- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
SIERRA CLUB LIES-- Jim Matthews-ONS 15jan03
Sierra Club lies about guzzlers in our deserts
In the Sierra Club's December, 2002, "Desert Report," a quarterly publication the California/Nevada Desert Committee, there is a story by Elden Hughes entitled "Drowning in Guzzlers." The short piece ends with the sentence, "The Sierra Club must fight against their [guzzlers] inclusion in the [BLM desert management] plans and fight them period."
Hughes makes outright misstatements (I won't call them lies because that implies that he knows the truth) and provides only half-truths in arguing that the Sierra Club should try to eliminate the construction of new big game and small game guzzlers throughout the desert.
He starts by saying that "the goal of guzzlers is game farming" and that "a natural diversity is skewed to favor animals to be hunted." While it's true that hunters have been the major builders of guzzlers, the reality is that guzzlers are no different than a natural spring in the diversity of wildlife that visits the site. If anything, guzzlers increase the diversity of wildlife that can live in the desert, just like a natural spring. A smaller number of wildlife species can live without daily water than those that can survive if they have a place to drink, and the idea that guzzlers are somehow different than natural water is both ludicrous and ignorant.
Hughes also says that "neither the BLM nor the California Department of Fish and Game have a single scientific study that demonstrates that guzzlers for bighorn sheep either herd health or herd numbers." I would suggest there is far more evidence that guzzlers help sheep than there is that vehicles on dirt roads hurt tortoises. It is a well-known fact that Old Dad Mountain once held only a handful of transient bighorn sheep because there were no permanent water sources. Springs that once existed in the range had dried up, either due to climatic change or groundwater pumping, probably the latter. Once big game guzzlers were added to the mountains, the sheep population grew and grew, and it is now one of the healthiest and largest desert sheep herds.
That sort of data is available from throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona, where water has been added to benefit sheep herds. In fact, the positive correlation is far stronger proof than the weak "science" the Sierra Club touts for closing roads to protect tortoises.
Lastly, in a short sidebar "Why Guzzlers Don't Work," Hughes opens with the line "Guzzlers Kill!" He then proceeds to talk about tortoises and other wildlife that crawls into guzzlers and drowns. While this is true, there is no evidence that more wildlife dies in guzzlers than natural springs and tanks. In fact, because guzzlers are designed so wildlife can get out of the water, it is likely that less wildlife is killed at guzzlers than natural water sources, especially natural tanks. It is far more likely that most of the animals found in tanks were already injured or dying and came to water to drink and died there.
Hughes goes on to cite an incident where 38 bighorn sheep died on Old Dad Mountain because a guzzler collapsed and two sheep fell into the water, poisoning the water and other sheep. Hughes suggests this was the fault of the guzzler, failing to mention the national park service refused to grant the Department of Fish and Game access to the site to repair the guzzler when the satellite data showed it was not functioning properly. The sheep could smell the water in the tank, and broke through the fiberglass to drink. This served them well until two small animals, which could not reach the water, fell into the tank, drown and poisoned the rest of the sheep. The NPS could have prevented the problem if they'd have granted access when the problem was first noticed more than a month before the sheep deaths, as required under a memorandum of understanding they had with the DFG.
Hughes' lack of knowledge regarding guzzler facts and his failure to understand the importance of guzzlers in replacing natural water sources that have been lost in the desert is either ignorance or calculated misrepresentation. People who are interested in wildlife -- all wildlife -- should know that guzzlers are a valuable form of mitigation for changes in the desert over the past 100 years. The Sierra Club should be supporting the guzzler program, not attacking it.
I don't have a problem with groups like the Sierra Club that don't believe that guzzlers should not be part of management of public lands because they are "unnatural." That is a valid opinion, however misplaced. But I do have a problem when they are ignorant, misrepresent facts, or manufacture "facts" to support that position.
You can read the Sierra Club "Desert Report" on-line at http://www.desertreport.org.
Sierra Club lies about guzzlers in our deserts
In the Sierra Club's December, 2002, "Desert Report," a quarterly publication the California/Nevada Desert Committee, there is a story by Elden Hughes entitled "Drowning in Guzzlers." The short piece ends with the sentence, "The Sierra Club must fight against their [guzzlers] inclusion in the [BLM desert management] plans and fight them period."
Hughes makes outright misstatements (I won't call them lies because that implies that he knows the truth) and provides only half-truths in arguing that the Sierra Club should try to eliminate the construction of new big game and small game guzzlers throughout the desert.
He starts by saying that "the goal of guzzlers is game farming" and that "a natural diversity is skewed to favor animals to be hunted." While it's true that hunters have been the major builders of guzzlers, the reality is that guzzlers are no different than a natural spring in the diversity of wildlife that visits the site. If anything, guzzlers increase the diversity of wildlife that can live in the desert, just like a natural spring. A smaller number of wildlife species can live without daily water than those that can survive if they have a place to drink, and the idea that guzzlers are somehow different than natural water is both ludicrous and ignorant.
Hughes also says that "neither the BLM nor the California Department of Fish and Game have a single scientific study that demonstrates that guzzlers for bighorn sheep either herd health or herd numbers." I would suggest there is far more evidence that guzzlers help sheep than there is that vehicles on dirt roads hurt tortoises. It is a well-known fact that Old Dad Mountain once held only a handful of transient bighorn sheep because there were no permanent water sources. Springs that once existed in the range had dried up, either due to climatic change or groundwater pumping, probably the latter. Once big game guzzlers were added to the mountains, the sheep population grew and grew, and it is now one of the healthiest and largest desert sheep herds.
That sort of data is available from throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona, where water has been added to benefit sheep herds. In fact, the positive correlation is far stronger proof than the weak "science" the Sierra Club touts for closing roads to protect tortoises.
Lastly, in a short sidebar "Why Guzzlers Don't Work," Hughes opens with the line "Guzzlers Kill!" He then proceeds to talk about tortoises and other wildlife that crawls into guzzlers and drowns. While this is true, there is no evidence that more wildlife dies in guzzlers than natural springs and tanks. In fact, because guzzlers are designed so wildlife can get out of the water, it is likely that less wildlife is killed at guzzlers than natural water sources, especially natural tanks. It is far more likely that most of the animals found in tanks were already injured or dying and came to water to drink and died there.
Hughes goes on to cite an incident where 38 bighorn sheep died on Old Dad Mountain because a guzzler collapsed and two sheep fell into the water, poisoning the water and other sheep. Hughes suggests this was the fault of the guzzler, failing to mention the national park service refused to grant the Department of Fish and Game access to the site to repair the guzzler when the satellite data showed it was not functioning properly. The sheep could smell the water in the tank, and broke through the fiberglass to drink. This served them well until two small animals, which could not reach the water, fell into the tank, drown and poisoned the rest of the sheep. The NPS could have prevented the problem if they'd have granted access when the problem was first noticed more than a month before the sheep deaths, as required under a memorandum of understanding they had with the DFG.
Hughes' lack of knowledge regarding guzzler facts and his failure to understand the importance of guzzlers in replacing natural water sources that have been lost in the desert is either ignorance or calculated misrepresentation. People who are interested in wildlife -- all wildlife -- should know that guzzlers are a valuable form of mitigation for changes in the desert over the past 100 years. The Sierra Club should be supporting the guzzler program, not attacking it.
I don't have a problem with groups like the Sierra Club that don't believe that guzzlers should not be part of management of public lands because they are "unnatural." That is a valid opinion, however misplaced. But I do have a problem when they are ignorant, misrepresent facts, or manufacture "facts" to support that position.
You can read the Sierra Club "Desert Report" on-line at http://www.desertreport.org.
