In June, 2019, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon appointed eight Wyoming residents to form the Migration Corridor Advisory Group (MCAG), tasked with creating recommendations for state policy related to big game migration on land that is also used for mineral development. Surprisingly, there were no non-governmental organization (NGO) members on this group. In September, 2019, MCAG issued its recommendations to the Governor for an executive order (EO). Recommendations included development outside of corridors as a first priority, ensuring health inside of corridors, and changes on how a corridor is designated. Perhaps the most important recommendation was actively engaging landowners prior to designation and development of local working groups for designated corridors. All documentation regarding this issue can be found here. In December, 2019, Governor Gordon released the first draft of his EO for migration corridors, open to comment.
While a search on the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) website does not bring up anything about migration corridors, Kim Trotter, Y2Y U.S. Program Director, continues to work behind the scenes to be involved in this issue. In this January 17, 2020 letter to the Governor, Ms. Trotter provides comments on the EO. Starting with some rather extensive praise of Wyoming, Ms. Trotter proceeds to recommend an extension beyond just ungulates to include many other species, that "state-issued permits will only be permitted when activities maintain the continued functionality of corridors", and that any unused permits should be retired. This means the corridor remains supreme over any other use, beginning the restricted use. While the role of Wyoming Game & Fish (WGF) was diminished in this EO, Ms. Trotter wants that role returned. Of course she recommends this, the idea that local land owners have control over land use is unacceptable, especially since Y2Y in general is heavily involved with state game agencies as has been identified with Idaho Fish & Game. Y2Y also believes only state agencies are capable of creating the science for their agenda. Ms. Trotter also does not think that local working groups are capable of making appropriate decisions in corridor designation and immediately talks about how members should be assigned to those local groups. Her concern most likely is to ensure many NGO individuals are part of those groups, and similar in other "collaborative" groups Y2Y partners have been involved in, make sure those groups are stacked with NGO individuals who don't even live in the area. She also wants the EO expanded beyond industry to include other NGO objective language. Extra funding is recommended for corridor studies, and once again Ms. Trotter identifies WGF as the only organization that has the capability of doing studies correctly. There is also a suggestion that local land owners receive money for inserting conservation objectives into their land practices. It's all about money, isn't it. But the true intention is finally listed at the end. Ms. Trotter recommends, "...temporary designations or protections be in place during the three years of research, the time to analyze data, and the time that it will take to go through the process of designation". Not even being able to wait until all the information comes in, Ms. Trotter jumps to the true end goal on what corridor designation is really about, land use restrictions and protection. The migration corridor issue is hot and being pursued aggressively. The Western Governors Association recently reiterated their support for migratory corridor designations. Legislation has been reintroduced requiring states to create wildlife corridors. It is a continued fulfillment of NGO objectives to turn western land over to wildlife. This is not something that will go away and citizens need to be aware of the authority local government has in preventing any of this from intruding into their lives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|