🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4t5kcc$l5t@cnn.nas.nasa.gov>,
John S. Watson - FSC <watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>> - The lowering of grazing fees on public land, despite promises 
>> by candidate Clinton to raise those fees.  As a result, Clinton is 
>> subsidizing the cattle industry while overtaxing people and land.

>When were they lowered?  And how much?

The Clinton administration tried to raise them, but Babbitt had his
head handed to him on a platter.

After the mid-term elections, the administration went into a damage
prevention mode.  What would Nader have done in his place?

>> - Opening wildlife refuges to hunting and fishing by presidential 
>>decrees

>Which refuges has this happened in to?

There was a list in the press recently.  The claim is a strange
one, because the USF&W is in charge of figuring out which
refuges should be open to hunting and fishing, and which should
not.  So, whatever the USF&W does on refuges is an act by the
administration (i.e. an executive, not legislative, decision).

I don't remember a "presidential decree", but I do remember
a press conference by Babbitt on the issue.

What Brower fails to mention is that this was an event designed
to head off legislation introduced recently by right-wing
Republicans (goaded by the NRA) to make hunting and fishing
the default decision on new USF&W aquisitions until or unless
the USF&W could show that such activities would be harmful
to the species for which the habitat was aquired.

For many game-oriented purchases, this is not a problem, but for
refuges such as the Rio Grande "string of pearls", which are
targetted because of their non-game bird species, it's stupid
to have the default be "hunting".

Today, the process after aquisition is no hunting or fishing
until the USF&W has taken a look and decides no harm will
accrue.  The NRA-sponsored legislation would default to
having hunting and fishing until the USF&W could show harm,
which one might suspect would be followed by local NRA-sponsored
appeals...

Anyway, the Babbitt news conference was designed to point out
that the current process isn't broken.  The USF&W supports
hunting in the proper context, and the majority of refuges
are open to hunting and fishing, so what's the beef?

Again, what would Nader do?  Wring his hands and whine?

The adminstration's environmental record has been somewhat
checkered, for sure.  But there's been a lot of pressure
since the mid-terms, and he's vetoed some crucial pieces.
The Salvage Rider is an example where the administration got
snookered by folks with a lot more political savvy - it isn't
clear that Nader would fare much better against well-placed
Republicans like Slade Gorton and Mark Hatfield.

We need to remember that early on, the administration did
come up with the Clinton Forest Plan.  Though at the time
many conservationists were concerned that it was not strong
enough, it sure looks good compared to what the Repubs want
to do.

A vote for Nader is effectivevly a vote for Dole.  Imagine
where we'd be on timber policy and grazing policy if we
had the current Congress and Bob Dole as President?

That's what needs to be considered.
--

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb@rational.com>
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza