Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Presentation by Ron Klataske, Executive Director, Audubon of Kansas to the Kansas House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources Regarding Senate Bill 276 March 12, 2014 Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to share the perspective of Audubon of Kansas and approximately 5,000 members statewide involved in eight local Audubon chapters and in other capacities. Audubon of Kansas is an independent membership organization devoted to promoting the enjoyment, understanding, protection and restoration of natural ecosystems. We seek to establish a culture of conservation and an environmental ethic. In this capacity we work in partnership with other organizations and individuals representing many additional thousands of conservation partners throughout the state and country. We strongly oppose Senate Bill 276 for a number of reasons. Most concerning, SB 276 is a poison pill that would accomplish nothing positive for conservation of Lesser Prairie-chickens or other wildlife, while destroying the many conservation partnerships between federal agencies working with the State of Kansas, landowners and other stakeholders. The federal government actually invests far more in on-the-ground conservation programs in Kansas than do agencies of the State of Kansas—making it obvious that the state cannot do the job alone. Federal investments include approximately $12 million annually in funds administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided to the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. In addition, USFWS manages four national wildlife refuges in Kansas (including Quivira NWR which is the state’s flagship destination for nature-based tourism), assists in law enforcement and with many other programs. The financial investment in conservation and environmental incentives gets much larger with the U.S.D.A., including $95 million in annual payments to landowners and operators for the 2.3 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. CRP applications in the areas of the state where Prairie-chicken conservation is a mutual conservation concern have received priority for environmental index points for general field signup, and in recent years tens of thousands of special CRP acreage has been funded in Kansas designed to assist with recovery of Lesser Prairie-chickens. Unfortunately, the benefit of that habitat took a double hit in recent years with the drought followed by emergency haying and grazing. Other programs, the Wetlands Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program, Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, along with the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), are financed with general revenue funds at the federal level. Approximately $26 million in EQIP funding was expended in Kansas in 2013. KDWPT received $3 million in 2011-2012 from a federal grant program to finance agreements with landowners who provide Walk-In Hunting opportunities and for fishing access. Individuals, special interest groups, and politicians who are suggesting that Senate Bill 276 would be helpful in any way to the State of Kansas are mistaken. Their strategy is simply destructive. It would undermine the ongoing work of state agencies in implementation of the five-state regional recovery plan for the Lesser Prairie-chicken. It would undermine the initiative of private companies in five states that have now enrolled more than 2.5 million acres in the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range Wide Conservation Plan. They represent companies involved in oil and gas operations, pipelines, electric transmission and wind energy, and they have pledged nearly $15 million for habitat conservation over the next three years. Ironically, Senate Bill 276 would make it more likely that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would conclude, or even be required by the courts, to list the Lesser Prairie-chicken as a federally threatened species. Additionally, it is obvious to legal scholars that Senate Bill 276 would never survive a legal challenge. Thus, in all respects it is a lose-lose proposition. Our focus should be on working together to provide suitable habitat with the many programs available to recover Lesser Prairie-chicken populations so they will not remain a threatened species. Regardless of whether the species is federally listed or not, it is in reality currently a biologically threatened species. Opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s work to recovery threatened and endangered species has been “organized” and facilitated by an out-of-state entity that has made this into a for-profit enterprise. The worst aspect about it is that the tactics used are designed to convince county commissioners, landowners and others that the sky will fall if the Lesser Prairie-chicken is listed as a threatened species. The sky won’t fall, but those opponents will get funding from counties and others, and work to simply tie the agencies up in endless harassing challenges. I am enclosing a news article that represents the tip of the iceberg of the misleading claims. While simply getting rid of all the imperiled species may be the conclusion of one person quoted, it is not a suitable approach for the Kansas Legislature or the State of Kansas.