The Coos County Commissioners are under attack for deciding to file the lawsuit (with the Pacific Legal Foundation's help) against the US FWS in regards to Snowy Plover habitat:

http://www.crowley-offroad.com/Snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=314

It would be great for them to get a few words of support from us. Here are there email addresses:

Commissioner Pete DeMain - pdemain@co.coos.or.us
Commissioner John Griffith - jgriffith@co.coos.or.us
Commissioner Nikki Whitty - nwhitty@co.coos.or.us

Crowdog

DONE!


Commissioners Demain, Griffith, and Whitty

Hello. My name is Peter S. Di Primo. I writing on behalf of the www.pirate4x4.com bulletin board's (PBB) 10K+ members, the Ventura County
Axle Snappers 4 Wheel Drive Club (VCAS4WDC), and myself, my family, and friends.

We would like to commend you on your decision to file the lawsuit. The decision must have been a tough one, but we are sure you have made the right decision, and we are behind you 110%. The environmental extremists need to know that the public is entitled to recreate on public lands whether they agree wit hit or not. Your County is sending out the message loud and clear that we (in particular the OHV community, but outdoor enthusiasts as a whole) have had enough closures based on junk science. We will support the need for minimal closures for areas that truly need protecting, but in this case there is no sound conclusive evidence that proves we (the OHV community) are affecting the snowy plover in any way - positive or negative. The Environmental Extremists will always claim different, but until factual scientific data concludes that there are any effects, we will continue to push for complete continued access to our public lands.

Once again, Thank you for taking a stand against these frivolous claims spewed out as facts by the Environmental Extremists organizations.
Keep up the good work, and if there's anything you need, please feel free to contact me, the www.pirate4x4.com web team, or the VCAS4WDC. We'd be glad to assist you in any way possible.


Regards,

Peter S. Di Primo
Simi Valley Ca xxxxxx





"...the extreme environmental community makes up in shrillness what they
lack in common sense." --Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Peter S. Di Primo
EA Officer -
Ventura County Axle Snappers 4WDC
Land Use Moderator - www.pirate4x4.com
www.axlesnappers.com

already got a reply back...


Thanks for your note and kind thoughts.
If you club has money, we might need some if we lose, which is unlikely.
How it works is, if we win, Pacific Legal Foundation, our legal
representative in the suit, gets its costs paid by USFWS, usually.
If we lose, we have to pay actual costs, typically less than $4,000, and any
award the court might make to co-defendants (intervenors). They would
probably get less than $4,000, too, but the potential costs of about $8,000
exist.
An Oregon ORV group already pledged at least $2,000.
If your group would like to pledge an amount in the event Coos County is
liable for costs, that would be helpful and would give you some ownership in
the case and its outcome.
Not necessary of course that you do anything. Your note helps us in our
resolve to stand against federal over-reaching in all its regards, not just
the snowy plover example.
Thanks again
john griffith
county commissioner



:usa:

Great job Peter. You even beat me to it!

Here's my note.....

Coos County Commissioners:

I am not a resident of Coos County, but I have visited the Oregon Dunes before and plan to do it again.

I just wanted let you know that you are doing the right thing. Protecting the entire Western Coast for a threatened bird without factoring in the economic impacts is intolerable. You should be proud that you aren't letting the Endangered Species Act ruin your community.

Don't let the extremists out there scare you off. Keep the dunes open!

Best Regards,

Jon Crowley
Shingle Springs, CA

May 08, 2002
By Andrew Sirocchi, Staff Writer
A lawsuit filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Tuesday over critical habitat designations for the threatened Western snowy plover has federal and state land officials in Oregon adamantly claiming that regardless of the outcome, no protections for the flighty bird will be changed.
Yet an attorney representing Coos County in the lawsuit said a win in the case would limit the need for many of the restrictions attributed to the protection strategies and eliminate justifications for curbing public access to beaches.
"If the federal government is forced to comply with the Endangered Species Act as Congress wrote that act then you'll have a different, indeed a legal critical habitat designation," said Russ Brooks, a staff attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation that is representing Coos County. "Having that, that will certainly remove much of the reason for any state action that might have been taken over concern for plover habitat."
Brooks, who announced the filing of the suit in California on Monday, said he sees beach restrictions integrally tied to and being implemented due to critical habitat designations determined in 1999.
In Oregon, however, where beach restrictions have been ongoing since 1994, federal and state land managers said critical habitat hasn't been used to establish beach restrictions. They add that habitat isn't being used to justify the expansion of limited access during the plover's March through September nesting season and beach access will not change despite the lawsuit.
"I don't see that (the lawsuit) would have a significant outcome on the state's recovery efforts," said Bryan Herczeg, coastal land use coordinator for the state Parks & Recreation Department, which implements the beach closures in Oregon. "The suit's about critical habitat and that's related to federal action, federal funding and federal projects."
Oregon's beach restrictions along 18.4 miles of mostly dry sand on the south and central coast are required under the "take provisions" of the Endangered Species Act. Since 1993, when the plover was listed as threatened, those provisions have limited actions that can harm the bird. Regardless of critical habitat, which only affects activities that require federal funding or permits and does not limit private property owners' rights, those provisions remain in place, Herczeg said.
Carl Frounfelker, a forest biologist with the Siuslaw National Forest that manages the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, said his agency's responsibilities to protect plover nesting areas won't be altered.
"The program on the Siuslaw National Forest was established prior to designation of critical habitat and I don't see that we would change our strategy for conservation and recovery of the bird based on the presence or absence of critical habitat," Frounfelker said. "We still have obligations under the Endangered Species Act."
Federal agents aren't alone in acknowledging the suit won't impact beach restrictions. Coos County Commissioner John Griffith, the county's most resolute supporter of the suit, readily admits the action will not open restricted beach areas and has stated that the action is not intended to roll back beach plover protections.
"I've always said it won't open even a square foot of Oregon beach to ATVs," Griffith said. "Win, lose or draw, it doesn't."
Griffith said the purpose of the suit, which claims Fish and Wildlife failed to do an adequate economic analysis of critical habitat, is to keep the government accountable for its actions. Griffith said he wants to force the agency to acknowledge the cost of implementing plover critical habitat and let the public know what it is being asked to pay.
Yet many of his and the suit's most ardent supporters have consistently conjoined the issues of beach access and critical habitat and have expectations that restricted areas will be fully reopened should the suit be won.
"I've heard some people's expectations of what this is and they are not realistic on both sides," Griffith said.
Some of those misunderstandings may be a function of the differences between land regulations in Oregon and California, where impacts apparently differ vastly.
The PLF held a news conference in Sacramento on Monday announcing it would be filing the suit on behalf of Coos County and the Friends of Oceano Dunes, a nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining ATV usage along the central California coast. The announcement came only days before the California Coastal Commission began debating ATV usage at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, an area where plover nesting grounds come in direct conflict with recreational uses.
"It may be only a matter of time before the government begins posting "beach closed to people" signs in the sand along Oceano," Brooks said in press release.
Critics in Coos County have had difficulty embracing those comments. PLF's focus on plover regulations at Oceano has led critics of the lawsuit to argue that Coos County was duped into fighting a battle that California governments were unwilling to start.
"We have always thought that this was a lawsuit whose primary effect is going to be felt in California and they were just using an Oregon plaintiff to help put more vehicles on more beaches in California," said Jim Britell, president of the Kalmiopsis chapter of the Audubon Society in Curry County. "It looks like that may be the case."
Britell and other opponents argue the plover suit will hurt the local image of the area and alienate tourists who come to Coos County specifically to view exotic and unique bird species like the plover. By entering into the suit, Britell said Coos County will feel the brunt of criticism for an action that's likely to benefit only California.
Audubon chapters along the West Coast have joined in opposition to the county's suit claiming that it is merely a back-door attack on the Endangered Species Act.
Griffith has consistently denied the charge and an informational notice on Coos County's Web site makes a point to indicate the county's interest is not to attack the act. Still, recent comments issued Monday by the county's attorney, Russ Brooks, cast doubt on the issue.
"The ESA has no regard for people," Brooks said in an announcement of the suit. "Simply put, it is a bad law. Good law starts with people."
Fish and Wildlife has faced an onslaught of challenges to critical habitat designations for threatened and endangered species and federal courts have thrown out the designations time and again. A recent case settled in 2001 overturned critical habitat designations for the pygmy owl near Tucson, Ariz. Another overturned designations in New Mexico. Most recently, 19 critical habitat designations were overturned for Pacific salmon.
Fish and Wildlife spokesman Phil Carroll said predicting an outcome to the plover suit by drawing comparisons between legal decisions issued for differing species may be too big a stretch. Yet Carroll acknowledged that the process the agency used to determine economic impacts from critical habitat is the same across the board and the suit's true impact may be seen in a change in the way Fish and Wildlife approaches designations.
"It was done on any number of critical habitat designations," Carroll said. "That methodology was established by our policy. If that methodology is found to be lacking, then we have to redo it."
http://www.theworldlink.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2002/May/08-4692-news03.txt