>Hi all. I realize that rumors are nasty and can get out of hand. But
>second-hand info I heard from a reliable source (and that person heard it
>out of the mouth of a USFWS employee) of this importance should be passed
>on. Please keep in mind that this is not a decision yet and no actions
>are being taken.

If true, it doesn't matter if it's a decision yet or not. I've heard
a couple of vague rumors along the same lines (vague as to which
refuges). There is strong pressure in Congress to find ways of
returning federal land to local control so it can be "better
managed", i.e. exploited without being subject to federal
environmental law. All the land-managing agencies are being
subjected to this presure, both directly and indirectly (i.e.
by cutting budgets).

Frankly - this is something the state Audubon office should be
researching, and if there's any truth to the specifics, grass-roots
displays of horror and cries of outrage should be welling up
from each chapter in the state.

Divestiture of NWR lands should be nipped in the bud.

Of course, if they're really going to get something more valuable
(and not just a new duck pond) in return, this should be considered.
But, the basic argument should start with the status quo: keep what
we've got, and if the new turf is worthwhile, ADD IT to the current
lands inventory.

>Basically, the USFWS is finding that they have more refuges than they can
>manage.

Basically, the USFWS is getting their budget gutted.

I hate to be partisan, especially given the past achievements of
moderate and pro-environmental Republicans in the past (think
Tom McCall), but in the current climate switching back to
Democratic control of house and senate is the only effective means
of stopping this shit.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http:://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza