigation plan is helpful in addressing the existing problems–at best it maintains the status quo while more likely creating even bigger problems.”

The Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation will monitor to ensure that mitigation is adequate and will impose additional measures if necessary. “That’s helpful but needs to be more clearly articulated. Another critical addition is the construction of a bypass around the Windy Gap dam,” Eberle added.

The DefendTheColorado.org campaign highlights the people who depend on the rivers.

“The Colorado and Fraser rivers aren’t just bodies of water, they are the lifeblood for wildlife, local communities and the state’s recreation economy,” Eberle said. “But many Coloradans are unaware that these rivers are on the brink of collapse because of diversions. DefendTheColorado.org’s purpose is twofold – to raise awareness about the threats facing the Colorado and Fraser and to give people a way to stand up for our rivers.”

Eberle added, “We can’t afford to let these rivers literally go down the drain.”

A new feature of the website called “Voices of the Fraser” profiles local Fraser Valley residents and visitors who speak eloquently about their connection to the Fraser River and the need to preserve healthy flows. Among the individuals profiled are Olympic skier Liz McIntyre, logger Hoppe Southway and landscape artist Karen Vance.

“It would be a shame to see any of these tributaries dry up just for the sake of developing the Front Range,” said Southway in his profile. “It’s the water my children and grandchildren are going to want to see someday, and I hope it’s protected for future generations.”

Visitors to the site also have added their voices about why the river is important to them.

“I have fished and hiked the Fraser and Upper Colorado river regions for over 30 years and am deeply saddened by the degradation of these great watersheds,” a Golden, Colo., resident wrote.

A Bonita Springs, Florida, resident wrote: “I LOVE fishing that stretch of water and find such a simple peace of being in that area. Please don’t mess with such a special place.”

“As a visitor and fisherman to Colorado on a regular basis, my tourist dollars help the local communities,” noted a resident of Blue Springs, Missouri.

Source link: http://www.defendthecolorado.org/sites/default/files/Trout%20Unlimited_120511Fc.pdf

The Economics of Protecting Public Lands

December 5, 2011 By Tom Sadler

The economic importance of outdoor recreation is a common theme of mine. I believe in it personally and benefit from it professionally. I am a strong proponent of the equation: Habitat equals opportunity which translates into economic activity. For many years the challenge had been to validate the equation.

There are an increasing number of reports showing that equation has increasing merit. Last week Headwaters Economics presented another example.

More than 100 economists and academics sent a letter to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Boehner, highlighting scientific research showing the positive economic impact protected lands such as Wilderness, National Parks, or National Monuments have for local communities.

The rivers, lakes, canyons, and mountains found on public lands serve as a unique and compelling backdrop that has helped to transform the western economy from a dependence on resource extractive industries to growth from in-migration, tourism, and modern economy sectors such as finance, engineering, software development, insurance, and health care.

Underpinning this letter is peer-reviewed literature.

How western communities and counties can benefit from nearby federal lands has been an issue for local leaders, officials, businesses, and others for generations. This document summarizes a variety of scientific research on the economic impact of protected lands such as Wilderness, National Parks, or National Monuments to nearby communities, especially in the West.

There is a large body of peer-reviewed literature that examines the relationship between land conservation, and local and regional economic well-being. Because of the number of different county types in the West, let alone the entire United States, sweeping declarations about the economic performance of all counties in a region should be scrutinized carefully. It is not surprising that the impact of protected lands such as Wilderness or National Parks is measurable in some places (e.g., isolated rural areas and those rural areas more connected to larger markets and population centers via air travel) but not in others (e.g., metro areas; imagine trying to document the effect of the Sierra Estrella Wilderness to Phoenix’s economy).

What the Research Shows:

Protected public lands can and do play an important role in stimulating economic growth — especially when combined with access to markets and an educated workforce — and are associated with some of the fastest growing communities in the West (Rasker 2006).

Wilderness designation enhances nearby private property value (Phillips 2004).

Wilderness is associated with rapid population, income, and employment growth relative to non-Wilderness counties. Services jobs are increasingly mobile, and many entrepreneurs locate their businesses in areas with a high quality of life (Lorah and Southwick 2003).

Conserving lands, which creates a new visibility for them through protective designations, also helps safeguard and highlight the amenities that attract people and businesses (McGranahan 1999).

Public lands conservation is associated with more robust population growth (Lewis, Hunt and Plantinga 2002).

Another study found that while Wilderness recreation benefits to local communities are modest, the presence of Wilderness appears to draw residents and new economic activity, and has a substantial positive impact on local economies (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000).

A study of 250 non-metro counties in the Rocky Mountains found no evidence of job losses associated with Wilderness and no evidence that counties more dependent on logging, mining, and oil and gas suffered job losses as a result of Wilderness designation (DuffyDeno 1998).

Outdoor recreation is important to western economies. In New Mexico, the Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF) reports that active outdoor recreation contributes $3.8 billion annually to the state’s economy, supporting 43,000 jobs. Nationally, OIF estimates an economic impact of $730 billion from active outdoor recreation (bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow sports, wildlife viewing, and trail-running, hiking, climbing), supporting 6.5 million jobs (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006).

For many seniors and soon-to-be retirees, protected public lands and recreation provide important aspects of a high quality of life. Non-labor sources of income already represent more than a third of all personal income in the West and will grow as the Baby Boomer generation retires (Frey 2006).

Protected natural amenities—such as pristine scenery and wildlife—help sustain property values and attract new investment (Deller and Tsai 2001).

These examples are not conjecture. This is peer-reviewed research. Just take a look at the Annotated Bibliography: Economic Value of Public Lands and Protected Public Lands that have Appeared in the Peer-Reviewed Academic Literature.

Headwaters Economic has additional information and resources on their website, Economists Urge President Obama to Protect Federal Public Lands.

And Shows Itself in Deeds

November 24, 2011 By Tom Sadler

“Let us remember that, as much has been given us, much will be expected from us, and that true homage comes from the heart as well as from the lips, and shows itself in deeds.”

-Theodore Roosevelt, Thanksgiving, 1903

And never forget on this day and everyday, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, we enjoy Thanksgiving because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. For them I am eternally thankful.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Playing 20 Questions on Eat More Brook Trout

November 12, 2011 By Tom Sadler

If you spend any time reading this blog then you know Chris Hunt is one of my best friends and favorite people. Our passions and points of view run along nearly identical lines.

Chris gave me the 20 question treatment yesterday on his blog, Eat More Brook Trout. His introduction was overly kind and he certainly got it right when he wrote:

in our hearts, we’re after the same thing–the protection of the places that matter, and not just to us, but to the future of our hunting and fishing heritage. The thought of our kids or our grandkids growing up without knowing what the natural world has to offer is dead-on frightening.

often present when Hunt and Sadler are together...

The questions were both thought provoking and entertaining. Much like every conversation I have with Chris, ‘cept maybe in that “interesting little establishment on Bourbon Street.”

Read my answers to the 20 questions here.