| From: Miller, Frannie
April 8, 2003 Subject: A reply to your letter to the cattleman regarding invasive species. (pasted below) I am responding to your letter to the Cattlemen's declaring invasive species support to be a "fool's errand." Although I take exception to your basic premise for a number of reasons that I hope I will be able to lay out, I think I probably share the same philosophical leanings that seem to be the basis for your concern. I am in total agreement that the endangered species act has become principally a tool to assert control over public and private lands. It has, in my own opinion, been used to a far lesser extent to address legitimate species concerns or mitigations. Even more importantly from a philosophical standpoint is the issue you raise about maintaining the states' role in regards to the management of invasive species. In New Mexico, we have, from day one, realized that this issue must be handled at the local level. As a state agency we can provide assistance in coordinating efforts, but a top-down approach of passing out local mandates would never work. What holds true at the state level also holds true at the national level. Invasive species management cannot be done from a desk in DC, but is totally dependent on what happens on-the-ground at the local level. With these philosophical beliefs, it slightly baffles me that you would take exception to the Noxious Weed Control Act of 2003. Both the House and Senate versions allow for the funding of local weed management entities, through allocations to the states, to manage noxious weeds. At times, I have shared many of your concerns with the invasive species efforts. During the unveiling of President Clinton's Executive Order on Invasive Species I was concerned about it being used (or misinterpreted) to exclude as many pre-Columbian species as possible (like cattle). There are parts of the recently passed Plant Protection Act that I think are very open to misinterpretation which could possibly result in civil penalties for activities that are essential to both international and interstate trade. I share your frustration that new laws are embraced as a panacea when the root problem lies in non-compliance with existing laws. Specifically, if federal agencies would comply with the 1974 Federal Noxious Weed Act and complete NEPA within one year of discovering a noxious weed problem it would remove a tremendous obstacle to managing noxious weeds before they are allowed to spread onto adjoining state and private lands. As someone from a ranching family, I understand the need for the agricultural industry to be wary of policy decisions that can have enormous financial consequences. However, regardless of what happens in government, healthy rangelands and adequate forage supplies cannot be overlooked as a deciding factor of economic viability. Leafy spurge and spotted knapweed infestations have literally resulted in the abandonment of ranches because they replace usable forage. I totally disagree with you on the premise that NCBA is on a "fool's errand" for sponsoring legislation that would increase the amount of funding available for management of invasive species. Especially when the legislation is written to fund and help establish the local collaborative weed management entities that have proven to be a successful alternative to the traditional path of just increasing federal weed management budgets. One of the most appealing aspects of the currently proposed legislation is that it allows for funds to be used on private, state, or federal lands. Although this was done previously under the Weiden Amendment, this was only used in New Mexico by the BLM. Areas without BLM lands had no federal funding source, even though many of the weed infestations they are currently dealing with originated as a result of recreation on federal lands within the area. This legislation leaves many of the details of implementation and prioritization to the states and is expressly to augment local weed management entities. This is of critical importance to an industry that depends on maintaining healthy rangelands both on private and public land. As I said, while I agree with the philosophical objections you seem to have based your letter on, I don't think they apply to this particular legislation. If you have any questions, please feel free to respond. Frannie Miller |