Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThis week, a judge decided that nearly 30 species of rare plants and animals that call the four Southern California national forests home are in need of more protection than they are currently given, and ordered the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue new biological assessments within six months. The decision affects the Los Padres National Forest, which comprises most of the Santa Barbara’s ridgeline and backcountry and includes such endangered species as the California condor and arroyo toad; among other specific actions, it bans target shooting in the Cherry Creek area alongside Highway 33 outside of Ojai.
“We’re currently in the process of reviewing the judge’s decision,” said Stanton Florea of the Forest Service’s regional office in Vallejo.
DOCUMENT
Court Order
A judge has ordered that more conservation measures be put in place in the Los Padres National Forest.
The groups responsible for the lawsuit — namely Los Padres Forest Watch, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the California Native Plant Society — put out a press release on Thursday proclaiming victory. The order was expected ever since a judge determined in 2009 that the four forests (which include, in addition to the Los Padres, the Cleveland, San Bernardino, Angeles national forests) had broken the Endangered Species Act when they approved new management plans in 2005. This week’s move demands “incidental take” thresholds, better monitoring requirements, and more mitigation measures.
“Rivers and streams in our national forests provide some of our region’s best remaining habitat for endangered steelhead trout,” said Jeff Kuyper of Los Padres ForestWatch in the release, “and today’s decision will complement ongoing efforts to restore the health our local creeks, while ensuring clean water for local farms, businesses, and our families.”
Previous Month
Comments
How are we going to subsidize the oil industry any more or the Adventure-Pass Industrial Complex if the Forest Service has to comply with the law like this?
These agency decisions during the Bush Administration finally caught up with them.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Los Padres Forest Watch, Sierra Club, Defenders of the Wild, California Native Plant Society and Center for Biological Diversity. Our forests are priceless and need to be protected. These are places that either took eons and eons to evolve or else were created by god and in either case we are better off not messing them up.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is great news, one of the main reasons I hike and ride in the forest is to be surrounded by wildlife and wild landscapes - the true essence of freedom. I give the Forest Service credit for doing the best it can to protect the forest, but sometimes we need nonprofit groups to keep 'em real. It's all about checks and balances.
That illegal target shooting area at Cherry Creek is a real mess - trash and household appliances strewn all over the place and leaking who-knows-what into the creek. I'm glad it's closing - hopefully that will drive more people to the Rose Valley Gun Club just down the highway, where things are much better managed.
OnTheTrail (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just wish groups like the Forest Watch would really put their money where their mouth is... they should become lobbyists FOR the Forest Service to get back the funding they have been stripped of since the senior Bush administration. Then the Forest Service would have the money to do these things. As it is, there is no money, it's getting worse not better so there really isn't any "victory" here because there won't be a way to keep em "real", just broke and understaffed. Too many lawyers... too many petty lawsuits in the face of so many other pressing matters.
surfrmom (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2011 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All you people that are falling over each other praising this rediculous decision, saying how much you love the forest....I got news for you.....at the end of the process they are just going to close off all public access so the plants and animals can be protected.
How you like your forests now.....suckers?
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2011 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hiking in the forests does not generally cause habitat destruction, unless you are hiking across sand dunes (that should be restricted, too). I would rather have certain commercial and recreational activities stopped or limited to protect endangered species even if that means more work for me to access Forest trails. This is a major victory for preservation of our greatest natural resources
nonni (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2011 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There will be closures.
Those of you who applaud this decision, remember, the objective of CBD is not to "protect" the critters, but to hamstring the agencies, they do this by filing lawsuits.
It was reported to me at a recent meeting that the Inyo National Forest can no longer afford back country Rangers. 60% of their budget now goes to fighting lawsuits.
The Center for Biological Diversity senior staff is composed of 58 people, 18 of which are attorney's plus to paralegals. There are only a couple of scientists on staff.
Los Padres Forest Watch is closely aligned with it. The function is not to assist the FS, but to oppose it.
Toiyabe (anonymous profile)
July 4, 2011 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
" This is great news, one of the main reasons I hike and ride in the forest is to be surrounded by wildlife and wild landscapes - the true essence of freedom. I give the Forest Service credit for doing the best it can to protect the forest, but sometimes we need nonprofit groups to keep 'em real. It's all about checks and balances."
The National Forests are not parks, and were never intended for preservation, they are multiple use and were designated for that purpose. The primary reason for the Los Padres is watershed protection so that down stream users will benefit.
Anything that makes it harder to manage for protection of the watershed should by law be prohibited. One of the effects of this lawsuit and the anti brushing lawsuit is to make Fire Prevention and Suppression more difficult, that is unconscionable.
Toiyabe (anonymous profile)
July 4, 2011 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)