A Burning Desire, A Critique of the Sierra Club Public Lands Fire Management Policy (1999)

Self | 1999 | Mark Edward Vande Pol

[Carry_Okie]

A Burning Desire

© 1999 by Mark Edward Vande Pol, all rights reserved.

If environmentalists were left to their own devices, do they have a better way to manage wild-lands? Criticisms by environmentalists about private enterprise are so ubiquitous it is high time to critically analyze of one of their proposals. How often are their plans submitted for scrutiny, peer review, or an EIR? The sad part is that it is so easy to do. The cited text is reprinted off the Sierra Club web site.

Public Lands Fire Management

Sierra Club Policy: Public Lands Fire Management URL:http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/fire.asp

Sierra Club Board of Directors March 17-19, 1989:

(Yep, this is the current policy, adopted immediately AFTER the Yellowstone Fire.)

1. Fire is a natural, integral, and valuable component of many ecosystems. Fire management must be a part of the management of public lands. Areas managed for their natural values often benefit from recurring wildfires and may be harmed by a policy of fire suppression. Long-term suppression of small wildfires may build up conditions making occasional catastrophic conflagrations inevitable."

Recurring fire is a natural occurrence in the West, unless people have suppressed fire for sixty years. That process of suppression has been harmful. The fuel load is not at a ‘natural’ level. It will not result therefore in a ‘natural’ fire. ‘Inevitable’ implies, ‘It is too big a problem and too much potentially harmful work to do anything to mitigate’. It is inferred that nobody is responsible for a conflagration if it happens because it’s ‘natural’. If the fuel level was forced by human activity, does ignition absolve those who had a choice of the time of ignition and the composition of the fuel?

2. Every fire should be monitored. Naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn in areas where periodic burns are considered beneficial and where they can be expected to burn out before becoming catastrophic. Human-caused fires in such areas should be allowed to burn or be controlled on a case-by-case basis.

Note the prejudice toward unplanned fires. They want monitoring but not planning. Are they crazy? They just said that catastrophic fire was ‘inevitable.’ Who is going to be responsible for determining whether it will go out by itself or progress to a catastrophe on a case-by-case basis? Weather in the mountain regions of California is highly changeable, localized, and unpredictable. Are they going to get everybody together for a meeting before they decide while the fire builds? Who controls the fire if the only plan for ignition is that there should be no plan?

If this policy is adopted,

• No one is making sure that the impact on air quality is minimized.
• No one has prepared fire boundaries to prevent it from getting out of control and becoming a conflagration.
• No one has established limits and boundaries based upon escape capability of animals.
• No one has surveyed the location for endangered species.
• No one could have an effective fire plan to protect people or structures, because the preconditions (such as wind) are unknown. Indeed the Club tries to prevent such fuel reductions.
• No one has planned the location, assessed the fuel load, and estimated the likely temperature of the fire and decided if that is acceptable to prevent excessive mortality in large trees or firing of the topsoil.
• No one is responsible for fire mortality of ancient specimens. Consider the fuel load of white fir building in ancient Giant Sequoia groves.
• No one has acquired plant specimens and prepared adequate replacement numbers of endangered or threatened species for repropagation after the fire.
• No one has prepared an erosion control plan to minimize the risk of subsequent landslides or damage to water quality.
• No on has any option to select weather conditions to assure that it has a chance of staying under control.
• No one has the option to select a sequence of fires in such a way that down wind regions have been burned first so that prevailing winds do not carry smoldering embers over the fire line into a dense fuel load zone.

And, most important,

• No one has assessed the unrestricted propagation of exotic weeds into an open germination medium, with little competition, and minimal vegetation to capture airborne seeds before they travel for miles. There would also be no surface obstructions to stop seed from flowing downhill in surface runoff.
• No one has developed a control plan for those exotics and obtained the resources to execute that plan.

One could go on. It’s easy.

3. In areas where fire would pose an unreasonable threat to property, human life or important biological communities, efforts should be made to reduce dangerous fuel accumulations through a program of planned ignitions. New human developments should be discouraged in areas of high fire risk.

What is an "unreasonable threat" and how is that determined and by whom? If there has been sixty years of fire suppression then a threat to biological communities seems highly likely. Note no mention of exotic species abetted by fire. If it is an "unreasonable threat" to property, we should just burn it anyway? Note they talk of planned ignitions only when it’s dangerous and an unreasonable threat. I guess they want the conflagrations with loss of life and property to be "human error" or some other piece of PR that advances the cause. Why won’t they allow someone to chop up the excess fuel, get it on the ground, away from structures and prime botanical specimens and then light it?

Where is there not a high fire risk in the West? Do they mean there should be no more new development? If they do they should tell their Democratic Party masters. Real estate and development interests are among the biggest Democratic donors in California politics.

4. When fires do occur that pose an unacceptable threat to property or human life, prompt efforts should be undertaken of fire control.

Whoever was monitoring and didn’t put it out fast enough when the wind changed is at fault if that house burns down or the people die. How do you allocate sufficient equipment for all those unplanned fires? God forbid if, during the fire season, that equipment might be fighting a fire somewhere else they didn’t plan one. It had better be a "prompt" response!

Prompt enough to absolve the misbegotten progenitors of a plan like this?

"Go to a large remote area with a high fuel load, interspersed with homes, with minimal water available. Don’t touch any of the fuel. Start and contain a series of small fires (it would take thousands of them) without a single one getting out of hand. If they get out of control, put them out REALLY fast!"

On whose insurance policy?

5. In areas included in or proposed for the National Wilderness Preservation System, fires should be managed primarily by the forces of nature. Minimal exceptions to this provision may occur where these areas contain ecosystems altered by previous fire suppression, or where they are too small or too close to human habitation to permit the ideal of natural fire regimes. Limited planned ignitions should be a management option only in those areas where there are dangerous fuel accumulations, with a resultant threat of catastrophic fires, or where they are needed to restore the natural ecosystem.

Name a place in California that has NOT been altered by fire suppression. Limited ignitions only where it is dangerous? Where the threat is catastrophic? Minimal exceptions? The purpose of a plan should be to restore a natural fire balance. How are they going to get it done that way? Is this the best the Sierra Club can do?

6. Land managers should prepare comprehensive fire management plans. These plans should consider the role of natural fire, balancing the ecological benefits of wildfire against its potential threats to natural resources, to watersheds, and to significant scenic and recreational values of wild lands.

Is there a basic problem with sitting in an office writing a plan and not being out in the field dealing with the problem according to established forestry principles with which most of the wilderness managers are familiar? In my engineering experience, we discover the inefficacy of such plans as soon as we start to implement them. Not only that, but if you are too busy not planning the ignition, there are simply too many interactive variables for which to account. Relative humidity, temperature, wind, and fuel moisture content ALL radically change the way that a fire progresses. It sounds like a plan that is too complex to be realistic. Deal with the FUEL first, then plan the ignition.

Now it IS possible to have a plan if you intend to ignite it under conditions known to be controllable and non-destructive. That might be possible, and in fact should be done.

Note the idea of fuel mitigation prior to a fire doesn’t even get discussed. They want scenic considerations taken into account? If the forest isn’t healthy it won’t stay scenic. It won’t be too scenic after any kind of fire. Not too many people will want to camp there for a couple of years at least, especially after one of those ‘unavoidable’ conflagrations (there is an awful lot of dust). Why should that even be a consideration when it comes to ecological health?

7. Methods used to control or prevent fires are often more damaging to the land than fire. Fire control plans must implement minimum-impact fire suppression techniques appropriate to the specific area.

You don’t get to fight conflagrations exactly the way you would prefer. The minimum impact is not to have a conflagration at all.

8. Steps should be taken to rehabilitate damage caused by fighting fires. Land managers should rely on natural revegetation in parks, designated or proposed wilderness areas, and other protected lands. Where artificial revegetation is needed, a mixture of appropriate native species suited to the site should be used.

How big would a nursery have to be in order to revegetate the acreage of all likely conflagrations to be started by unplanned ignitions? It should have all the local genotypes of plants in adequate quantity for all of the areas subject to serious fire risk ready to go. While they are at it, they should also collect all the necessary local insects, amphibians and other animals and provide them their specially selected diet. How many horticulturists, entomologists, and animal behavior specialists are we going to need? Keep them from cross breeding or contamination by humans while you are at it!

Conflagrations are a serious risk to biodiversity. It is better to plan not to have them.

9. The occurrence of a fire does not justify salvage logging or road building in areas that are otherwise inappropriate for timber harvesting. Salvage logging is not permitted in designated wilderness areas or National Park System units.

It justifies anything but have a way for somebody to cover some of the horrific cost of clearing, replanting some of those natives, and assuming the risk of lighting it on fire! It might even help to offset some of the cost of monitoring and assisting the reestablishment of various native species, and keeping out the pests. Oh, but the government can thin as long as they don’t sell logs! Then in the next breath they tell you that they don’t have the "funding". Meanwhile somebody logs somewhere else to provide the wood. The real reason they won’t allow thinning in advance is that it is not directly under their control.

Nobody knows how to solve problem of a sixty-year fuel load in an area infested with pests and exotic species optimally in all of the circumstances as exist. NOBODY. Government certainly does not have the resources to do it. Government does not have all the local knowledge to manage all of the controlled burns needed. On private lands, they don’t know where the water is, they don’t know where the roads are, the patterns of breezes, they don’t know the site-specific information that only a landowner can. Indeed, government is in the way.

It doesn’t have to happen this way!

If we were to reduce the fuel risk by removing some of the fuel prior to the burn we could manage these fires. The problem is that it would cost a lot of money. That means it won’t get done. Somebody could make some money to pay for at least part of it by selling logs. This can be done with less impact than that inevitable conflagration. God forbid, these people just can’t bring themselves to admit that an occasional stump might be preferable to a conflagration. The stump will break down in about 20 years and we can start over with a fire management plan that is similar to what they propose.

The Clean Air Act must be amended to minimize impact on controlled burning plans. When we have wild fires with unplanned ignitions there is air pollution. If it is a wild fire they call it smoke instead. When we don’t plan the ignition (as is proposed in the majority of cases by the Sierra Club) we have no choices about the atmospheric conditions that minimize the air pollution impact of the smoke. When we have conflagrations, the recovery time greatly increases. There is more erosion from the runoff and subsequent water pollution of the lakes.

The Sierra Club plan is a good one if only if you had forests in a primeval condition, but they have not been primeval for a very long time. The problem with the Sierra Club plan is that the ideal circumstances upon which it presupposes hardly exist. To assume that the forests will return to primeval condition, or even benefit from hands-off management after species have been selected for fire response by anthropogenic means for 10,000 years is beyond mere stupidity.

For a political organization of the size and power of the Sierra Club, to demand that the solutions be ideal when the situation precludes that possibility is either psychotic or represents an agenda having nothing to do with forest management. It’s offensive. They should look at the size and scope of the fires this year and be ashamed. The response has been one of denial and blame.

It’s time they were held accountable. Clinton Executive Order - 12986 exempted ALL members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources from civil liability. The Sierra Club is a member. That EO was a TOTALLY unconstitutional violation of 14^th Amendment equal protection.

George Bush should rescind that EO, now.

Mark Edward Vande Pol is a medical device engineer, author, and hobbyist in habitat restoration science. He has no interest in commercial logging. His book: Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature details the adverse environmental impact of political and legal ecosystem management. He proposes an alternative, free-market environmental management system capable of evolving an objective pricing system for ecosystem resources. This article was adapted from a piece of flotsam that didn’t fit in the book. You can send your complaints to Contact@wildergarten.com or order a copy at http://www.naturalprocess.net.

[Issaquahking]

Your remarks are how all of us who use our God-blessed common sense look at the management of forestry; or close to it. Unfortunely, with the "Green contingency" there is no such concept.

The Greens maybe the cause of "the second revolution" here in America by trying to shove such BS down the throats of those in the know who refuse to swallow. Thank you for trying to spread "common sense" in a country where 25% are idiots trying to spread their propaganda, and the rest are the "silent majority".

[countrydummy]

I agree with you Issaquahking, Carry is using his God Given good common sense, and the Sierra Club and it's like have none! If they did, they don't want to use it! However such a fine critque as this should be sent far and wide, and Carry, I have done my part!

[countrydummy]

bump

[countrydummy]

ping, bang and bump! You will love this one! Thanks for the spelling lesson!!!!!!

[madfly]

Here are two emails I received today.

_____________________________________________

                                                                      

For Immediate Release:                                  Contact: Marnie Funk/Tracey Shifflett
July 10, 2002                                                       202-226-9019

USDA Reports Nearly Half of 2002 Projects to Reduce Wildfire Risks have been Blocked by Appeals - Usually by Environmentalists 

Forest Subcommittee Holds Hearing Tomorrow on New Statistics

Washington, D.C. - The Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing tomorrow on "Wildfire on the National Forest: An update on the 2002 Wildland Fire Season" at 10 a.m. in 1334 Longworth HOB.

USDA reports that delays caused by the appeals have significantly slowed efforts to pull tinder-dry overgrowth out of federal forests. These delays have contributed to the West's worst fire year on record. To date, with nearly half of the 2002 fire season left, more than 3 million acres have been scorched by wildfire.

The Departments of Interior and Agriculture have spent nearly $400 million on fire suppression - virtually all the funds appropriated for the activity.

A USDA internal report outlining reasons for delays in reducing fire hazards will be discussed at tomorrow's hearing. In Fiscal year 2002, the USDA proposed cutting down excess small trees that could fuel forest fires in 326 instances across the nation. Nearly half - 155 - of those projects have been delayed by administrative appeals. A score of these cases ended up in court.

In Arizona, a state plagued with wildfires, 75 percent of the fuel load reduction plans were appealed. In Montana, another state buffeted this summer by fierce fire, 100 percent of the fuel-reduction plans were appealed.

Chairman Scott McInnis:

"For those who have spent the last several weeks down playing the impact of appeals and litigation on forest management, this report is a bucket of cold water in the face. These numbers are a scathing indictment of the process that governs management of the nation's forests, and a harsh reminder of just how relentlessly ideological some environmental litigants have become.  The American people can expect a decades long cycle of destructive wildfires if this crusade against forest management continues.

"If ever there were a case for reforming the arcane and litigious way in which we manage our forests, this emphatically is it."

Confirmed Witnesses:

PANEL I
Sally Collins
Associate Deputy Chief
National Forest System
U.S. Forest Service
Accompanied by:
Denny Truesdale
Assistant to the National Fire Plan Coordinator
U.S. Forest Service
&
Tim Hartzell
Director
Office of Wildlife Fire Coordination
U.S. Department of the Interior

PANEL II
Jim Hubbard
Colorado State Forest Service
Colorado State University

Thomas Bonnicksen, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Forest Science
Texas A&M University

Mark Pearson
Executive Director
San Juan Citizens Alliance, Colorado

Penny Morgan
Department of Forestry
University of Idaho

Michael Long
Assistant Director
Florida Division of Forestry _________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release:                                          Contact: Marnie Funk/Tracey Shifflett
July 10, 2002                                                                   202-226-9019

Committee Approves ESA Reforms that Require Federal Agencies to Use Proven Science, Peer Review in Major ESA Decisions

Reforms will better protect species and people who coexist with them

Washington, D.C. - The House Resources Committee today passed H.R. 4840, a bill to reform the Endangered Species Act, by a vote of 22-18. The bill, The Sound Science for the Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2002, requires the federal government to rely on field-tested and empirical data in making major decisions under the Endangered Species Act, including the listing of species and determinations regarding critical habitat.

Similarly, the bill establishes a higher scientific threshold for petitioners wishing to list a species.  There must be clear and convincing evidence the species is in peril.  The bill requires that science used in major ESA decisions be peer-reviewed by a panel of scientists.  Finally, the bill requires the federal government to take into an account the impact of an ESA mandate on the economy of a region.

Chairman James V. Hansen's Statement:

"This legislation is a first step in fixing the Endangered Species Act, which over the years, has been blatantly abused by federal agencies and environmental groups alike.  This law has impacted millions of people and has caused ruin for thousands more.  One recognizable problem corrected by the bill is the ESA's lack of good science when making decisions that ultimately affect both the species and the people.  This bill ensures the use of sound science through peer review and improves interagency cooperation between the federal agencies and states.  As I have stated before, this will not fix everything that is wrong with the Act, but this is a common sense step in the right direction."

Rep. Richard Pombo's Statement:

"Passage of this bill is an attempt to ensure that the agencies charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act base their decisions on sound, peer-reviewed science. The Act is failing to protect and recover species, and is a major source of conflict with property owners.  We hope this bill begins the process of resolving the shortcomings of the current law."

Rep. Greg Walden's Statement:

"The crisis forced on the farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin is a tragic example of why the peer review of Endangered Species Act science is absolutely essential.  The devastation that resulted in that

community from the unjustified shut-off of irrigation water might well have been avoided if this bill had been public law two years ago.  Peer review of data is a concept that is widely recognized within the medical and scientific communities, and it's time it is incorporated into the Endangered Species Act.  Any time the federal government may undertake an effort that can have profound effects on people and communities; it should strive to make sure the data it uses is as close to definitive as possible.  One of the most effective ways of doing that is to allow independent, unbiased scientists to review the work of government biologists and evaluate whether their data supports the actions they're recommending."

The bill's specifics include:

·       Requires federal agencies to give greater weight to scientific or commercial information that is empirical or has been field-tested.

·       Requires the Secretary of the Interior to determine a species is threatened or endangered only if data collected in the field supports that decision.

·       Revises the contents of a listing petition and establishes a higher scientific threshold for the petitioner to meet before the petition can be considered, including clear and convincing evidence that a species is in peril.

·       Establishes a peer review process for numerous federal ESA activities, including listing a species, delisting a species, recovery plans and jeopardy opinions.

·       Requires a peer review board to be empanelled on jeopardy opinions if the Secretary finds significant disagreement or significant economic impact in said opinions.

·       Requires peer reviewers to be qualified individuals who meet the National Academy of Science standards.
·       Mandates a panel of three appointees by the Secretary and two appointees by state governors who must submit a report within 90 days to the Secretary regarding the jeopardy opinions, including scientific validity of the decision and the panel's recommendations. 

###

[sasquatch]

155 mm

105, 155, 12 inch.
I'll see those; make it 16 inch...

[sasquatch]

Also, don't you have some data on their weed agendas?

Nearly all county property in Santa Cruz is weed infested. They won't spray but prefer to spread seed using brush hogs. The current high density weed is hemlock. (can't spray it; it wouldn't be safe, for the children that is)

[BOBTHENAILER]

WOW. This nails it. email that to O'Reilly, I think he had one of those idiots on the other night, you know, with the gentle voice, saying "No, GAO statistics show its is only 1 or 2%".

[madfly]

Heres another email on Fisheries: _______________________________________________________

For Immediate Release:                                          Contact: Marnie Funk/Tracey Shifflett

        July 10, 2002                                                                           202-226-9019

After 7 Hearings, House Resources Committee Reauthorizes Comprehensive Fisheries Act, 23-17

Magnuson-Stevens-not reauthorized since 1996-strengthens fisheries conservation

Washington, D.C. - The House Resources Committee today reauthorized a newly-strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act that will take strong steps to conserve ocean wildlife, particularly declining species. The committee passed the bill 23-17, taking the first step toward reauthorizing the act for the first time since 1996.

Today's vote comes on the heels of seven hearings held by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans to review proposed changes to an act that is the primary law for fishery resources and fishing activities in federal waters.

The bill steps up fisheries conservation efforts while phasing-out foreign fishing activities close to the U.S. coastline. 

FCW&O Chairman Wayne Gilchrest:

 "When I was appointed as the Chairman of the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, I made a commitment to many of the members of this Committee to keep an open mind on fisheries issues to work to reach common ground on these important issues without compromising conservation of the nation's natural resources. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is a balancing act between the interests of the fishing community to make a reasonable living and the need to maintain a healthy and diverse environment and this balance is important here in the Committee as well.

"The major themes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are identifying and prioritizing the fisheries facing overcapacity problems, gathering better data, supporting research and cooperative research initiatives, authorizing Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ's), moving us toward ecosystem-based fisheries management, ensuring that buyouts do not contribute to overcapacity problems in other fisheries, conserving Atlantic white marlin, and other important areas of fisheries management."

Provisions of the Act:

Overcapacity - Requires the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress identifying and describing the 20 U.S. fisheries which face the worst problem with excess harvesting capacity.  Overcapacity has been identified as the major problem facing sustainable fisheries by more witnesses than any other at the Subcommittee hearings.

Buyout Programs - Changes the existing statutory requirements for any buyout to require any program to purchase vessels and all existing permits.  Vessels would have to be scrapped or must be required to ensure that the vessel could not fish in U.S. waters.  In addition, this section would require the Secretary to ensure that any vessels purchased under this section could not move to any other fishery on the high seas or in foreign waters and contribute to overcapacity problems in other parts of the world.  This would ensure that buyout programs would not contribute to overcapacity in other fisheries.

Data Collection - Provides authorization for improved data collection,  including using cooperative research practices and coordinating with state fishery management agencies to gather more accurate data.   Also includes a provision to report to Congress on how confidential and proprietary processor data should be used.

Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management - Requires the Secretary, in conjunction with the Councils, to create a definition for "ecosystem" and "marine ecosystem", and establish criteria for the development of ecosystem-based management plans by each regional fishery management council based on the recommendations of the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel. 

Requires the Secretary to report to Congress, within 2 years, on the criteria and include an identification and description of those areas of scientific understanding for which sufficient data are not available.  The Secretary would then be required to develop and begin to implement regional research plans to meet the information deficit identified in the report.

Also requires the Secretary to identify two fisheries - one from the East coast and one from the West coast - and then develop and implement, in consultation with the appropriate Councils, an ecosystem-based fishery management plan for those two fisheries.

Observer Coverage - Requires the Secretary to report to Congress within one year on the needs for a national observer program including options for funding.

Bycatch Reporting Methodologies - Moves the existing statutory provision that requires Councils to establish a standardized reporting methodology for bycatch for each fishery management plan to section of the Act that includes requirements for the Secretary.   Since the Councils have been unable to meet this requirement, the Amendment moves this requirement to the Secretary.

Bycatch Reduction/Clean Gear Research - Requires the Secretary to identify the fisheries with significant bycatch problems or problems with seabird interactions.   Requires a new research grant program to fund research into gear technology that minimizes bycatch, minimizes seabird interactions, and minimizes adverse fishing gear impacts on habitat areas of particular concern, and authorizes $10 million in each of five years.

Seabird Bycatch - Requires the Secretary to report within one year of the date of enactment on the extent of the seabird interaction problem in U.S. fisheries, what efforts have been undertaken by the U.S. fishing industry and the Councils to address the problem, and the extent of the seabird interaction problem in other fisheries outside the U.S.The Secretary would also be required to take action at the appropriate international fisheries management bodies to reduce seabird interactions in those fisheries outside the United States.

Essential Fish Habitat  - The provisions in the bill will focus the efforts on minimizing gear impacts where they are truly important - the habitats that are most productive, the habitats for fisheries that are overfished, and HAPCs. 

Demonstration Program for Oyster Sanctuaries and Reserves  - This section would require the Secretary to develop a program for the design, construction and placement of oyster sanctuaries or reserves in the Chesapeake Bay consistent with the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.  Authorizes $5 million for each of five fiscal years is provided.

Individual Quota Limited Access Programs - In the authorization for IFQ programs, the bill requires the Councils and the Secretary to take into account the need to promote conservation.  In addition, not later than 5 years after the date of the establishment of an individual quota system for a fishery under this section by a Council or the Secretary, and every 5 years thereafter, the Council or Secretary would be required to review the effectiveness of the system in achieving the conservation goals required under this paragraph.

White Marlin Conservation - The Secretary would be required, within one year, to report to Congress on any nation that is fishing for Atlantic HMS and is not in compliance with the conservation and management provisions or any rebuilding recommendations enacted by the international management body.  The report shall also include recommendations for actions the U.S. to could take to ensure such compliance.

Also requires that the Secretary contract with the National Academy of Sciences to review the adequacy of the existing measures to protect Atlantic white marlin, and in particular, to examine the effects of fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Bight.  The Academy would then report back to Congress within two years of the date of enactment with the review and making recommendations for any future conservation measures that might be warranted.   

In addition, the bill establishes a pelagic longline highly migratory species bycatch and mortality reduction research program.The program shall identify and test a variety of pelagic longline fishing gear configurations and place an emphasis on determining which configurations are the most effective in reducing blue and white marlin mortality in the U.S. EEZ.

This section also requires the research program to determine the impact of existing time and area closures and focus on whether the existing closures should be modified to reduce bycatch by longline vessels.

Prohibited Act - This provision would make it a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to sell or buy recreationally caught fish.

Membership of Fishery Management Councils - Adds one new voting seat to each Council (except the North Pacific), to be appointed by the Secretary and based on the existing statutory qualifications, and who is not directly employed or receive a majority of their livelihood from the commercial, charter, or recreational fishing industry.

Marine Protected Areas Authority - Clarifies that the Councils have the authority to designate closed areas, seasonal closures, time/area closures, gear restrictions, or other methods for limiting impacts on habitat, limiting bycatch impacts of gear, or limiting fishing impact on spawning congregations in specific geographic areas.

[madfly]

I will send it off now!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[madfly]

bttt

[headsonpikes]

STOP RURAL CLEANSING!!

Clean out D.C. instead. Maybe fire will be necessary. ;^)

[Grampa Dave]

I'm afraid that we will have to take our pitch forks and flame throwers to DC and every federal agency that is staffed with life time Card Carrying Enviral Rats to get rid of this situation.

We have at least two decades since the days of Carter of card carrying rats pushing their agendas is DC and the 50 states. Massive erradication of these evil weeks may be the only answer.

[headsonpikes]

I think shining a light on them will work pretty well. ;^)

But 'firing' them still has a certain appeal.

Of course, so does taking a 'weed-whacker' to their hinder parts. It's darned hard to find servicable horse-whips these days!

[Grampa Dave]

Use what ever to get rid of these Enviral Nazis.

Just get these vile Enviralist Nazis away from the rest of us without any power to hurt anyone again.

I just want them removed from the power they have been illegally granted since the days of Jimmy Carter. They were never elected to hold the powers that they had held for the past 2 decades.

They can do more damage each day to our country than the al Qaeda terrorists can over a long period of time.

I'm tired of listening to them lie and push their agendas. They are in that same group of hate America that started in the 1960's and the 1970's. It is time for these over aged hippies and their acid head spawn to just go away and leave us alone.

They are insane and dangerous and should not have any power over any American, any company or our country.

They and their best friends the ACLU lawyers from liberal hell have worn out their welcome. We can't allow them the freedom to work 24/7 to destroy America for their agendas.

[SierraWasp]

We fired UP! Ain'ta gonna take it NO MO!!!

[SierraWasp]

"You'd be hard pressed to find a sierra Club member who is not a statist, collectivist or Naderite."

As well as a Ted Kazynski Luddite!!!

[Grampa Dave]

Be careful where you live, work and travel with this warning. Please send this to other Northern Kalis Freepers that you know and maybe your email list.

Folks we are under a new Red Flag Weather Advisory Warning.

Here is the copy of my flash email I just got:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA
330 PM PST THU JUL 11 2002

...A RED FLAG WARNING HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR TONIGHT INTO EARLY FRIDAY
FOR THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND DELTA REGION AS
WELL AS FOR THE SAN MATEO-SANTA CRUZ...SANTA CLARA UNITS...THE EAST
BAY HILLS AND THE SONOMA-LAKE NAPA UNITS...

...A RED FLAG WARNING IS EXTENDED FOR TONIGHT INTO EARLY FRIDAY
MORNING FOR THE WEST SLOPES OF THE NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA AND
ADJACENT FOOTHILLS. THIS INCLUDES THE TAHOE AND ELDORADO NATIONAL
FORESTS AND THE NEVADA-YUBA-PLACER AND AMADOR-ELDORADO CDF RANGER
UNITS...

THIS INCLUDES FIRE WEATHER ZONES 535...536...538...541...546 THRU
550...552 THRU 554...558..559..561...562 THRU 564 AND 566.

STRONG HIGH PRESSURE ACROSS NEVADA WILL PRODUCE A SOUTHEASTERLY FLOW
OF UNSTABLE AIR. THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN A FEW DRY LIGHTNING STRIKES
ACROSS THE SIERRA. IN ADDITION...A STRONG UPPER LEVEL DISTURBANCE
WILL DRIFT UP FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT. THESE FEATURES
WILL ALL COMBINE TO PRODUCE SCATTERED DRY THUNDERSTORMS OVER THE
SIERRA MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS...THE SOUTHERN SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND
DELTA REGION...AS WELL AS MUCH OF THE BAY AREA.

BY FRIDAY AFTERNOON MOST OF THIS MOISTURE SHOULD MOVE NORTH OF THE
AREA...WITH ONLY A FEW LINGERING STORMS ACROSS THE HIGH SIERRA BY
FRIDAY AFTERNOON. THESE STORMS SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY SOME
PRECIPITATION BY THEN.

PLEASE ADVISE THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS AND FIRE CREWS IN THE FIELD
OF THIS RED FLAG WARNING.

BASIL

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks, they never stop trying to run/ruin our lives!