- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
WATER IN THE MOJAVE -- Jim Matthews-ONS -- 22jan03
Safari Club likely to file lawsuit over Mojave water
Safari Club International looks to be taking a leadership role in forcing the National Park Service to maintain wildlife water sources in the Mojave National Preserve, and SCI seems poised to file a lawsuit to force the NPS to meet the letter of the law that created the preserve and follow its own management plan.
The park service apparently has been taking its cue from the Sierra Club and has moved in the direction of removing all man-made or man-enhanced water sources from the preserve in an effort to return the preserve to some "natural" state, ignoring the historical ranching and wildlife enhancement efforts that are also supposed to be protected as part of the preserve. This also ignores the important mitigation that has been provided by the man-made water sources, replacing springs dried up by groundwater pumping and the loss of wildlife habitat by development, military bases, and cattle grazing. The man-made water on the preserve creates more wildlife diversity by allowing species that require water to utilize more of the preserve's habitat.
Currently, there are four types of water sources in the preserve that are used by wildlife: 1) Historical developments made by ranchers for cattle. These include windmills that tap groundwater and bring it to the surface, developed springs where the water is collected and made more available to cattle, and stock tanks fed by pipelines that run from developed springs and windmills. 2) Big game guzzlers capture rain water in a variety of ways, feeding this water into large tanks -- either above or below ground -- and then pipe it into drinker boxes for deer, bighorn sheep, and all other wildlife. 3) Small game guzzlers are similar to big game guzzlers, but they usually consist of concrete aprons and collect rain water, sending the water into an underground tank. The tank has an opening where all types of birds and small game can go into the tank to drink, but larger animals cannot reach the water. 4) Lastly, there are natural springs that are used by all types of wildlife.
The NPS staff has made is clear they believe everything but natural springs should be removed from the preserve, and in spite of a management plan that called for the inventorying and assessment of all water sources and the impact any removal would have on wildlife, the park has already removed some of the historical cattle water developments without any effort to document the impact that would have on wildlife near those water sources. This not only violates the NPS' own management plan, but it is also arguably a violation of both California and federal environmental laws.
Hunters, who still represent the majority of human users of the preserve, have already noticed how this has affected wildlife. When combined with the drought we've had in the region, vast areas are now devoid of all types of wildlife -- not just hunted species -- thanks to the NPS' staff infinite wisdom.
This is coming down to a battle over how the preserve should be managed. I understand the Sierra Club perspective of wanting it to be completely natural, removing all of the man-made blights on the landscape. This is the hands-off attitude. Under this management style, there would only be pockets of wildlife around natural water sources, and vast areas of the preserve would be barren of songbirds, native mule deer and bighorn sheep, or coveys of native Gambel's quail.
Some of us feel the preserve should be a showcase for desert wildlife, man's historical involvement in the desert, and mitigate for desert habitat losses all around the preserve. This is the hands-on approach. If by leaving the historic cattle water on the preserve, and even enhancing it for wildlife, we can extend the number of places where cactus wrens can nest in the spring or coveys of quail can live, then we are increasing the numbers of all wildlife that use the desert and the diversity of life there. If we can increase bighorn sheep numbers simply by adding water sources to mountain ranges that don't have sheep, then we should do it. Those things help make up for housing tracts in Victorville or ground pumping in Newberry Springs that has dried up natural springs along the Mojave River.
Is this about hunters having more quail to shoot or about more deer tags being issued in D17, as people who are anti-hunting claim? Not really. It's about doing what is right for desert wildlife. Do hunters benefit from it? Absolutely. But no more than campers and hikers who marvel in seeing quail or songbirds or bighorn sheep. Maintaining all the water we can in the desert is the right thing to do for desert wildlife.
While I admire the cattle ranchers who have spent decades in our deserts, there is no question that cattle have had serious negative impacts -- especially in riparian areas. That is why most hunters have supported the NPS efforts to buy out the cattle ranchers and remove their cows from the preserve. All environmentalists recognize that the riparian habitat ("riparian" means associated with water) has the most wildlife, the most diversity of plant life, and it is most impacted by cattle. Ironically, while they understand this, they somehow don't see how added water is also a good thing. If an earthquake opened up a fissure and suddenly water started seeping into a rock tank at the foot of a mountain, that would be natural and OK, but it somehow isn't OK for us to keep a windmill that pumps water into a man-made tank in the same location.
If we managed human health in the same way, we'd remove the medication from all people who are surviving HIV with their daily regime, and we'd refuse to give the drugs to anyone developing a new case. We'd ban all forms of chemotherapy and antibiotics, and let nature take its course. We don't manage human resources that way, why should we treat our dwindling natural resources like that?
I hope SCI sues the NPS quickly. I hope they lobby well in Washington and convince the Bush Administration that we want what is best for our desert. We need to restore all the water that has been removed and work on a broad effort to actually protect, restore and enhance the Mojave National Preserve for all its natural resources -- from desert tortoises to bighorn sheep. Keeping and adding water sources are key to that goal, to the park service's mission in the Mojave.
Safari Club likely to file lawsuit over Mojave water
Safari Club International looks to be taking a leadership role in forcing the National Park Service to maintain wildlife water sources in the Mojave National Preserve, and SCI seems poised to file a lawsuit to force the NPS to meet the letter of the law that created the preserve and follow its own management plan.
The park service apparently has been taking its cue from the Sierra Club and has moved in the direction of removing all man-made or man-enhanced water sources from the preserve in an effort to return the preserve to some "natural" state, ignoring the historical ranching and wildlife enhancement efforts that are also supposed to be protected as part of the preserve. This also ignores the important mitigation that has been provided by the man-made water sources, replacing springs dried up by groundwater pumping and the loss of wildlife habitat by development, military bases, and cattle grazing. The man-made water on the preserve creates more wildlife diversity by allowing species that require water to utilize more of the preserve's habitat.
Currently, there are four types of water sources in the preserve that are used by wildlife: 1) Historical developments made by ranchers for cattle. These include windmills that tap groundwater and bring it to the surface, developed springs where the water is collected and made more available to cattle, and stock tanks fed by pipelines that run from developed springs and windmills. 2) Big game guzzlers capture rain water in a variety of ways, feeding this water into large tanks -- either above or below ground -- and then pipe it into drinker boxes for deer, bighorn sheep, and all other wildlife. 3) Small game guzzlers are similar to big game guzzlers, but they usually consist of concrete aprons and collect rain water, sending the water into an underground tank. The tank has an opening where all types of birds and small game can go into the tank to drink, but larger animals cannot reach the water. 4) Lastly, there are natural springs that are used by all types of wildlife.
The NPS staff has made is clear they believe everything but natural springs should be removed from the preserve, and in spite of a management plan that called for the inventorying and assessment of all water sources and the impact any removal would have on wildlife, the park has already removed some of the historical cattle water developments without any effort to document the impact that would have on wildlife near those water sources. This not only violates the NPS' own management plan, but it is also arguably a violation of both California and federal environmental laws.
Hunters, who still represent the majority of human users of the preserve, have already noticed how this has affected wildlife. When combined with the drought we've had in the region, vast areas are now devoid of all types of wildlife -- not just hunted species -- thanks to the NPS' staff infinite wisdom.
This is coming down to a battle over how the preserve should be managed. I understand the Sierra Club perspective of wanting it to be completely natural, removing all of the man-made blights on the landscape. This is the hands-off attitude. Under this management style, there would only be pockets of wildlife around natural water sources, and vast areas of the preserve would be barren of songbirds, native mule deer and bighorn sheep, or coveys of native Gambel's quail.
Some of us feel the preserve should be a showcase for desert wildlife, man's historical involvement in the desert, and mitigate for desert habitat losses all around the preserve. This is the hands-on approach. If by leaving the historic cattle water on the preserve, and even enhancing it for wildlife, we can extend the number of places where cactus wrens can nest in the spring or coveys of quail can live, then we are increasing the numbers of all wildlife that use the desert and the diversity of life there. If we can increase bighorn sheep numbers simply by adding water sources to mountain ranges that don't have sheep, then we should do it. Those things help make up for housing tracts in Victorville or ground pumping in Newberry Springs that has dried up natural springs along the Mojave River.
Is this about hunters having more quail to shoot or about more deer tags being issued in D17, as people who are anti-hunting claim? Not really. It's about doing what is right for desert wildlife. Do hunters benefit from it? Absolutely. But no more than campers and hikers who marvel in seeing quail or songbirds or bighorn sheep. Maintaining all the water we can in the desert is the right thing to do for desert wildlife.
While I admire the cattle ranchers who have spent decades in our deserts, there is no question that cattle have had serious negative impacts -- especially in riparian areas. That is why most hunters have supported the NPS efforts to buy out the cattle ranchers and remove their cows from the preserve. All environmentalists recognize that the riparian habitat ("riparian" means associated with water) has the most wildlife, the most diversity of plant life, and it is most impacted by cattle. Ironically, while they understand this, they somehow don't see how added water is also a good thing. If an earthquake opened up a fissure and suddenly water started seeping into a rock tank at the foot of a mountain, that would be natural and OK, but it somehow isn't OK for us to keep a windmill that pumps water into a man-made tank in the same location.
If we managed human health in the same way, we'd remove the medication from all people who are surviving HIV with their daily regime, and we'd refuse to give the drugs to anyone developing a new case. We'd ban all forms of chemotherapy and antibiotics, and let nature take its course. We don't manage human resources that way, why should we treat our dwindling natural resources like that?
I hope SCI sues the NPS quickly. I hope they lobby well in Washington and convince the Bush Administration that we want what is best for our desert. We need to restore all the water that has been removed and work on a broad effort to actually protect, restore and enhance the Mojave National Preserve for all its natural resources -- from desert tortoises to bighorn sheep. Keeping and adding water sources are key to that goal, to the park service's mission in the Mojave.
