Idaho residents were rattled Tuesday evening by the biggest earthquake to shake the state in almost 40 years.
- Idaho Lawmakers Strike Climate Change Language From New ... ›
- Rare Earthquake Rattles New Jersey - EcoWatch ›
- New England Is Rattled by Strongest Earthquake Since 1976 ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Jodi Helmer
Each year, millions of tons of grain make their way along what was once one of our wildest river systems, the Columbia-Snake River. Four dams — the Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor — erected between 1955 and 1975, ease the way for massive barges bound for ports on the West Coast, and ultimately, markets in Asia. Soybeans, wood products, mineral bulks, and automobiles also travel the river by barge. But outnumbering all other cargo is the soft white wheat grown by farmers from 11 states.
Construction of the Ice Harbor Dam in 1959. US Army Corps of Engineers<p>"When the dams went in, we closed down the rail lines, and, in doing so, barging was the only way to get our grain to market," Jones says. "We don't have the infrastructure to start using rail again, [and] we can't afford to pay another 50 cents a bushel to ship our grain."</p><p>Nevertheless, Jones acknowledges <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/columbia-snake-river-basin-salmon-are-losing-their-way" target="_blank">the steep toll the dams have taken on salmon</a> and is part of a bipartisan, multi-stakeholder coalition searching for fresh ideas to help save them — while supporting farmers, too. Its work is increasingly urgent: From populations numbering 130,000 fish in the 1950s, wild Snake River spring Chinook salmon <a href="https://www.wildsalmon.org/images/factsheets-and-reports/2017.Graphs.Snake.River.Adult.Returns.pdf" target="_blank">dropped to approximately 5,</a><a href="https://www.wildsalmon.org/images/factsheets-and-reports/2017.Graphs.Snake.River.Adult.Returns.pdf" target="_blank">800</a><a href="https://www.wildsalmon.org/images/factsheets-and-reports/2017.Graphs.Snake.River.Adult.Returns.pdf" target="_blank"> in 2017.</a> Thirteen populations are listed under the Endangered Species Act, and all four salmon and steelhead populations in the Snake River Basin are at risk of extinction, according to <a href="https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/gis_maps/maps/salmon_steelhead/critical_habitat/wcr_salmonid_ch_esa_july2016.pdf" target="_blank">NOAA Fisheries</a>. The dwindling number of salmon is having ripple effects across the food chain. In Washington State, only 73 <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/tahlequahs-newborn-and-scarlet-gone-orca-advocates-race-save-their-kin" target="_blank">Southern Resident </a><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/tahlequahs-newborn-and-scarlet-gone-orca-advocates-race-save-their-kin" target="_blank">orcas</a> remain, due in part to the lack of Chinook salmon, their main prey. </p><p>In response, wildlife advocates are renewing calls to <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/giulia-cs-good-stefani/orca-task-force-report-call-action" target="_blank">restore the lower Snake River</a> by breaching the four dams. A <a href="https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy/" target="_blank">recent report released by the NW Energy Coalition,</a> with support from NRDC, found that a mixed portfolio of solar, wind, energy efficiency, demand-response, and storage can replace the power the four Snake River dams contribute to the Northwest. Such a change would increase the system's reliability and cost ratepayers little to nothing. A free-flowing Snake River would also safeguard salmon from increasingly hot, even deadly, water temperatures, according to <a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/our-work-saving-salmon/fighting-cold-water%20Show%20less" target="_blank">modeling done by Columbia </a><a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/our-work-saving-salmon/fighting-cold-water%20Show%20less" target="_blank">Riverkeeper</a>. "We must break the political logjam around this issue. If we don't, the fish are cooked," says <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/giulia-cs-good-stefani" target="_blank">Giulia C.S. Good Stefani</a>, a senior attorney in NRDC's Nature Program.</p><p>"After looking at the science and economics, our coalition endorsed removing the four dams," says Sam Mace, inland Northwest project director of the nonprofit <a href="https://www.wildsalmon.org/about/save-our-wild-salmon-coalition.html" target="_blank">Save Our Wild Salmo</a><a href="https://www.wildsalmon.org/about/save-our-wild-salmon-coalition.html" target="_blank">n</a>. "It's not the only thing that needs to be done to restore the [salmon] runs to healthy, harvestable numbers, but it has to be the cornerstone of any plan that is going to be successful."</p>
Rethinking Infrastructure<p>The push to restore the river by removing the earthen portion of the dams has been controversial. More than half of U.S. wheat exports are shipped on the Columbia–Snake River system, making it the <a href="https://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/CSRS.pdf" target="_blank">top wheat export gateway in the nation</a> and the third largest in the world. As a result, farmers have the most to lose, according to Sam White, chief operating officer for <a href="http://www.pnw.coop/" target="_blank">Pacific Northwest Farmers </a><a href="http://www.pnw.coop/" target="_blank">Cooperative</a>.</p><p>"You've got people who say, 'Remove the dams at all costs; we want them out, we want to save our salmon,' and then you've got people who are using the river to move products saying, 'No, [the dams] are important to my livelihood,'" White says. "The closer you are to the river, the more economical it is to use the barge."</p><p>But White also estimates that just 40 percent of the region's crops are shipped via barge, down from a high of 80 percent a decade ago. Local farmers have diversified their crops, planting canola, peas, lentils and garbanzo beans, which are shipped through alternate ports reached via trucks or rail. And if rail transportation were built out further, Jones says, farmers like him might be able to abandon barge shipping altogether.</p><p>Already, there is some progress on this front, and models to follow elsewhere in the Columbia Basin, as with the McCoy grain terminal shuttle train loading facility near Oakesdale, Washington, <a href="https://dnews.com/local/new-grain-terminal-breaks-ground-in-mccoy/article_873342c6-1c7c-55b0-9cef-9450c050cc41.html" target="_blank">completed in 2013 with investment from agricultural groups</a>, including the Pacific Northwest Farmers Cooperative. "More companies are trying to make loop rail systems where they can store 100 [railcars] until they're filled with grain and could be economically shipped down to Portland," Jones says. "But that's going to mean building new rail lines or updating older rail lines. A lot of that depends on what finances are put in to [help] companies build rail lines, build storage capacity, and all the things necessary to be able to hold and ship grain."</p><p>Jones believes that offering farmers subsidies to help them adapt to the additional expenses of shipping their grain if dams are removed would be much cheaper than maintaining aging dams. With these supports in place, more farmers would be willing to make the shift, he posits, adding, "I'm pro-dam removal but we have to keep farmers whole."</p>
Spawning Solutions<p>After decades of disagreement, there seems to be a growing awareness on both sides that finding a compromise is essential. At the annual Environmental Conference at the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State University in April, participants came together to discuss the theme, "Energy, Salmon, Agriculture, and Community: Can We Come Together?"</p><p>In his <a href="https://vimeo.com/334511830" target="_blank">lunchtime address</a>, Republican congressman Mike Simpson from Idaho acknowledged that the $16 billion investment in salmon recovery from Bonneville Power Administration, the government agency responsible for delivering electricity from the dams, wasn't working. "I am going to stay alive long enough to see salmon return to healthy populations in Idaho," he went on to say. "You cannot address the salmon issue without addressing dams…they are interwoven."</p><p>Good Stefani, who was a panelist at the conference, met with Simpson this past summer. He's been working with partners around the region, meeting with leaders and decision makers to discuss ways to identify solutions that work for both farmers and fishermen, should the dams come out. "Idaho has had abysmal salmon runs, and that's a huge problem, not just for the ecosystem," she said. "It's also an economic hit to the state. Family and local businesses have paid the price — all the way up the river from Lewiston to Orofino to Riggins to Challis to Salmon."</p><p>One official from Idaho's Department of Labor estimated that salmon and steelhead fishing brings in about <a href="https://billingsgazette.com/outdoors/steelhead-fishing-closure-hammers-idaho-economy/article_481f7f8c-7a85-5a7e-bf5c-029b53b9144f.html" target="_blank">$8.61 million per month</a> to Clearwater and Nez Perce counties alone. But in September, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission had to close all steelhead fishing on the Clearwater River and severely limit fishing on the Snake and Salmon rivers on account of the struggling population. These developments have the local outdoors industry deeply concerned. Last month, a group of <a href="https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/dec/08/idaho-outfitters-discuss-grim-salmon-steelhead-out/" target="_blank">about 60 Idaho outfitters and guides met</a> in the Clearwater River Casino near Lewiston to talk about the toll of the closures on their communities.</p><p>Idaho tribes, too, have paid incalculable costs. McCoy Oatman, vice chair of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, spoke as one of the panelists at the Boise conference. He reminded participants of the importance of salmon as a food source, saying, "we're past the 11th hour" for these fish. "We as tribal people know that."</p>
Taking the Long View<p>In Washington State, tribes and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation">conservation</a> groups have ample experience in advocating for dam removal — and maintaining the patience to see their efforts through. Once the decision was made <a href="https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm" target="_blank">to </a><a href="https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm" target="_blank">remove</a><a href="https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restoration.htm" target="_blank"> the Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam</a>, it took two decades before the final section of the dams were removed in 2014, but the impacts to the river ecosystem were immediate. <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187742" target="_blank">Research</a> showed that habitats were restored; salmon, steelhead, and trout repopulated the river; and new species moved in.</p><p>Mace believes that sharing those success stories might lead more opponents of dam removal to reconsider their positions. "I have been trying to extend a hand and have conversations with some of the folks that have been traditionally opposed [to breaching the dams], to the communities who use the benefits of the dams, to see if we could come to some kind of understanding at least and see whether there would be a willingness to figure out some solutions," she says. "We are seeing people take more of a long view. They're realizing that the salmon crisis won't go away unless we take some bold actions."</p><p><span></span>In the meantime, Good Stefani takes heart in the dialogues being had at forums like the Boise conference. "When we talk face-to-face, we confront the uncomfortable fact that finding a solution is complicated and there is no villain here," she says. "We have to stop fighting about who has more to lose and start asking what everybody needs. We all want our kids to be able to float and fish these rivers, to know that increasingly rare kind of abundance."</p>
- Why Does Climate Change Matter to the Columbia River? - EcoWatch ›
- Alarming 'Salmon Extinction Act' Passes in U.S. House - EcoWatch ›
According to the UN Environment Program, up to 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used globally each year, and because of the material they're made from, most municipal recycling centers don't accept them (more on this below).
The most sustainable option is to skip the bag altogether. You can also make your own reusable produce bags out of old T-shirts. But if you'd rather purchase them new, here are our recommendations for the best reusable produce bags on the market today.
Eco Joy<p>If you're making the switch to more sustainable shopping bags and want a variety of products to use, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Reusable-Sandwich-Biodegradable-Eco-Drawstring/dp/B003PK4W3I/ref=sr_1_36?crid=3TDUCB8ZOM7WI&dchild=1&keywords=produce+bags+grocery+reusable&qid=1613484643&sprefix=produce+bags%2Caps%2C189&sr=8-36" target="_blank">Eco Joy Cotton Reusable Produce Bags</a> set is a great place to start. The set comes with three mesh drawstring bags, three muslin drawstring bags, a large mesh tote and a zippered sandwich-size pouch.</p><p>Each product is made with organic, non-GMO cotton that's ethically sourced in accordance with Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) standards. The cotton comes from India and Turkey, and the bags are hand-assembled in Canada by the owner of Eco Joy, so you can feel good about supporting a small business while reducing your environmental impact.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.7 out of 5 stars with over 300 Amazon reviews</p><p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Zero-waste; Handmade in Canada; WRAP compliant; Machine washable</p>
Organic Cotton Mart<p>Some shoppers prefer to use mesh bags when shopping for fruits and veggies. We recommend checking out <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Best-Reusable-Produce-Organic-Cotton/dp/B07CK2TJKL/ref=sr_1_16?crid=10A7NM0LQ0B7E&dchild=1&keywords=mesh+produce+bags&qid=1613483897&s=home-garden&sprefix=mesh+pro%2Cgarden%2C162&sr=1-16" target="_blank">Organic Cotton Mart's Reusable Cotton Mesh Produce Bags</a> if you're in this camp, as they're made with Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified cotton.</p> <p>Mesh reusable produce bags can make the checkout process easier than muslin bags since you can see what's inside them without having to open them up. Plus, the tare weight (i.e., the weight of the empty bag that should be subtracted from the total weight of your produce to make sure you don't pay extra for using your bag) is printed right on the label of Organic Cotton Mart's bags, making everything that much more convenient.</p> <p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.6 out of 5 stars with nearly 1,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> GOTS certified; Machine washable; Biodegradable
Simple Ecology<p>On the other hand, if you just want to purchase muslin bags, we like <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Ecology-Reusable-Organic-Shopping/dp/B004UJ0U0C" target="_blank">Simple Ecology's Reusable Produce Bags</a>, which are also made with GOTS-certified organic cotton. Simple Ecology also has a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N6AUMBG/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01N6AUMBG&pd_rd_w=MA3ZS&pf_rd_p=cbc856ed-1371-4f23-b89d-d3fb30edf66d&pd_rd_wg=hVunQ&pf_rd_r=G6RTQ1Z5DKEY325MAJZ9&pd_rd_r=5d298b3a-1be7-4ebd-a9e1-d5d672a40497&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExMzc4RVAxWjNLOTdCJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNTc0NTAwMzBDMjFYOVJPTUpWSCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjYyOTM4M0s4Vk81SVBPS1NFSyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2RldGFpbF90aGVtYXRpYyZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=" target="_blank">starter kit</a> that comes with several reusable grocery bags if you're looking for more variety.</p> <p>The benefit of using muslin reusable produce bags is that, unlike mesh, there are no holes for small items to slip through. This means that in addition to larger produce, you can use them to purchase bulk foods like lentils, beans and rice — or even powders like flour or spices — without worrying about anything leaking. They're also best for keeping leafy greens fresh.</p> <p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.7 out of 5 stars with nearly 1,500 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> GOTS certified; Machine washable; Biodegradable; Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified packaging when purchased from manufacturer
ECOBAGS<p>Whether you're buying bread, fresh flowers, produce or all of the above, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/ECOBAGS-Market-Collection-Reusable-Natural/dp/B08KFGPGN5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ECOBAGS Market Collection Reusable Bag Set</a> is ideal for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/farmers-markets-coronavirus-safety-2645581711.html" target="_self">farmers market</a> shopping or large grocery hauls. The netted bags are durable, flexible, and pack down small so they're easy to keep in your car or purse.</p> <p>ECOBAGS is a woman-owned certified B Corp, which means it uses sound social and environmental practices. These bags come in packs of three or five and have a few different handle lengths and color options, but they're all made with GOTS-certified organic cotton.</p> <p><strong>Customer rating: </strong>Not applicable</p><p><strong>Why buy:</strong> GOTS certified; Machine washable; Biodegradable; Certified B Corp; SA8000 certified for the protection of basic human rights of workers</p>
The Trump administration allowed a mining company to write its own report for how proposed mines in Idaho would affect protected species in the area, the AP reports.
A Chinook salmon leaps through white water in May 2001 in The Rapid River in Idaho. Documents show the U.S. Forest Service allowing a mininc company to write it's own environmental report which has the purpose of examining the potential effect the open-pit mines would have on salmon, steelhead and bull trout protected under the Endangered Species Act. Bill Schaefer / Getty Images<p>Before the lobbying efforts, which included meetings with top officials at the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service had rejected Midas's request to be involved in the drafting process because its mines would likely harm fish.</p>
A federal judge on Thursday halted the first Yellowstone-area grizzly bear trophy hunts in four decades.
- Love Wildlife? Check Out These 11 Stunning Photos From ... ›
- Yellowstone Grizzlies Win Reprieve From Trophy Hunt as Court Restores Endangered Species Protections - EcoWatch ›
For millennia, human beings have gazed into the firmament and been awed by the thousands of stars, galaxies, nebulae and other cosmic wonders visible to the naked eye. But in recent generations, much of humanity has become divorced from these marvels. Today, at least 80 percent of people living in the United States and Europe are so inundated with light pollution that they can't even see our own Milky Way, let alone our neighboring galaxies like Andromeda.
- February Astronomical Highlights: 'Humanity Star' and a Trio of Planets ›
- What 21 Stars Reveal About the Universe ›
- Light Pollution: The Dangers of Bright Skies at Night - EcoWatch ›
The Idaho House Education Committee voted 12-4 Wednesday on a motion to strip references to human-caused climate change in the state's proposed new science education standards.
The motion, proposed by Rep. Scott Syme, R-Caldwell, strikes a section* from the Idaho Content Standards that includes the language: "energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment." Several paragraphs of "Supporting Content"** that delves further into climate science were deleted as well.
- 4 Lessons Psychology Teaches Us About Inspiring Climate Action ›
- A Six-Step Guide to Combat the Fossil Fuel Industry's Climate Lies ›
By Brett Walton
State of the State speeches are where governors sketch their legislative priorities and report on the overall health of their dominions. The state of the state is almost always "strong" and water issues are occasionally mentioned.
Below are summaries of the governors' references to water, climate and the environment.
Lawmakers in Idaho have approved new K-12 science standards that do not reference the established science of climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment.
The Feb. 9 vote from the House Education Committee came mostly down party lines. According to Idaho Ed News, 11 Republicans on the panel approved the proposed slate of science standards after five paragraphs* mentioning the topics were removed from the initial draft. The committee's three Democrats voted against removing the climate change language.
3 Reasons Trump EPA Pick Can't Be Trusted With Climate Science https://t.co/olPdJxwZU7 @BusinessGreen @Ethical_Corp— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1486859103.0
The omitted language includes, "Ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century," and "human activity is also having adverse impacts on biodiversity through overpopulation, overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species and climate change."
The language comes from the Next Generation Science Standards, which has been adopted by at least 18 states and the District of Columbia. The standards, which identify the science all K-12 students should know, were developed by 26 states and a number of national science and educational groups.
But Republican Rep. Scott Syme said the initial draft of new state science standards did not teach "both sides of the debate."
"I really didn't want to scrap everything they had done, just some," Syme said. "Actually most of these (rejected paragraphs) deal with three areas and didn't seem to me to present both sides of the picture."
House Assistant Minority Leader Ilana Rubel criticized the committee's decision.
"Not only do we owe it to our children to teach them 21st century science, but we owe it to the farmers, foresters and citizens of Idaho to take this issue seriously and not bury our heads in the sand," she said in a statement.
Committee members in favor of removing the language said that local school officials could still teach global warming to students even if there are new state standards.
"This is not about curriculum," Republican Rep. Ryan Kerby explained to the Associated Press. "If a school district wants to teach the dickens out of global warming, have at it."
Only one Republican on the committee, Rep. Paul Amador, favored the standards as originally written.
"While I appreciate teaching both sides, I think this was a very transparent process where we relied on our highly qualified educators," he said.
According to Idaho Ed News, "Technically, the committee approved a temporary rule including the new science standards. When the Legislature adjourns, the new standards will take effect, without the climate change language. Then, SDE and State Board officials will develop a permanent rule. ... [I]t appears likely state officials will draft new language to replace the references to climate change. Legislators would review the standards again in 2018."
"Michael Mann: It's Open Season on Climate Scientists" via @EcoWatch: https://t.co/PL0RrSrWWd #HSCW #SerengetiStrategy— Michael E. Mann (@Michael E. Mann)1487094187.0
*Here is the full text of the rejected paragraphs removed from the science standards:
ESS3-MS-5. Ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century.
- Further Explanation: Examples of factors include human activities (such as fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and agricultural activity) and natural processes (such as changes in incoming solar radiation or volcanic activity). Examples of evidence can include tables, graphs, and maps of global and regional temperatures, atmospheric levels of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and the rates of human activities. Emphasis is on the major role that human activities play in causing the rise in global temperatures.
ESS3.C: Human Impacts on Earth Systems
- Human activities have altered the biosphere, sometimes damaging or destroying natural habitats and causing the extinction of other species. But changes to Earth's environments can have different impacts (negative and positive) for different living things.(ESS3-MS-3)
- Typically as human populations and per-capita consumption of natural resources increase, so do the negative impacts on Earth unless the activities and technologies involved are engineered otherwise. (ESS3-MS-3, ESS3-MS-4)
- Human activities (such as the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel combustion) are major factors in the current rise in Earth's mean surface temperature. Other natural activities (such as volcanic activity) are also contributors to changing global temperatures. Reducing the level of climate change and reducing human vulnerability to whatever climate changes do occur depend on the understanding of climate science, engineering capabilities, and other kinds of knowledge, such as understanding of human behavior and on applying that knowledge wisely in decisions and activities. (ESS3-MS-5)
LS4.D: Biodiversity and Humans
- Biodiversity is increased by the formation of new species (speciation) and decreased by the loss of species (extinction). (LS2-HS-7)
- Humans depend on the living world for the resources and other benefits provided by biodiversity. But human activity is also having adverse impacts on biodiversity through overpopulation, overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, and climate change. Thus sustaining biodiversity so that ecosystem functioning and productivity are maintained is essential to supporting and enhancing life on Earth. Sustaining biodiversity also aids humanity by preserving landscapes of recreational or inspirational value. (LS2-HS-7, LS4-HS-6.)
ESS2.D: Weather and Climate
- Current models predict that, although future regional climate changes will be complex and varied, average global temperatures will continue to rise. The outcomes predicted by global climate models strongly depend on the amounts of human-generated greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere each year and by the ways in which these gases are absorbed by the ocean and biosphere. (ESS3-HS-6)
Gray wolves and coyotes are under threat again in Idaho. Yesterday wrapped up a four-day "wolf massacre," as Lisa Kauffman, Idaho director for the Humane Society of America, calls this now annual event. An organization which calls itself Idaho for Wildlife put on a hunting derby, dubbed "Predator Hunting Contest and Fur Rendezvous," where from Jan. 1 to Jan. 4 more than 125 hunters competed for $1,000 cash prizes for most coyotes and wolves killed.
Idaho for Wildlife claims to be "dedicated to the preservation of Idaho's wildlife" and aims to "fight against all legal and legislative attempts by the animal rights and anti-gun organizations who are attempting to take away our rights and freedoms under the Constitution of the United States of America." Steve Alder, executive director of Idaho for Wildlife, said "the event ... is geared at controlling the local predator population and teaching kids and families hunting and survival skills. And yes, children as young as 10 are encouraged to participate. "We tailor it around this time of year for family, to let the kids get out to learn to hunt, gun safety and survival skills," said Alder.
Needless to say, the event draws intense criticism. Though participants claim they are keeping predators in check, money seems to play a big role in the derby. Hunters can sell a wolf pelt for up to $600, and a taxidermied mount of a wolf or coyote is a highly prized item. In response to 50,000 complaints against the derby and a lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity, Advocates for the West, Western Watersheds Project and Project Coyote, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revoked its permit to the group to the use of land. When the BLM pulled its permit, it removed 3 million acres of public land from the contest. Still, hunters used U.S. Forest Service land and private land. And nothing stopped hunters from entering Bureau of Land Management land and killing coyotes or wolves; those kills just did not count for hunters in the derby.
According to event organizers, about two dozen coyotes were killed and no wolves as of yesterday afternoon. Wolf-hunting is legal in Idaho, which offers five permits to kill per hunter, plus five more for trappers, despite the fact that wolves were only removed from the endangered species list in 2011. Not only is it legal, but the state even sets aside $400,000 in funds to kill roughly 500 wolves, leaving just 150 in the entire state. Idaho for Wildlife can hardly say they are protecting the state's wildlife when they are hunting an animal for sport that was only taken off of the endangered species list a few years ago. Kauffman hits the nail on the head when she says "Rewarding shooters, including young children, with prizes takes us back to an earlier era of wanton killing that so many of us thought was an ugly, ignorant and closed chapter in our history."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced more than seven million dollars in funding to support research on the profitability of small and medium-sized family farms, including their potential role in building local and regional systems. This announcement came amidst a flurry of other USDA news and program announcements in support of small farmers.
Oklahoma State University will evaluate the role of small and mid-size farms and their impact in local and regional food systems. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
These grants were awarded through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), which is administered by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—USDA’s intramural grant-making agency related to agricultural research, education and extension. The small and medium-sized family farm subprogram within AFRI was added over a decade ago following a campaign by National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) backed by a variety of members of Congress.
AFRI is USDA’s largest competitive research grants program, with an annual budget of $274 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and $316 million for FY14. And while the awards announced this week are a small portion of AFRI’s total program funding levels, the research funded by these grants will nonetheless have significant impact on our understanding of how small and medium-sized farms can remain economically viable amidst the changes in our current agricultural landscape.
For 2013, AFRI’s Small and Medium-Sized Farm program focuses on research, education and extension projects that develop new ideas on how to increase the viability and competitiveness of small and medium-sized dairy, poultry, livestock, crop and commodity operations. This includes developing strategies to increase market access; developing efficient local and regional food systems; and assessing the impacts of changes in input costs, markets and credit on farm entry, transition and the economic viability of small farms.
In total, 10 research grants were awarded for FY13, including several grants that focus on how small and mid-scale farms can contribute to local and regional food systems and increase profitability through more environmentally sustainable production systems. Some projects funded in these areas include:
Michigan State University’s Center for Regional Food Systems (an NSAC member) will lead a project focusing on the development of profitable Michigan-based meat and livestock value chains supplying local and regional markets. This research will expand the Center’s Livestock Work Group, as will another research project funded on the production and supply side strategies for a local, Michigan grass-finished beef production system. Another MSU grant will examine business networks for food hubs in Michigan and Missouri and is tied to the Center’s Michigan Food Hub Network.
In Idaho, researchers at the University of Idaho will investigate ways to overcome constraints in serving local and regional markets in the Intermountain West, given its vast geography and often large distances between producers and consumers. Research will focus on identifying strategies for aggregation, storage, processing and distribution for small and medium-sized farmers to access local and regional vegetable and livestock markets.
Researchers at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign will support research, education and outreach for designing and implementing more sustainable agroecosystems in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed (a typical region of the Midwest primarily dominated by corn and soybeans) by focusing on local food and biomass production for small farmers in the region.
Oklahoma State University will evaluate the role of small and mid-size farms and their impact in local and regional food systems. Specifically, this project will assess the economic development benefits that can be derived from more localized food systems.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin will work with small and mid-sized diversified vegetable farms in Wisconsin who are selling into multiple local and regional food markets in order to develop strategies to help them identify better balances between diversification and specialization in the crops grown on their farms.
In Vermont, researchers at the University of Vermont will assist decision-making by rural farm families to increase the sustainability and competitiveness of small and medium-sized farms, to strengthen the local economy with sustainable food production through the adoption of innovative and environmentally sustainable farming practices.
Kentucky State University researchers and extension agents will work with small, limited resources, socially disadvantaged, beginner and women farmers through workshops, meetings, one-on-one education and Extension Agent training in order to increase the efficiency and utilization of these farmers across the state.
Applications for the next round of funding for FY 2014 were due earlier this week, and awards are not expected to be announced until later this year.
To see a list of complete projects for 2013, click here.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Some of Greater Yellowstone's most pristine waters received good news yesterday when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an about-face on Idaho's request to skirt environmental regulations on its highest-quality waters.
In retracting its approval of Idaho's so-called de minimis rule, the EPA cited the Clean Water Act in agreeing with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) that the Idaho rule posed too much of a threat to the state's purest waterways. The rule allowed industries to pollute high-quality rivers and lakes without state or public review.
The decision will protect all waters of the state, including streams negatively impacted by southeast Idaho's phosphate mining industry, which has sought to avoid review of its degrading practices. The EPA pointed out that it is especially inappropriate to apply the rule to such "bio-accumulatives" as selenium—a deadly byproduct of phosphate mining—because the toxic chemical accumulates not only in waters but in the air, plants and food as well.
When the EPA approved Idaho's de minimis rule in 2012, Earthjustice filed suit on behalf of GYC. Rather than defending its rule before a federal court, EPA went back to the drawing board and emerged with today’s decision, which reversed the agency’s prior approval.
“EPA’s decision protects Idaho’s most pristine water bodies against a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ from toxic chemicals that can accumulate to create a big pollution problem," said Earthjustice attorney Laura Beaton. "Going forward, no one may pollute the state’s cleanest waters without an in-depth review—and that’s just common sense, which is desperately needed if we want our waters to be clean and safe.”
“This is a big win for Idaho's waters. We are happy that EPA has done its job here in taking a serious look at the issue of bio-accumulative chemicals, including selenium," said Andrea Santarsiere, Idaho legal associate for GYC in Idaho Falls. "Applying a de minimis rule to such pollutants doesn’t make sense, and EPA eventually agreed with us on that point.”
Visit EcoWatch’s CLEAN WATER ACT pages for more related news on this topic.