What is the Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) really about? Many sportsmen, and women, have been led to believe that IWF is a pro-hunting advocacy group. Looking at their activities and associations creates some concerns about this position. When Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) failed in their mission to have wildlife overpasses desecrate the Island Park area, and now IWF being an "affiliate" of the Henry's Fork Wildlife Alliance (HFWA) taking over the cause, it is important to understand IWF is just as consumed with the same objectives as Y2Y. Along with Y2Y doing the same, IWF has revamped their website through one year of free marketing from the Drake Cooper Advertising Dream Big program to create a "fresh brand identity aligning with our values" in order to grow their membership. As much as IWF tries to dissociate itself from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), it is an affiliate with NWF being a Y2Y partner, IWF even paying annual membership dues. In the Y2Y Safer roads for Idaho campaign promoting wildlife overpasses, along with Y2Y, IWF partners with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG), The Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife Conservation Society. IWF has cited its support for "connected landscapes", and wildlife overpasses which are needed for connectivity. It just so happens that NWF and Y2Y are International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) members, just type their names in the search box. IUCN is a non-governmental organization (NGO) vested in protecting land and habitat, not using it. Now why would IWF want to be even indirectly associated with the IUCN through its partnerships? IWF attempts to dilute their mission with other NGOs involved in protecting wildlife and habitat, but the statement, "may differ on political or personal philosophies" is negated with "we share a common passion for the resource none the less." That passion is conservation. The statement, "IWF fosters and promotes a general and continued movement for the conservation, restoration, protection, and scientific supervision of all game, fish, fowl, and other wildlife in the state" pretty much summarizes most of its activity. Just looking at IWF affiliate NWF, the wildlife conservation focus is protecting endangered species, recovering wildlife such as wolves and sage grouse, and advocating for conservation policies. Current IWF Board of Directors include Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) and Trout Unlimited (TU) members, with an Idaho Fish and Wildlife Foundation liaison. Past directors include Idaho Conservation League (ICL), IDFG Commission, and Idaho Department of Lands individuals. The 2018 990 tax form lists other NGO board members, Michael Gibson, TU Idaho Field Coordinator, and Neil Thagard, former TRCP Western Outreach Director. Several of these NGOs have been in partnership with Y2Y such as ICL, NWF, TU, BHA, TRCP, and IDFG. IWF believes private property owners trespass across public land by blocking access, even having a snitch and reward program for owners who post no trespassing signs. IDFG has a program, Access Yes!, where hunters can access public land for hunting and a trespassing law specific to the issue of accessing public land over private property, a law that was enacted because of private property owner problems with trash and damage on their property from individuals crossing their property without permission. IWF is once again bringing a previously failed bill to the legislature this year that includes civil penalties for property owners, which ICL "friends" have supported. Who made IWF the Mayberry Sheriff? In testimony to the Idaho Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2006, IWF was very clearly opposed to relinquishing public land for use, or "grandfathering in any further uses than already exist in the Wilderness Act." IWF strongly supports federal land ownership and management. If there is any question that IWF wants expanded conservation of land, IWF recommended incorporation of a 85,930 conservation area to ensure protection, avoiding and minimizing development, support for migration corridors, and continued conservation of land on a Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan in 2019. IWF also recommended a retention and expansion of the ACECs. Interestingly, IWF also states, "multiple uses often may not be compatible with each other on the same landscape" and "outdoor recreation negatively impacts wildlife". Recommendations for grazing included tightly controlled "timing, intensity, duration and frequency...to meet the needs of CSTG". IWF has been involved in other grazing lawsuits, and has also supported displacement of sheep grazing for Grizzly protection, which didn't appear to be associated with increased hunting opportunities. Pretty big statements on controlled or non-use of public land.
Along with their other NGO buddies, IWF is a partner with Advocates for the West which is the highly funded legal organization that files suits on behalf of environmental groups. IWF even joins hands with ICL, Idaho Sierra Club, and Idaho Rivers United (IRU) on issues, participates in lawsuits with the same, for years, even to "repeatedly work in combination to attack the Dams" as stated by one Judge. These groups sue for conservation issues, not hunting access. IWF has no problem suing cattle associations for wildlife and habitat protection, not for increased hunting, but because it "favors domestic livestock grazing" over sage grouse habitat protection. Partnerships in conservation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife service, along with other NGOs, is no problem for IWF. Suing for conservation of wildlife gives the appearance of increasing wildlife numbers for hunting, but with those wildlife on conserved land, does hunting benefit? Over the years, IWF has opposed mining, dredging, dam construction, and predator control; facilitated the establishment of wilderness areas; supported the Salmon River Wild & Scenic designation and IDFG fee increases; "influence the decisions that will preserve sage grouse habitat and enhance sage grouse populations", and has jointly sued on grazing issues. Nothing here reflects more access to hunting or other recreational opportunities. Many of these activities have only increased the cost of hunting and more land use restrictions. More recently, IWF supported the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness designation via a letter to Governor Otter stating, "the area would have the highest level of protection". Wilderness designations and other protected areas such as national monuments are needed for NGO connectivity agendas. The updated IWF website doesn't provide this type of information, and continues to be involved in Idaho's dredge mining issues, which ICL especially opposes. There are a couple of other issues not mentioned on the website. As a prior IWF partner, BHA has now been removed. Also, IWF was a founding member of Save Our Wild Salmon (SOWS) which supports dam removal, wild & scenic river designations, and continues to be a member along with their other NGO pals. So intimate is the relationship between IWF and SOWS, that Brian Brooks, IWF Executive Director (ED) is a SOWS board member. As a member of the Idaho Salmon Workgroup, IWF Mr. Brooks advocates for increased salmon, just short of asking for dam breaching. However, just like IWF friends, dam breaching is the favor of IRU and ICL. Now why would the IWF ED choose to be part of an NGO that supports the same issues as Earthjustice? In spite of Governor Little stating he doesn't believe breaching dams would recover salmon, he chose to put dam breaching advocates on the workgroup. Some other interesting IWF positions include "prioritizing habitat protection, restoration"; advocating for "state and federal programs that aid and reward landowners to protect these habitats"; incentivizing "landowners from selling open space to development"; and continuing "to grow our outreach and conservation on private lands in Idaho." This is all about conserving land for wildlife and habitat. The juxtaposition here is both the IWF and their NGO friends want to protect or conserve wildlife and habitat for enhancing wildlife numbers, however IWF claims it is to protect hunting and fishing, which is not the stated position of some other NGOs, or even in their 2018 990 tax form. IWF has a long history in political advocacy. They were instrumental in creating the Idaho Fish & Game Commission for the sole purpose of conservation and under the Obama administration joined hands with other conservation NGOs for the "shared goal of protecting wildlife and natural resources from the impacts of global warming". In spite of IWF expounding on working for access to hunting and increasing wildlife numbers and their habitat, there is nothing to be found on what exactly it has accomplished to achieve this mission. Instead, the same as Y2Y, IWF supports wildlife overpasses, migration corridors, partner with other NGOs that pursue non-use of land, accepts funding for the Y2Y program area from the same foundations as other NGOs, and everything it participates in is related to land conservation and non-use. Its 2017 990 tax form even states its program service accomplishments include "education of the public about the conservation and protection of our natural resources, wildlife, and wildlife habitat". It doesn't state anything about increasing wildlife populations for hunting or access. NWF supported the introduction of wolves, citing "there is little biological need for restrictions." and "played a key role in developing" the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan that "called for wolves to be translocated to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho; fostered natural re-colonization in northwestern Montana as wolves moved southward from Canada"; opposed reclassification of the gray wolf to a “threatened” status; and removal of protection under the Endangered Species Act. Even though it was in 1997, IWF joined NWF and Defenders of Wildlife in a lawsuit to keep wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Since wolves have been reintroduced, they have caused massive devastation to local economies and lives, and contribute to reduced Elk populations. Are wolves included in the IWF wildlife protections, the same as their NWF affiliate? Prior to the new website, the IWF mission was to foster and promote "a general and continued movement for the conservation, restoration, protection, and scientific supervision of all game, fish, fowl, and other wildlife in its habitat in the state." and "defeat bills that would roll back fish and wildlife protections". Nothing has changed with IWF, just the messaging. IWF partners with NGOs that are diametrically opposed to the promotion of hunting and use of land, rather conserving and protecting it for "future generations". It is clear that IWF actively promotes conservation of land, not use, supports positions through associations that would economically devastate land owners through dam removal and restricted grazing, protected designations, civil actions with penalties against land owners, and keeping land under federal management. Perhaps current IWF membership is because of these conservation values, more so than for the hunting or increased access. It might be that members are aware of IWF activities that are heavily focused on land and wildlife protection and are fully comfortable with those activities. However, maybe members should be more aware of IWF involvement with other NGOs who have specific missions for non-use of land. Increasing wildlife numbers through land conservation actions does not necessarily equate to hunting access. Once recovered or restored, the effort will be for continued conservation, protecting that recovery and restoration, and not necessarily for use. None of these NGOs or IWF itself talk about what happens after wildlife is restored or recovered, just protection into the future. Maybe those who belong to IWF, TRCP, or BHA have the same conservationist philosophy, that land, wildlife, and habitat should be protected into perpetuity, holding the belief that this will increase access to hunting, which is fine. However, there are hunters who believe that hunting has become more difficult and over regulated because of these conservation activities. Each hunter should understand the full picture of these advocacy groups and make their own decisions.
0 Comments
Ben Goldfarb is an environmental journalist based in Spokane, Washington, whose work has appeared in multiple publications on various environmental causes, and is even himself a book author. Mr. Goldfarb recently published an article in the High County News (HCN), When wildlife safety turns into fierce political debate, regarding the wildlife overpass issue in Island Park. Apparently, Mr. Goldfarb considers himself a thorough researcher as he touched on several issues, making sure he berated not only local residents he met in September, 2019, but also took aim at others involved in this controversy.
But let us start with his need to bloviate, using words in a pretentious manner, that were nothing more than insults, from the way Ken Watts dressed, mocking his writing skills, even speculating the reasons why Mr. Watts and his group met early to have breakfast. Also insulting was the description, "squats a subdivision", about residents who opposed overpasses in their area. None of these negative descriptive features were leveled towards his environmental friend Kim Trotter whom he also met at a restaurant, her spokespersons, or others who were involved in wildlife overpass studies. Foregoing corrections about his inaccuracies on ungulate deaths and wildlife vehicle collision (WVC) data, his nauseating but flowery overview of the Island Park area, actual wildlife overpass cost of $23 million, and support of organizational partners with Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Mr. Goldfarb proceeded with everything he could to justify why rejection of wildlife overpasses was incomprehensible. But he fails to mention, or even admit, that these overpasses were a well coordinated effort between Y2Y, their now defunct Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage Initiative and Henry's Fork Legacy Project front groups, and Idaho government. While downplaying the effort for Island Park to be designated a national monument, he completely missed the amount of documentation that validated the funding effort to achieve this goal by the Obama administration and local groups. The effort far exceeded his lame description and was only dismissed because of its exposure and Obama leaving office. In a feeble attempt to describe Coordination as a "provision" in federal law, he even botched what Coordination really means. No, Mr. Goldfarb, it is federal law. Coordination laws are there for the purpose of protecting local jurisdictional authority. Mr. Goldfarb, in our form of government, a Republic, representation is from the bottom up, not top down. The federal government cannot just come in to execute some project, federal law states any action must be "coordinated" with local jurisdictions to ensure "consistency" with local land use plans. Courts have supported local jurisdictions in their legal right for Coordination when federal agencies have failed to comply. It is highly recommended that Mr. Goldfarb study our government system and how it works. Holding an advisory vote is another example of local jurisdictional authority, citizen authority if you will, that to Mr. Goldfarb's chagrin, wields "powerful influence". While Mr. Goldfarb describes Y2Y as a "wildlife group", the truth is Y2Y is an organization that collects millions of dollars from wealthy foundations and the government, with very specific goals of putting as much land as possible into protection through various activities. Described as "a germ of misinterpreted truth", one writer was accused of "hyperbolic claims". In actual truth, every word written about Y2Y, Ms. Trotter, connectivity, and corridors is backed by documentation. But you know that, don't you Mr. Goldfarb. Even the fact about Y2Y's International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) membership, a United Nations (UN) partner, is known to you, but you chose to phrase it under the UN only for a more cryptic delivery to the reader. Never underestimate citizen knowledge about Y2Y Mr. Goldfarb, there are no theories about what Y2Y and other conservation groups are doing. As for being a writer for "right wing" sites, they are no more right wing than your extreme left wing site, High Country News. No, Ms. Trotter, your Y2Y "large landscape connectivity" does not, and has never, protected the eastern Idaho way of life. It has been the citizens living in that area who have protected it, both wildlife and land. While you may find what is described as "attacks" as "specious", everything written about Y2Y and your activity had documentation to back it up. At no time were you "tarred as a carpetbagger", but rather as the Y2Y U.S. Program Director who was tasked with the job of getting overpasses into the transportation projects at Island Park, and who also did not live in the area. The colossal failure of Y2Y front groups to meet the overpass objectives have led to an Idaho Wildlife Federation front group, Henry's Fork Wildlife Alliance. They too will fail. And by the way, instead of your being open at the 2016 IPPC meeting about your involvement with previous studies, you chose to not disclose this information. In your stead, Ms. Bjerke and others have become your spokespersons. The true fait accompli was not animal detection systems, it was the planned and coordinated effort between Y2Y, Idaho Transportation Department, and Idaho Fish & Game for wildlife overpasses. So much more could be written about this bombastic article, so full of bias, distortions, fabrications, and errors. However, as a freelance writer, Mr. Goldfarb may have been paid for this purpose. A truth Mr. Goldfarb must learn to live with is that regardless of city or county population, authority on land use lies within those jurisdictions. It is local government jurisdictions that make decisions about land use, not well funded organizations. In spite of what Mr. Goldfarb chooses to either believe or not understand, corridors are used for connectivity, and land use restrictions are part of corridors. Even the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment highlighted land use restrictions would be necessary around the overpasses. Keep your work in Washington Mr. Goldfarb, Idaho does not need, nor want, your biased perspectives that support conservation organization objectives. Idahoans know the truth, no amount of writing that you do will influence any of them, you are wasting your time and energy on Idaho issues. |
Making Sense of It All
This blog will help you make sense out of all the information on the website, how it affects IP, our history, and how efforts continue to put IP into various forms of conservation status. Archives
May 2023
Categories |