Latest News

Real Voices: Stakeholders, in their own words, urge EPA to stop Pebble Mine

This week NRDC is running a series of ads in Washington D.C. asking the Obama administration to stop the proposed Pebble Mine.  The ads feature Alaskans from Bristol Bay — including former State Senate President Rick Halford — explaining, in...

Read Full Story

Real Voices: Stakeholders, in their own words, urge EPA to stop Pebble Mine

By Taryn Kiekow, May 23, 2013

This week NRDC is running a series of ads in Washington D.C. asking the Obama administration to stop the proposed Pebble Mine.  The ads feature Alaskans from Bristol Bay — including former State Senate President Rick Halford — explaining, in their own words, why it is essential that EPA protect Bristol Bay from the Pebble Mine. Pebble Mine is a giant gold and copper mine proposed at the headwaters of Bristol Bay – home to the world’s greatest wild salmon fishery, which has recently been valued at $1.5 billion annually. Here are some highlights from these poignent vignettes:


          

• "As the former president of the Alaska State Senate, I served as a Republican leader in Alaska for 26 years. I believe in mining. I believe that mines are an important part of Alaska’s economy….but I don’t support Pebble Mine.” Rick Halford, former president of Alaska’s State Senate (above left). 
• “The populations of salmon I once fished along the Pacific Coast are mostly gone now, the victims of shortsighted development and habitat loss. In Bristol Bay we have a chance to get it right. Our jobs and sustainable fishing economy cannot be gambled away for the short-term profits of foreign mining investors.” Patricia Treydte, Bristol Bay fisherman (above right). 

     

• "I am the Executive Director of Nunamta Aulukestai…a coalition of 10 tribal governments and 10 native village corporations. The legendary salmon runs of Bristol Bay have supported our people for thousands of years. Salmon are our source of life. Salmon represent our past and our future.” Kimberly Williams, Executive Director of Nunamta Aulukestai (above left).
• “Allowing giant mining corporations to take what amounts to the world's biggest pickaxe to the [Bristol Bay] region will destroy our way of life and place the future of our people and communities in doubt.” Bobby Andrew, Yup’ik elder (above center). 

• “The Obama administration called Bristol Bay a ‘national treasure’ that is too special to drill…I call on EPA to protect this rewewable resource that has been feeding my ancestors for thousands of years against foreign interests that only want short-term profits.” Verner Wilson III, commercial fishermen and Curyung Tribal Member (above right). 

EPA released a revised scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed last month that found that mining at the headwaters of Bristol Bay would destroy salmon spawning and rearing habitat, including up to 90 miles of streams; devastate 4,800 acres of wetlands; and significantly impact fish populations in streams surrounding the mine site. The agency is currently accepting public comments on its Bristol Bay assessment. 

The ads show EPA that it has overwhelming support from the region to protect Bristol Bay. According to recent polls:

• 85% of commercial fishermen in Bristol Bay oppose Pebble Mine, including 80% who strongly oppose it.
• 81% of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation's native shareholders oppose Pebble Mine. 
• 80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose Pebble Mine.
• 68% of Alaskans oppose Pebble Mine, including 55% who strongly oppose it.

We also want to show policymakers inside the Beltway the faces of people whose lives, culture, and livelihoods will be forever changed if foreign mining companies are allowed to develop Pebble Mine and consequently produce 10 billion tons of waste.

The public has until May 31 to submit comments to EPA.  Please speak out now in support of the people of Bristol Bay.

To comment on this post, visit BioGem's blog site, Switchboard

A New Mission for Wildlife Services? Feral Swine Is a Better Target Than...

Sequester.  Budget deficit.  National debt.  With words like these swirling around Washington, DC -- and the political pressure they have generated to find ways to cut federal spending (we’ll leave aside whether that’s wise fiscal policy for now) -- I...

Read Full Story

A New Mission for Wildlife Services? Feral Swine Is a Better Target Than...

By Andrew Wetzler, May 23, 2013

Sequester.  Budget deficit.  National debt.  With words like these swirling around Washington, DC -- and the political pressure they have generated to find ways to cut federal spending (we’ll leave aside whether that’s wise fiscal policy for now) -- I was a bit taken aback when I learned that President Obama had recommended that the federal government increase the budget of a once-obscure, but now controversial, federal program called “Wildlife Services.” 

The Orwellian-named program (formerly known as Animal Damage Control) spends nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars a year to kill millions of wild animals across the United States.  Most disturbingly, the agency spends much of this money on a relentless mission to kill native carnivores, ranging from coyotes and bears to mountain lions and wolves.

But all is not as it appears.  As it turns out, the increase in funding that the USDA is pushing for, and the Obama Administration has signed off on, is actually meant for feral swine (wild pig) control, which is an entirely different beast (literally and figuratively).  The need to invest in feral swine control was highlighted last week in a Senate appropriations hearing, and today Wildlife Services is hosting a scoping meeting for a national feral swine “damage management program.”

Feral swine are an invasive and highly destructive species.  They have steadily spread -- sometimes with human help -- across much of the Southeastern and Western United States and, increasingly, into the Midwest, as highlighted recently by the New York Times.  Feral swine have few natural predators, are omnivorous (and often predatory) eaters, and their rooting and wallowing behavior can cause severe damage to native ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands.  In fact, feral swine are often cited as a threat to native endangered wildlife.

So refocusing the agency’s attention on feral hogs -- instead of wolves, mountain lions and bears -- isn’t a bad idea.  But there are a few things to be careful of:

• First, Wildlife Services’ own assessment of the benefits of its control programs is often flawed.  As NRDC laid out in our report Fuzzy Math, Wildlife Services’ cost-benefit analyses of its programs often fails to follow either federal or basic academic standards.  

• Second, Wildlife Services’ budget is notoriously murky.  In fact, the agency often can’t even tell Congress exactly how it spends its money.  In a 2011 letter to members of Congress, for example, the agency noted that because “we do not use a management accounting cost system” it could neither tell them how much money it spends on various management techniques nor break out the cost-categories (e.g., local governments, private business) to whom it was providing these services.

So, before anybody decides to give Wildlife Services more money to play with, we need to make sure it will actually be spent for its intended purpose – that is, dealing with feral swine – and that it will be used in a cost-effective manner that benefits the public and America’s natural landscape. 

Right now, all of that is a big “if.”

To comment on this post, visit BioGem's blog site, Switchboard
• 

  NRDC BioGems News

  Read the latest BioGems developments in our monthly newsletter.

  See the latest issue >

More News