Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.

Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.

Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.

"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."

He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.

The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.

"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."

It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for public lands access are raising alarms about a lawsuit that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Utah has filed a suit arguing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding about 18.5 million acres of land in the state unconstitutionally, saying it can't keep unappropriated land in perpetuity.

Idaho and twelve other states have joined the suit. They say federally controlled land should be transferred to states.

But Executive Director of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nick Fasciano, said that would be disastrous for public lands and the people who use them.

"State ownership of land at this scale is a direct path to privatization," said Fasciano. "State budgets do not have the capacity to manage lands at enormous scale like this without selling it off. Idaho has a constitutional mandate to maximize the financial return of the land under its management."

The U.S. Justice Department said Utah's claims are "without merit" in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The BLM manages nearly 12 million acres of land in Idaho.

Outdoor recreation has been increasing in Idaho, adding nearly $4 million to the economy in 2023.

Fasciano said hunters, anglers, and other recreationists fear privatization will mean they're cut off from access to public lands.

But he noted that when Congress tried to transfer public lands to states in 2017, there was an overwhelming response from the hunting community and the legislation was dropped.

"Hunters," said Fasciano, "we spend so much of our lives on public lands that we're very invested in these things continuing to be open and public, and prepared to get pretty loud in opposition to this sort of idea."

Fasciano said public input on how lands would be managed could be reduced if the state is in charge as well.

"The federal government has the ability to hold lands in perpetuity and has the financial capability to manage them," said Fasciano. "The state does not. And so, it's not a question of local versus federal management. It's a question of whether or not these are open and accessible to the public and available for habitat for wildlife or if they're not. And that's the big fear."




get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: In the second paragraph, the term "mature forests" was replaced with language to more accurately describe the lands connected to the provided stastic. (1:53 p.m. CST, Oct. 30, 2024)

Did you check out fall colors in Wisconsin this month and wonder how old the trees are? There is a chance they are not in what's known as an "old-growth forest."

Regional voices are weighing in on a federal plan to expand these lands, to tap into their benefits. The U.S. Forest Service has gathered public input on a proposed National Old Growth Amendment, with a priority to conserve and restore these characteristics on federal lands. Only 17% of the acres within federally managed forest land falls under the category.

Jeff Niese, a Wisconsin-based forestry consultant, supports expanding the acreage, describing it as an underrepresented landscape in the Badger State.

"Foresters have a long-range perspective on managing ecosystems, not just trees," Niese explained. "We have a better concept of what we started with if we have saved all the pieces in some of our forest ecosystems and types."

Such pieces can include standing dead trees and multilayered canopies. Conservation advocates said they set the tone for more biological diversity and carbon sequestration. The amendment is expected to emphasize local solutions and Niese hopes the final plan sets aside some parcels of land where nature is in charge of the management, aside from forest supervisors. He cautioned political and economic factors can complicate efforts.

The initiative also strives to be more inclusive of tribal leaders.

Jason Schlender, executive administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, sees promise in having a bigger voice.

"If it's to support wild rice restoration, or if it's to assist with deer populations, those are things that we can do based on research and based on knowledge transferred to us from an Indigenous perspective," Schlender emphasized.

As The Pew Charitable Trusts has pointed out, Schlender stressed climate change poses a threat to old-growth forests. Pew officials say among other things, the final plan should articulate a framework for establishing future generations of old-growth forests. Even in places where logging is no longer a primary threat, skeptics suggest the Forest Service has not placed enough scrutiny on the timber industry.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.


get more stories like this via email

As Election Day approaches, Oregonians and people around the country can see how their members of Congress voted on issues related to national parks.

The National Parks Action Fund's 2024 Congressional Scorecard grades members based on votes, on things like an amendment to cut park funding by 13%.

Don Barry was assistant secretary of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks in the Interior Department under President Bill Clinton, and lives in southern Oregon.

He said the state has an abundance of public lands that are important to residents, and thinks cutting the park service by 13% would be devastating.

"People move to Oregon now not to cut timber and make two-by-fours," said Barry. "They move to Oregon because of the beauty of the natural resources that are here. And so, how Congress votes on the funding for the federal land-managing agencies - the Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service - matters."

Barry said unfortunately his member of Congress, Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, received a failing grade on the scorecard.

Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, R-Happy Valley, received a 'C.' The rest of state's representatives - all Democrats - received 'A's.'

House Republicans proposed national parks cuts in government spending negotiations to decrease the national debt.

Kristen Brengel, executive director of National Parks Action, said people across the country love visiting national parks - and so, it matters what happens to them in Congress.

"If you want to judge how a member of Congress has voted on national parks," said Brengel, "it's sort of similar to making sure the values of this member of Congress line up with your own and your family's."

The scorecard grades were based on other votes as well, including oil and gas development around certain national parks and weakening protections under the Endangered Species Act.