Commentary
Leaving Land for Lynx
By Bob Berwyn, 11-21-06
 | |
|
Recent decisions by federal agencies regarding critical habitat for the threatened Canada lynx, as well as regulatory measures on National Forest lands in the Rockies, are all well and fine on paper, but don’t really get to the heart of the matter. As a skier, I can certainly relate to the cats’ affinity for untracked snow and the still, blue-green shadowlands of high country spruce and fir forests. Those are some of my favorite places, too. There aren’t too many other species out there that intentionally go looking for deep powder. But I wonder whether we’ve really done enough to ensure that there’s sufficient habitat for lynx to thrive, spread and reproduce.
As is the norm, industry and government officials consistently make a point of saying that lynx conservation shouldn’t be used as a way to restrict human activities. In other words, lynx are OK, as long as they don’t interfere with our ability to exploit the forests for fun and profit. To me, this sounds like the classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it at the same time.
Ski industry feedback on the lynx recovery program reflects this attitude. Resorts publicly profess support for the program (and yes, Vail Resorts did make a make a one-time contribution to Colorado’s reintroduction program, something the company is still taking credit for years later). But behind the scenes, officials with Colorado Ski Country USA, the National Ski Areas Association and various individual resorts have consistently opposed any measures to protect the terrain lynx must have in order to survive.
In years of reading agency lynx plans and the associated public comments, I’ve not once come across a substantive statement by anyone in the ski industry in support of any single conservation measure that’s been proposed – not one. Vail Resorts may put on a brave and happy face when it comes to lynx, but the company’s written appeal of the 2002 White River National Forest plan revision tells the real story.
On one level, the debate over lynx recovery and conservation is scientific and technical. What do they eat? Are they finding enough prey? How far will they roam? What type of vegetation is most suitable? Do compacted snow trails allow other predators to compete with lynx? Does ski area snowmaking and grooming prevent the cats from using habitat around the resorts? If scientists study the cats long enough, they’ll likely be able to answer most of those questions.
Bringing in more lynx is the easy answer. It’s merely a question of time and money. And it’s easy enough to say lynx conservation shouldn’t be used as a way to control human activities. But if we do that, we’re missing part of the equation.
The discussion should be more encompassing. At its heart, this is a question about our values as a society. Let’s be realistic – it’s probably not possible to continue our present rate of development and consumption unchecked and still have a healthy and sustainable natural environment in the long-term. The issue of lynx conservation needs to be addressed within this larger context, otherwise we are living under the false illusion that science, technology and money can resolve every problem we encounter.
It’s time for gut check. Are we willing to make a few choices that will enable animals like lynx to survive? Yes, it may mean giving up a few snowmobile routes or a desirable backcountry ski hut location, or some favored powder stashes in the backcountry. It may mean limiting ski area expansions in a few places, or restricting snowmaking or grooming at certain times. It may mean managing parts of the forest with an eye toward conservation rather than resource extraction.
But is that really asking too much considering what’s at stake?
Click here for Bob Berwyn's story on the designation of critical lynx habitat in Monday's Summit Daily News.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Predator increase seems to be a big priority with much less concern for the prey species that will be their food source. You cannot have the one without the other. No matter how much protection you give lynx, if you increase their numbers beyond the ability of their food source to continue to survive, they cannot in the long run. We are seeing the effects of that in the Yellowstone region with the wolves as they keep increasing, and their prime food source, elk, continue to decline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
The Poppers propose that a significant portion of the region be "deprivatized", and envision an area of native grassland perhaps 10 or 20 million acres (40,000 or 80,000 km²) in size. One way to achieve this would be through voluntary contracts between the Forest Service and Plains farmers and ranchers, paying them the value of what they would have cultivated over the next 15 years but requiring them instead to plant and reestablish native shortgrasses according to a Forest Service-approved program. At the end of the period, the Forest Service would purchase their holdings except for a 40-acre homestead.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Bob, we have to start using a little common sense, note how many maybes there are in your article, one thing that is certain, you are talking lots and lots of money. We may be a rich country, but we do not have unlimited resources for experimenting with all of this stuff just to stroke a few egos. The lynx are fine where they are, why can we not accept that? How many lynx would be lost and how much money would be spent trying to find out if they could survive without their prime food source?
Look what the wolf introduction in the southwest has cost and how many wolves have died, and for what? Just becasue someone is determined they want them there?